These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Polarized weaponry (affectionately known as glass cannons)

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ama Scelesta
#381 - 2014-10-28 12:37:12 UTC
Buhhdust Princess wrote:
Alright.. im happy these weapons have been invented as structure grinding has just been made easier. However i dont personally see the point other than that. Would be happy to be proven wrong however.

Any situation where you think you can avoid the incoming damage or keep it at a low level, but could use more firepower. The weapons will be useful as they are and given time people will find more use cases for them. My bigger worry is that they'll be too expensive and that will be the fact that limits their creative use a lot more then the lack of resists.
Nordalis Rmith
Thorny Holdings
#382 - 2014-10-28 12:38:27 UTC
I like the name as polarized. Thanks for the better name :D
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#383 - 2014-10-28 12:47:27 UTC
Well, at least it's a technical term.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Cebraio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#384 - 2014-10-28 12:49:02 UTC
Finally a name that doesn't stupid!

And it fits because the previous names polarized.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#385 - 2014-10-28 12:51:58 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Updated with the final name.

Considering how polarizing these weapons are even before their release, this name fits perfectly.

Thanks CCP!

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#386 - 2014-10-28 13:51:31 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Updated with the final name.


Much, MUCH better name.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Drackarn
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#387 - 2014-10-28 14:03:54 UTC
Berserker does sound the best to me. All attack, no defense.

Had a play about. I don't think we'll see the use in the small and medium weapons other than on ISK buyers who pimp their ships without knowing how to fit. The ones "Thats expensive it must be good" that currently keep me stocked in faction and COSMOS loot when they are venturing into low-sec.

The large versions I don't think we'll see in general use. I fit a Navy Apoc as a glass-cannon (triple 1600 plates and triple trimark) and put it against a normal PvP one. The normal PvP one lost, but the glass cannon was in mid-structure. Close fight. Glass cannon Vindicator beat the PvP Navy Apoc but the Vindi was in less than half armour.

These weapons will be popular for SPKATTBC (ships previously known as tier 3 BC) and stealth bombers on 'safer' structure grinds.

My Talos does 1810 DPS with 25k EHP. My Manticore 610 DPS with under 2k DPS.

These weapons are the alternative for Eve Post-Phoebe with the reduced Dread/Super use on structure grinds. Price will be the issue (niche weapon) I think along with only four of these weapons will ever be used seriously - Torps (SBs) and the large AC/pulse/blasters for the (old Tier 3) BC's.

To make the small and medium sizes useful the DPS will have to be increase I think if the price is going to be the same as faction.

http://sandciderandspaceships.blogspot.com/
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#388 - 2014-10-28 14:20:39 UTC
Now that the name issue is finally resolved… can we do something about the stats? A 18%± gain in overall DPS is not worth the tradeoff with losing all your resists. There was obviously an intended purpose or design for these, but outside of structure grinding I just can't see it. CCP - any insight here?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
JamesUtah
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#389 - 2014-10-28 14:37:02 UTC
Polarized

Not bad. thanks for listening to the feedback
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2014-10-28 15:29:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Falin Whalen
Now that you have the name worked out, can you work on making us want to use them? As it is, an 18% increase in DPS is not worth losing all of your resists (except maybe when there are no hostiles within 20 LY, which is NEVER)

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#391 - 2014-10-28 15:58:02 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Updated with the final name.



ty for glistening to the playerbase.
Bjurn Akely
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2014-10-28 16:30:37 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Now that you have the name worked out, can you work on making us want to use them? As it is, an 18% increase in DPS is not worth losing all of your resists (except maybe when there are no hostiles within 20 LY, which is NEVER)


Personally I disagree. I think that weapons as is is mostly fine and that anything introduced should be an edge case. The current solution makes it risky to use the new weapons, so it's a question of when and how to use them rather than "will the (new) DPS be so high that lowered resists does not matter".

I see a use with long range glass cannons fleeted with heavy tackle and sensor damping. Bombers equipped with Sensor Dampeners using Javelin torpedoes from 90km comes to mind. I'll sure use it for that!

I do not, however, see much point in fitting these new weapons on a brawling ship.

TL/DR: New weapons means new tactics, just not higher numbers.
Shasz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#393 - 2014-10-28 16:31:20 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Updated with the final name.


Truth in advertising, well-played.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#394 - 2014-10-28 17:00:53 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
Updated with the final name.

Considering how polarizing these weapons are even before their release, this name fits perfectly.

Thanks CCP!

I'm pretty sure everyone without exception thought the name sucked balls, not really polarised opinions there
Eustise
Perkone
Caldari State
#395 - 2014-10-28 17:21:43 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Now that the name issue is finally resolved… can we do something about the stats? A 18%± gain in overall DPS is not worth the tradeoff with losing all your resists. There was obviously an intended purpose or design for these, but outside of structure grinding I just can't see it. CCP - any insight here?


