These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Incursion Runners, prepare for the next huge attack

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#41 - 2013-08-22 12:33:37 UTC
Aplier Shivra wrote:
You may not know this, but command ships can pump out pretty huge amounts of dps for medium sized guns, more than T3s. An Absolution will max out at around 1100 dps, compared to Legion's 850, and Astarte up to 1400ish (but with blasters, will have problems applying all of that at frigs orbit ranges, ending up at closer to 1100ish applied dps). Those numbers will stay the same come 1.1, and with each of these ships being able to field two links without any other sacrifices, it will be pretty easy to get the necessary 4 links (3 tanky and 1 web range) while still having some very sexy frigate killers.

Or in the event of needing to squeeze all 4 links onto one ship, a very quick edit to my current Absolution will still end up at ~700 dps, and plenty of tank. Not the greatest but still pretty respectable considering it's giving your entire fleet 2 slots worth of tank and web range.

Also, I think part of your fitting issues are that you skipped over the part of all warfare links getting the PG requirements cut in half, down to 100/110 per module.

EDIT: Just want to add that I don't see any of the warfare link changes (even the far-off removal of OGB) making any significant difference to my rate of income, just makes logi need to be not half asleep.

EDIT 2: Figured I'd throw in the 4-link absolution fit I'm talking about.

1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
2x faction co-processor (either will do)
3x faction heat sink

Command Processor I
2x Tracking computer II

3x Heavy Pulse Laser II
4x Warfare links

Medium Energy Burst Aerator II
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump II


Turret dps with conflag is 600 @10k optimal, with another 100 dps from a flight of hobgobs. Can also swap on beams instead for the same dps at more range, but worse tracking (still tracks better than battleship's short-range weapons). For anything bigger than vangaurds, can easily drop a heat sink for a DCU, which would bump resists up to around 80/82/85/92 after boosts and over 100k ehp.


On Sisi, I am building my char, who had perfect skirmish skills, into something that can fly the EOS well.
Though I strongly doubt I can get enough people to come to Sisi for a session, I would like to test the impact these changes are going to have.

I think they will be a lot more than you imagine, at least for the elite armour fleets that ran 2 logis and 2 OBG's.
Non boosted fleets obviously are not affected by these changes, but those fleets already were losing contests to the ISN and DIN fleets.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-08-22 13:27:24 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Aplier Shivra wrote:
You may not know this, but command ships can pump out pretty huge amounts of dps for medium sized guns, more than T3s. An Absolution will max out at around 1100 dps, compared to Legion's 850, and Astarte up to 1400ish (but with blasters, will have problems applying all of that at frigs orbit ranges, ending up at closer to 1100ish applied dps). Those numbers will stay the same come 1.1, and with each of these ships being able to field two links without any other sacrifices, it will be pretty easy to get the necessary 4 links (3 tanky and 1 web range) while still having some very sexy frigate killers.

Or in the event of needing to squeeze all 4 links onto one ship, a very quick edit to my current Absolution will still end up at ~700 dps, and plenty of tank. Not the greatest but still pretty respectable considering it's giving your entire fleet 2 slots worth of tank and web range.

Also, I think part of your fitting issues are that you skipped over the part of all warfare links getting the PG requirements cut in half, down to 100/110 per module.

EDIT: Just want to add that I don't see any of the warfare link changes (even the far-off removal of OGB) making any significant difference to my rate of income, just makes logi need to be not half asleep.

EDIT 2: Figured I'd throw in the 4-link absolution fit I'm talking about.

1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
2x faction co-processor (either will do)
3x faction heat sink

Command Processor I
2x Tracking computer II

3x Heavy Pulse Laser II
4x Warfare links

Medium Energy Burst Aerator II
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump II


Turret dps with conflag is 600 @10k optimal, with another 100 dps from a flight of hobgobs. Can also swap on beams instead for the same dps at more range, but worse tracking (still tracks better than battleship's short-range weapons). For anything bigger than vangaurds, can easily drop a heat sink for a DCU, which would bump resists up to around 80/82/85/92 after boosts and over 100k ehp.


On Sisi, I am building my char, who had perfect skirmish skills, into something that can fly the EOS well.
Though I strongly doubt I can get enough people to come to Sisi for a session, I would like to test the impact these changes are going to have.

I think they will be a lot more than you imagine, at least for the elite armour fleets that ran 2 logis and 2 OBG's.
Non boosted fleets obviously are not affected by these changes, but those fleets already were losing contests to the ISN and DIN fleets.


So basicly, the end result is the AFK guy in is ship in a safe will have less of an impact on the fleet than he use to have? How can that be considered a bad change? Don't people find it stupid that the optimal way to do a team effort is to have an AFK team member?
Aplier Shivra
#43 - 2013-08-22 13:44:57 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

On Sisi, I am building my char, who had perfect skirmish skills, into something that can fly the EOS well.
Though I strongly doubt I can get enough people to come to Sisi for a session, I would like to test the impact these changes are going to have.

I think they will be a lot more than you imagine, at least for the elite armour fleets that ran 2 logis and 2 OBG's.
Non boosted fleets obviously are not affected by these changes, but those fleets already were losing contests to the ISN and DIN fleets.


I could come for that. However, sisi would only be good for a "would ongrid boosting work?" test rather than a "how optimal is this?" because I know most of my skills are pretty out of date on sisi compared to live, and I'm willing to be many other pilots' skills are too, so with the kitchen sink fleet you could throw together, it wouldnt be a great comparison tool for current fleets.

