DUST Search - Sticky:Hotfix Delta

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:Hotfix Delta - Final Numbers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 35 post(s)
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 786	Posted - 2014.09.22 12:57:00 - [1] - Quote MLT Afterburners appear to have 150% Thrust, which is the same as a Delta PRO Afterburner. Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 787	Posted - 2014.09.22 13:34:00 - [2] - Quote ResistanceGTA wrote: Good to see ramming ADSs with Grimsnes and Myron will be easier.. But hey, they're cheaper now, yay. I will be asking for a respec everyday for my ADS points. No reason to have 4.8 mil into things for a 15% bonus. I remember the days of level 2, its so slow. Indeed, and Incubi have been hit with a double whammy: -35% ROF from GADS and then the -24% Small Railgun ROF; at least the Small Railgun damage nerf isn't there, now an Incubus is pretty much only good if you pilot stack. Though I guess putting missiles on them will be less less effective because Python's are also losing their ROF and missiles were more about killing with splash anyway. But the ROF and AB nerfs will make fighting Forge Gunners hell on earth and the new and improved Swarms will be 'fun' to try and kill in even less time before you run (because increased speed = leave sooner) which you'll have to do for 3-4x as long. But on the plus side, we'll now only cost as much as an ADV fit HAV! Hooray for minor consolations! I love how the ROF idea was shoved in at the last moment considering that next to no discussion took place about it: no numbers were discussed or looked at, would've been nice for it to have had more than a week's thought, especially when it impacts one of the two ADSs more heavily. Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 787	Posted - 2014.09.22 13:54:00 - [3] - Quote Evan Gotabor wrote: I guess the ROF reduction is there to put a stop on the gunner stacking, however, you put solo pilots in a very bad position. Agreed. Though pilot stacking is pretty much the only way to get good use out of an Incubus come Delta; the Python, while nerfed, still has the power of the small missile (which has always been the true power of the Python, yet people insist on nerfing the ship itself) which makes it still reasonable at killing non-AV infantry - but good luck killing a tank or a Forge Gunner. That's a point: is there any word on HAV inertia? That was supposed to make it into Delta, but have not read anything about it. Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 792	Posted - 2014.09.23 00:58:00 - [4] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: Derrith Erador wrote: What the hell is with nerfing our ROF to 3% per level? Most pilots agree it needed a nerf, but FFS, not by that much. And a 45-35 second recharge on an AB is also immensely overboard. What's that with max Core Grid skills? -25% MLT/STD 45 -> 33.75 ADV 40 -> 30 PRO 35 -> 26.25 Assuming the pilot deactivates after 5 seconds: minimum of 31.25s cycle up/down time. Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 792	Posted - 2014.09.23 04:06:00 - [5] - Quote Lonewolf Heavy wrote: Read the notes for Hot fix delta, They are reducing the turn speed on swarms, meaning you can actually dodge them now Wow, a whole 10 degrees And Rattati, one of the biggest reasons people really disliked the Devs before you was because they just did stuff on a whim. If you'd just given us some warning it would've been good. And really, why such a massive swing? I'm not just talking about the huge chunk ripped off the ROF, but you're changing a good half dozen variables at once. Well hell, I might as well throw it out: can you please try flying? You're apparently willing to try the AV side of things, but we have had at least two pilots offer to get you airborne ISK free but you seem unwilling to actually experience what pilots do? Why? I can understand if you've been annoyed recently at the ADS threads, but really a lot of these changes feel, to me, to be pretty witch-hunty. Are ADS changes needed? Sure. But they don't need to be so heavy handed nor so rapid: ADSs are very effective, perhaps overly so in some ways, but they are not so powerful as to ignore everything. You say that ADSs aren't destroyed enough: how much do your statistics tell you about how long pilots have been flying? Which ADSs, in particular, survive too much? Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 792	Posted - 2014.09.23 15:26:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: What makes you state that this is done on a whim, I have done my best to explain in detail and facts why we believe these changes are necessary? I said that because it came essentially out of the blue after a throwaway comment in one thread. CCP Rattati wrote: Now it's, "it shouldn't be 3%, it should be 5% or even 7%". That 7% proposal never came from the pilots during the multiple Delta threads and discussions. Pretty sure, if the Delta proposal had been 5%, the ADS community would say it should be 7% or 9%. We were waiting for counter proposals and they never came, and I understand why, but that's siege mentality, that we as a community could do without. Simply, the ADS community as a whole, refused completely to take part in the feedback discussions. No give and take. Right... Yes it's now, " it shouldn't be that enormous of a drop" because it is out of blue. Most of your changes have been reasonable and part of that is because they're relatively restrained - cutting the bonus by 70% is pretty extreme. What other changes made that jump? Now, to the point: a ROF reduction is a big drop in DPS. What is the purpose of the ADS? Is it a transport? Is it a gunship? Is it a mash-up? What role is it to perform, especially if it is to keep the ROF bonus but in a largely gimped form - ground attack? Well, the ROF was part and parcel of being an effective slayer. Transport? Well, isn't that the whole point of the Grimsnes/Myron? Now, people primarily have an issue with the Python, right, because it murders infantry very effectively? Well, what about the Incubus? It's primary role was being a vehicle hunter, using the small railgun (because the small blaster has generally been terrible, and even buffed is difficult to use vs infantry on the Incubus) but with both the ADS and the small rail ROF nerfs, the Incubus is barely more effective after 2+ million SP than the unskilled baseline. Charlie Particle Cannon DPS Standard/Max Skills Base damage: 434.2/477.62 Base DPS: 868.4/1432.86 Shield DPS: 668.668/1103.3022 (77% efficacy) Armour DPS: 590.512/974.3448 (68% efficacy) Charlie numbers are too disparate, fine, and with the fix to profile, that's good. Delta Particle Cannon DPS Standard ROF 92; Incubus 5 ROF 105.8 Standard/Max Skills Base DPS: 665.773333/842.203267 Shield DPS: 599.156/747.98294 (90% efficacy) Armour DPS: 721.350666/926.423594 (110% efficacy) Standard: Base: 868.4 drops to 665.8; 21.5% reduction in DPS Shield: 668.7 drops to 599.1; 10.3% reduction in DPS Armour: 590.5 increases to 721.3; 22.1% increase in DPS Incubus Base: 1432.9 drops to 842.2; 41.2% reduction in DPS Shield: 1103.3 drops to 748; 22.2% reduction in DPS Armour: 974.3 drops to 926.4; 4.9% reduction in DPS. I hope that that is intelligible. The point is that the Incubus needs the ROF to be a dangerous threat to vehicles. At 842.2 DPS with max skills the Incubus is only slightly more of a threat to a vehicle than a LAV mounted small railgun. Thing is, the Incubus with small rail is viable because it can hunt otherwise very tough vehicles and keep them in check; a blaster Incubus is nonexistent pre-Delta, hopefully it will actually be useful in Delta, but then that's also leaning towards what people dislike about the Python. CCP Rattati wrote: I would much rather want veteran players come forward and admit that some things need balancing, and that they try to influence the smartest and best ways to do so instead of defending the status quo, tooth and nail. Someone said, let's see how Delta goes, we will look at the numbers, you collect your feedback and let us know, a single ROF change can be done during any TQ downtime, any workday. No offence, but you've essentially just been labeling any pilot feedback as reactionary and wanting to protect the status quo. What can we say except, "No please, I don't want to survive a single MLT Swarm Missile! Please make it so fitting an afterburner costs so much I cannot fit turrets!"