These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Null Buff Incoming
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Born Again Gallente
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-01-11 21:22:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Born Again Gallente
My rokh with 2 te and 1 tc (faction) will already get 24+30 with null. So you're definitely lowballing. My estimates are something like 60km combined optimal and falloff if this buff lives, although I offer the same 'might have ****** that up,' caveat. I'm also not sure i'd ever worry about getting enough tank on that ship either.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#22 - 2012-01-11 22:48:34 UTC
Well, it will really help large and small blaster (should not increase small blaster range in anyway). Not so much medium blaster (will improve applied damage within warp scrambler range though). However, it will help ships that use medium blaster and have range bonuses (Vigilant, Astarte, Deimos).

Personally, I believe this is the best pilots who use blaster ships and are having trouble could hope for. This and a increase in stasis webifier range and warp scrambler range. Also, how armour plates and rigs penalize velocity.

This will hurt the Vagabond (Deimos) and Cynabal (shield, Vigilant) somewhat.


-proxyyyy
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-01-11 22:50:45 UTC
the null buff will take care of blaster boats, definitely. Rokh's will be able to project blaster damage even better now, Megas/Vindis will continue to rock at gate/station games.

but honestly, blasters are too niche. im waiting for rails to get REALLY fixed.
Goose99
#24 - 2012-01-11 22:51:19 UTC
Born Again Gallente wrote:
Lots of talk about how OP it's going to be and still not a single mention of what effective blaster range /w null will be?

I assume someone has dones the math, so lets all see it eh?


Heavy Neutron blaster w/Null - 6km optimal 8.3km falloff, with Max skills.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-01-11 22:54:51 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Assault frigs are going to obsolete interceptors and faction frigs. Potentially cruisers and maybe some HACs too.

-Liang


t1 cruisers are still cheaper, so theyre here to stay.

inties are still much faster and much much more agile, so theyre here to stay for tackle duty

HAC's were fuct over by tier 2 bc's. tier 3 bc's were the final nail in the coffin.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#26 - 2012-01-11 22:58:19 UTC
How fast would an AF have to go to step on inty toes? 5km/s with a 600+ DPS active tank and maybe 20k EHP? Is that good enough?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-01-11 22:59:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Hungry Eyes
Born Again Gallente wrote:
My rokh with 2 te and 1 tc (faction) will already get 24+30 with null. So you're definitely lowballing. My estimates are something like 60km combined optimal and falloff if this buff lives, although I offer the same 'might have ****** that up,' caveat. I'm also not sure i'd ever worry about getting enough tank on that ship either.


definitely time for Cal BS 4.

Liang Nuren wrote:
How fast would an AF have to go to step on inty toes? 5km/s with a 600+ DPS active tank and maybe 20k EHP? Is that good enough?

-Liang


uh.. agility? scan res? edit: point range?
Born Again Gallente
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-01-11 23:01:46 UTC
I love longer point range too.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#29 - 2012-01-11 23:08:07 UTC
Hungry Eyes wrote:
Born Again Gallente wrote:
My rokh with 2 te and 1 tc (faction) will already get 24+30 with null. So you're definitely lowballing. My estimates are something like 60km combined optimal and falloff if this buff lives, although I offer the same 'might have ****** that up,' caveat. I'm also not sure i'd ever worry about getting enough tank on that ship either.


definitely time for Cal BS 4.

Liang Nuren wrote:
How fast would an AF have to go to step on inty toes? 5km/s with a 600+ DPS active tank and maybe 20k EHP? Is that good enough?

-Liang


uh.. agility? scan res? edit: point range?


The role of high scan res inties have been almost entirely consumed by a RSBed $anything. Furthermore, the agility on an AF isn't poor and nor is the point range particularly low. The extra slot is just too much.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Born Again Gallente
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-01-11 23:46:45 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

The role of high scan res inties have been almost entirely consumed by a RSBed $anything. Furthermore, the agility on an AF isn't poor and nor is the point range particularly low. The extra slot is just too much.

-Liang


For camping gates, yeah sure, but roaming with some kind of rsb team as tackle would be hard to pull off. I'd rather have forward tackle inties that I know can land a point and keep it for a few mins than an AF who might or might not land a point, but could sustain a tackle a few mins longer, depending on the target.