A 4 link Eos would be around 800 dps, which compared to a paladins 1500ish can be a pretty significant loss in terms of contests, but it's not like they can keep up with the incredibly shiny 2k dps shield vindis anyways, although outside of contests is a pretty small loss when it comes to site completion times. As far as TDF's standard tank doctrine, it sets people up to have enough tank before boosts are active, so the nerf to rep power won't really hit armor as hard as the shieldies who scrape by as is and can't really afford to lose 20% rep power.
Aplier Shivra
#44 - 2013-08-22 13:47:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Aplier Shivra
Frostys Virpio wrote:

So basicly, the end result is the AFK guy in is ship in a safe will have less of an impact on the fleet than he use to have? How can that be considered a bad change? Don't people find it stupid that the optimal way to do a team effort is to have an AFK team member?


OP is planning ahead not just for the link nerf, but for when off-grid boosting is no longer allowed, and the pilot is forced to be on-grid. So basically, the end result is that the AFK guy will now have to be one or two very not-afk guys who are actively helping to clear each site, and what the efficiency is of having an on grid booster compared to the straight dps ship that was there before.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#45 - 2013-08-22 16:37:47 UTC
[quote=Aplier Shivra

I could come for that. However, sisi would only be good for a "would ongrid boosting work?" test rather than a "how optimal is this?" because I know most of my skills are pretty out of date on sisi compared to live, and I'm willing to be many other pilots' skills are too, so with the kitchen sink fleet you could throw together, it wouldnt be a great comparison tool for current fleets.

[/quote]


If you skills on Sisi are bad, log on and set a skill path that works.
I have.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-08-22 16:45:47 UTC
Aplier Shivra wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

So basicly, the end result is the AFK guy in is ship in a safe will have less of an impact on the fleet than he use to have? How can that be considered a bad change? Don't people find it stupid that the optimal way to do a team effort is to have an AFK team member?


OP is planning ahead not just for the link nerf, but for when off-grid boosting is no longer allowed, and the pilot is forced to be on-grid. So basically, the end result is that the AFK guy will now have to be one or two very not-afk guys who are actively helping to clear each site, and what the efficiency is of having an on grid booster compared to the straight dps ship that was there before.

... and this is good change

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#47 - 2013-08-22 17:18:42 UTC
Aplier Shivra wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

So basicly, the end result is the AFK guy in is ship in a safe will have less of an impact on the fleet than he use to have? How can that be considered a bad change? Don't people find it stupid that the optimal way to do a team effort is to have an AFK team member?


OP is planning ahead not just for the link nerf, but for when off-grid boosting is no longer allowed, and the pilot is forced to be on-grid. So basically, the end result is that the AFK guy will now have to be one or two very not-afk guys who are actively helping to clear each site, and what the efficiency is of having an on grid booster compared to the straight dps ship that was there before.


So having 100% of the player participating in the clearing of the sites is bad as opposed to only let's say 93%? The sites will clear slower most likely but at least the team effort will be done by the whole team instead of only part of it. They can always adjust the isk\hours if needed later after the change has had it's impact if incursion income become too low. Defending a stupid mecanic because it might hurt your income if they fix it is stupid. Fix the mecanic and then balance the content around a working mecanic instead of a broken system.
Icarus Able
Refuse.Resist
#48 - 2013-08-22 20:28:24 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Icarus Able wrote:
Seriously stop whining. Oh no your 100 mill an hour might go down to 70 mill....What a ******* shame. Its already the most profitable way to make money in Eve, stop being a little *****.


Right, so let's see what the null sec ratters say if suddenly their rats were worth 30% less.



Null sec ratting isnt as valuble as incursions. The money is insane even in HighSec, which is pretty broken.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#49 - 2013-08-22 21:30:12 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Aplier Shivra wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

So basicly, the end result is the AFK guy in is ship in a safe will have less of an impact on the fleet than he use to have? How can that be considered a bad change? Don't people find it stupid that the optimal way to do a team effort is to have an AFK team member?


OP is planning ahead not just for the link nerf, but for when off-grid boosting is no longer allowed, and the pilot is forced to be on-grid. So basically, the end result is that the AFK guy will now have to be one or two very not-afk guys who are actively helping to clear each site, and what the efficiency is of having an on grid booster compared to the straight dps ship that was there before.


So having 100% of the player participating in the clearing of the sites is bad as opposed to only let's say 93%? The sites will clear slower most likely but at least the team effort will be done by the whole team instead of only part of it. They can always adjust the isk\hours if needed later after the change has had it's impact if incursion income become too low. Defending a stupid mecanic because it might hurt your income if they fix it is stupid. Fix the mecanic and then balance the content around a working mecanic instead of a broken system.



That is not how CCP works.
They will nerf another high sec income source (incursions), then forget about it.

If they said, " yeah, we are trashing OGB, and at the same time increasing Incursion payouts 20%", you would not hear a peep out of me. But that is not the case.

Under PvP conditions, having an booster ongrid clearly increases the risk for any command ship pilot. That cannot be denied.
But there is no limitation to the amount of ships ongrid (unless we are talking 4000), so both sides of the fight have their risk and opportunity for kills go up equally, assuming both sides use boosters.
Further, I don't think there is much sympathy for the "solo pvp'er" who have 2 boosters off grid.

In incursions howver, there is very much a limit, or rather, a serious impact on income if you pass that limit.
Donbe Scurred
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2013-08-22 21:55:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Donbe Scurred
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

That is not how CCP works.


Based on your posts, you clearly have no right to say this, as you clearly don't understand "How CCP works".
Previous page123