Awesome. Not cut their optimal/fallout penalty while keeping the 0 ressists, give them a speed/agility penalty, give them a 30-40% damage boost. Solved so hard it created a wormhole.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#396 - 2014-10-28 17:25:51 UTC
Bjurn Akely wrote:
Falin Whalen wrote:
Now that you have the name worked out, can you work on making us want to use them? As it is, an 18% increase in DPS is not worth losing all of your resists (except maybe when there are no hostiles within 20 LY, which is NEVER)


Personally I disagree. I think that weapons as is is mostly fine and that anything introduced should be an edge case. The current solution makes it risky to use the new weapons, so it's a question of when and how to use them rather than "will the (new) DPS be so high that lowered resists does not matter".

I see a use with long range glass cannons fleeted with heavy tackle and sensor damping. Bombers equipped with Sensor Dampeners using Javelin torpedoes from 90km comes to mind. I'll sure use it for that!

I do not, however, see much point in fitting these new weapons on a brawling ship.

TL/DR: New weapons means new tactics, just not higher numbers.

Look, edge cases for use are fine, but when one of the tick marks for use is ( NO HOSTILES, ANYWHERE NEAR YOU / ABLE TO DROP ON YOU, BECAUSE YOU WILL DIE IN A FIRE IF SOMEONE CAN SHOOT YOU AT ALL!!!!1!1!!!11! ) the blighted things won't get used, except by a Catalyst ganking an Ibis hauling 47 PLEX, and even then it's an ostentatious display of F* you.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
St'oto
Hell's Death Squad
#397 - 2014-10-28 17:26:52 UTC  |  Edited by: St'oto
WOW! I seriously have to wonder sometimes about the EVE community! It's freaking facepalm worthy! All of you are more obsessed with the freaking name of the modules instead of the functionality!

Right, we got the name out of the way...now, can we move on to the MORE IMPORTANT aspect of these new modules!? THE FREAKING FUNCTIONALITY! Again a 18 - 20% increase in base DPS is not going to do us any good when we get a huge penalty to our resistances. Meaning our entire tank is nulled out and returned back to ZERO!
Bjurn Akely
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2014-10-28 17:30:23 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Bjurn Akely wrote:
Falin Whalen wrote:
Now that you have the name worked out, can you work on making us want to use them? As it is, an 18% increase in DPS is not worth losing all of your resists (except maybe when there are no hostiles within 20 LY, which is NEVER)


Personally I disagree. I think that weapons as is is mostly fine and that anything introduced should be an edge case. The current solution makes it risky to use the new weapons, so it's a question of when and how to use them rather than "will the (new) DPS be so high that lowered resists does not matter".

I see a use with long range glass cannons fleeted with heavy tackle and sensor damping. Bombers equipped with Sensor Dampeners using Javelin torpedoes from 90km comes to mind. I'll sure use it for that!

I do not, however, see much point in fitting these new weapons on a brawling ship.

TL/DR: New weapons means new tactics, just not higher numbers.

Look, edge cases for use are fine, but when one of the tick marks for use is ( NO HOSTILES, ANYWHERE NEAR YOU / ABLE TO DROP ON YOU, BECAUSE YOU WILL DIE IN A FIRE IF SOMEONE CAN SHOOT YOU AT ALL!!!!1!1!!!11! ) the blighted things won't get used, except by a Catalyst ganking an Ibis hauling 47 PLEX, and even then it's an ostentatious display of F* you.


Calm down.

It will get used. Probably not by you by the sound of it. You seem much to tense. ;) But yeah, your opinion, your choice. But I'm stating a fact here, I am going to use it. So obviously the point that no-one will is wrong.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#399 - 2014-10-28 17:32:46 UTC
"Polarized"

3rd times a charm eh?

This name is acceptable.

Now we need to see if these things are actually any good at anything
Soden Rah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#400 - 2014-10-28 17:33:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Soden Rah
St'oto wrote:
WOW! I seriously have to wonder sometimes about EVE community! It's freaking facepalm worthy! All of you are more obsessed with the freaking name of the modules instead of the functionality!

Finally we got the name out of the way...now people can move on to the MORE IMPORTANT aspect of these new modules!? THE FREAKING FUNCTIONALITY! Again a 18 - 20% increase in base DPS is not going to do us any good when we get a huge penalty to our resistances. Meaning our entire tank is nulled out and returned back to ZERO!



As I have said before, that's not much of an issue if you are looking at fits that were glass cannon's anyway.
If you didn't have much resists on your glass cannon to start with this didn't loose you much and gets you a fair
whack of added dps to make up for it. [still waiting on numbers from the new build].

However the issue is price.

If they are cheap enough to justify putting on a glass cannon [disposable] fit then I don't think the dps is to far off.

Although I want better [increased from base] range so that kiteing/speed tanking is a viable option.

Of course these weapons would be useless in a fleet fight or for anything expecting to do any serious tanking.
But they are glass cannon guns.
People make glass cannon ships already, these guns have potential to make those ships better.

It all depends on the price [and if they nerf the range].


EDIT: And Polarised is fine... I can live with that. [excitement requires good stats]