? What feedback you've received is that pilots are worried that you'll be making them impotent in their chosen profession; AV is powerful already and mobility is the primary defence of an ADS and Delta is introducing a threefold ADS/AV alteration - this is worrisome because nobody wants to have their favourite thing mad useless and we've already had one period of insignificance (1.6 and the 400m Swarms) So really, it is reactionary, because we are not nearly as tough as made out to be. That MinScout who you can never get a bead on and keeps coming back to knife you? Yeah, he spent ages honing his skills getting permascanned and now has a balanced arena in which to hunt. That ADS pilot who constantly gets a kill or two while screaming across at top speed? Honed their skills when just showing your face would have had three people in the redline lock-on and launch volleys that would knock you below half HP. Yes, let's see what happens in Delta, but really can you stop demonizing ADS pilots? Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 798	Posted - 2014.09.23 22:29:00 - [7] - Quote ROF Nerf Impact on DPS XT-1 Small Missiles Charlie ROF: 50; 0.83/sec; 9.6 sec until reload Delta ROF (unchanged) Charlie Python 5: 75; 1.25/sec; 6.4 sec until reload Delta Python 5: 57.5; 0.96/sec; 8.3 sec until reload Direct DPS Charlie/Delta: 379.2 Charlie Python 5: 568.8 Delta Python 5: 436 Splash DPS Charlie/Delta: 297.9 Charlie Python 5: 446.9 Delta Python 5: 342.6 Small Missiles seem fine for the most part. Personally, I'd much rather look at the Small Missiles themselves more than Python: reducing damage, increasing ROF marginally and increasing clip size would be a better way to make Missiles useful on other vehicles but also make them more skill dependant, requiring multiple impacts to kill most suits rather than the current high damage splash (which is what truly makes people cry foul about the ADS, and most specifically about the Python.) - This idea has been mentioned before, I might add. 20GJ Particle Cannon Charlie ROF: 120; 2/sec; 8 before overheat Delta ROF: 92; 1.53/sec; 6.13 before overheat Charlie Incubus 5: 180; 3/sec; 12 before overheat Delta Incubus 5: 105.8; 1.763/sec; 7.05 before overheat DPS/Damage Before Overheat Charlie: 868.4/3473.6 Delta: 665.8/2661.65 Charlie Incubus 5: 1302.6/5210.4 Charlie Incubus 5/ADS 5: 1432.86/5731.44 Delta Incubus 5: 765.6/3061.11 Delta Incubus 5/ADS 5: 842.16/3367.22 Currently, due primarily to the broken hit efficacies, the Incubus rips through shield vehicles and somewhat struggles with armour (apply a .77 multiplier for the Shield DPS; .68 multiplier for Armour DPS for any Charlie number: Delta numbers are a .9 for Shields and 1.1 for Armour.) With the proposed ROF changes, a L5 Incubus is getting a single extra shot before it overheats. This is, essentially, worthless. It must also be reminded that DPS figures are always contingent on landing all shots: it applies to all DPS statistics, obviously, and not just ADSs, but I raise the point because of the difficulty in targeting and maintaining your target whilst flying. Against an enemy dropship, you usually get a single good pass before they begin evasive manoeuvres - landing all of your shots in that 4 second overheat window against a dropship is about a 70% odds, give or take for pilot skill (attacker and defender.) When the target is moving or otherwise wary of you/other anti-vehicle weaponry, landing all shots is difficult. An HAV, for example, is a difficult target because of the mechanisms available for ground attack manoeuvres: using first person view is viable in an aerial engagement but rarely applicable to a strafing run. Even more to the point, HAVs have much greater responsiveness with regards acceleration - we've all seen an HAV 'yoyo' about the place. The point being that landing all sots against a ground target is even harder. So, with the proposed changes, an Incubus with Small Railgun is going to have to apply it's full DBO repeatedly to threaten any vehicle, which is no easy task once the enemy is alerted. Quite frankly, the ROF nerf is too much and impacts upon the Incubus's ability to perform its role (primarily AV using the Small Railgun) far more greatly than the Python's anti-infantry ground attack role is affected. Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 799	Posted - 2014.09.23 23:23:00 - [8] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I would think that removing the 70% efficiency against vehicles on small rails could be a start. Again, the ROF bonus was just not a good bonus, and especially bad for lower SP pilots. Let's think outside of the box and not fight for keeping it. Those numbers (ie, the Delta ones) include the updated profile change. Despite the profile change the Small Railgun loses substantial power versus vehicles yet retains plenty of killing potential versus infantry, ironically. Perhaps my wording was bad, but I did say that the ROF change to Pythons isn't bad, but that's mostly because they rely a hell of a lot less on the ROF increasing DPS than they do on the overly powerful baseline small missiles, which is why I mentioned that in the paragraph after the XT-1 numbers. My feeling is that the Incubus has been overly affected by the nerf to ROF because of the simultaneous nerf to the small railgun ROF. Honestly, and not, 'fighting to keep it' as it were, I think the Incubus's ROF bonus should be higher than the Python's. I don't see any specific reason to keep the exact numbers the same for them both: similarly, I don't see why we need to have identical bonuses either: drop suits do not, after all. So what I would suggest is that the Incubus receives 5% ROF and 5% reserve ammo for Railguns/Blasters (which makes the Incubus much more of an AV weapon with rails, and the blaster more viable than other vehicles, which balanced slightly the inability to aim with it - essentially giving a Blaster Incubus area saturation to make up the disparity in aiming potential) while the Python receives some bonus that reflects how you want the Python to operate. And herein lies the million pound question (no, it's not should Scotland be an Independent country): What roles do you see the ADS inhabiting? Is it the same for both ADS that we have, or does each operate differently, like the difference between a CalAssault and a GalAssault? Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 801	Posted - 2014.09.24 02:21:00 - [9] - Quote Range on the railgun is pretty much irrelevant beyond what we have now,because at longer ranges you need a finer degree of control, which piloting simply lacks due to drift and thrust interfering with aiming unlike how infantry movement can be an aid to aiming. Edit: though the principles are solid. Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 803	Posted - 2014.09.24 15:45:00 - [10] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: So how are you ADS pilots going to use the 15% savings on CPU/PG for small turrets? Well, absolutely nothing, seeing as you didn't put it in there. Actually it is. It's just such a small reduction that we won't be able to fit anything better anyway, since PRO modules are priority over the guns anyway... And the ROF nerf has made the Incubus worthless. The Python can still kill infantry but the Incubus is just awful now. 7th rail shot overheats? Greaaaaaat! Alt of Halla Murr.

Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 820	Posted - 2014.09.24 21:52:00 - [11] - Quote Derrith Erador wrote: I just played, and seeing one of the exact same fits i used pre charlie had the exact same stats as before says that isn't the case. And going from 12 to 7 on the rail? The heck are you people thinking? Go to fitting screen Remove all turrets Note your CPU/PG usage Fit a turret Subtract the pre-turret number from new usage figure Note how it is less than the stated turret fitting costs. This apples to Rail, Blaster and Missiles. Alt of Halla Murr.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 822	Posted - 2014.09.25 02:34:00 - [12] - Quote Railgun ROF is 92; or 1.53 shots per second; 8 shots and overheats in 5.2 seconds; 668 DPS Incubus 5 ROF is 105.8; or 1.808 shots per second; 9 shots and overheats in 4.98 seconds; 781.9 DPS That actually doesn't look that bad, but something is wrong with how its actually playing: were only getting 7 shots. Fiddling with some numbers I think that the small railguns are firing correctly, but the Incubus skill is applying incorrectly. It appears that the Incubus skill is applying inversely: the fire interval is 0.65 (60++0.65=92.3, the correct ROF as per patch notes) and with a 15% increase to ROF it should be firing at 0.5525 which is 0.65+ù0.85=0.5525 but is actually firing at 0.7475 which is the result of 0.65+ù1.15=0.7475 which would actually be a decrease in ROF. With 0.5525 (ROF 108.5) we'd have 1.808 shots per second; 9 shots in 4.98 seconds; 781.9 DPS, which would be decent What we currently have is 0.7475 (ROF 80.3) or 1.34 shots per second; 7 shots in 5.2 seconds; 607.8 DPS. TL;DR: Incubus ROF is bugged and applying at a 1.15 ratio instead of a 0.85, meaning the Incubus's railgun is firing slower than the regular railgun cough totally not spamming this to make sure it gets seen cough Alt of Halla Murr.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.