I wouldn't suggest the AF buff is totally sane, but i'm not sold on this replacing the ceptor in all situations bit.
AstarothPrime
Pecunia Infinita
#31 - 2012-01-11 23:57:31 UTC
Its prolly so that ship actually donesnt bump off before reaching optimal...

I know that Im trolling - but if u manage to bring a BS to 5km from me - and I cant speed tank you - I deserve to be killed.

I.
Goose99
#32 - 2012-01-12 00:05:08 UTC
Born Again Gallente wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

The role of high scan res inties have been almost entirely consumed by a RSBed $anything. Furthermore, the agility on an AF isn't poor and nor is the point range particularly low. The extra slot is just too much.

-Liang


For camping gates, yeah sure, but roaming with some kind of rsb team as tackle would be hard to pull off. I'd rather have forward tackle inties that I know can land a point and keep it for a few mins than an AF who might or might not land a point, but could sustain a tackle a few mins longer, depending on the target.

I wouldn't suggest the AF buff is totally sane, but i'm not sold on this replacing the ceptor in all situations bit.


^This

The speed difference between them is huge. Interceptor is still the king of its intended role - which is not to kill. It's much smaller and harder to hit, especially on heading in initially. If you head straight in, get in web/scram range unnecessarily, and get popped, that's your problem. It's amazing how many people don't actually know how to fly interceptor. I usually favor people who chose to fly the weaker version interceptor with longer point, simply because they're more likely to know how to fly inties properly than those who fly the other beefier and more common variant.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#33 - 2012-01-12 00:16:17 UTC
Yeah, the speed difference is pretty huge. 5km/s vs 10km/s, and I guess a 38km point on an AF is a bit too short range. :( :(

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Born Again Gallente
Doomheim
#34 - 2012-01-12 00:22:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Born Again Gallente
Your argument is you can spend your way into being a mediocre ceptor?

Color me unimpressed.

I totally get that an AF could be situationally a better, heavier, tackle, but eclipsing the role... you're certainly not demonstrating that.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#35 - 2012-01-12 00:31:29 UTC
Just how much ISK do you think I'm talking about spending here? That's a purely named/T2 fit I'm talking about.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#36 - 2012-01-12 00:33:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
I think perhaps some of the problem here is that ceptors, previously, were stepping on the assault frigates' toes. Now that AF's are better at what they do, intys might seem to have some of their purpose removed, when really it's just AF's taking back their territory.

Liang Nuren wrote:
Just how much ISK do you think I'm talking about spending here? That's a purely named/T2 fit I'm talking about.

-Liang

What would a ceptor do with those same boosts, then?

thhief ghabmoef
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#37 - 2012-01-12 00:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
I included bonuses on both sides of that. 5km/s AF vs 10km/s Inty. The AF has many, many, many times the HP and a massive massive massive tank. The inty pops if the pilot blinks wrong. They're both capable of tackling from far beyond neut range. One of them is capable of getting into scram range AND SURVIVING.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Teh Frog
Exotic Connections
#38 - 2012-01-12 00:42:10 UTC
Any one able to figure the numbers on the eagle loaded with the 40% Null buff?
Diomidis
Pod Liberation Authority
#39 - 2012-01-12 00:43:00 UTC
I am kinda in favor of the AS boost, tho I do think some of them will get too good with the extra slots.
Tbh the only one that really needed it was the Retribution, and maybe the Wolf, as the lack of tackle for the first and tracking for the second one made them either useless or outclassed in many situations.

On the OP, the null changes are negligible IMHO, but they do add up to the whole blaster buff that it's not insignificant. I do doubt tho that will will start seeing more blaster BSs out there because of it. More Nagas and Taloses - probably.

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- Bertrand Russell

Born Again Gallente
Doomheim
#40 - 2012-01-12 00:49:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Born Again Gallente
Liang Nuren wrote:
Just how much ISK do you think I'm talking about spending here? That's a purely named/T2 fit I'm talking about.

-Liang


What named/t2 disruptor is giving your AF a 38km point?

I mean, do you honestly want to start assuming forward tackle runs with ganklinks?