Disappointed New Turrets do THERM / EXP instead of EM / EXP


(Cindy the Sewer) #1

With the three existing turret systems able to deal thermal damage adding another turret system that does thermal seems very redundant. The addition of an EM / Explosive combination would have been more interesting.


(DeMichael Crimson) #2

Yeah, good point.

I think CCP did it like that because the majority of NPC’s have low Therm / Exp resistance


(Vortexo VonBrenner) #3

Agreed - but at least the mechanics of the weapons is interesting.


(Cypherous) #4

You mean apart from the fact that its pretty much always hitting the lowest and hardest resist? :stuck_out_tongue:
There is a reason its not EM/EX

That combination means you would pretty much always have a high resist to atleast half of it


(Cindy the Sewer) #5

My comment was in the general sense. For instance when i go on an Angel L4 i fly using only Explosive missiles it works out great because angel resists to explosive are horrible. When i fly against Blood Raiders i fly using only EM missiles. I didnt intend for my comment to be specific to this particular expansions content.


(Cypherous) #6

So was mine, but as these are PvP ships you have to look at PvP resist profiles on player ships, in T1 ships you’ll find low EM and high EXP resists on shield with the reverse being the case for the default armour profiles, this would effectively mean the turrets would be doing around 2/3 the base damage listed in pretty much every scenario


(mkint) #7

I wonder if that would make them more interesting or less interesting. On a player ship, resist holes will be plugged, so you can’t really predict much from the main tanked ehp. But secondary untanked ehp… it looks like the current kin/therm weapons should be more effective against minmatar than other factions because they are the only faction that have worse kin+therm resists than em+expl. Other factions have worse em+expl resists than their kin+therm.

So, an em+expl weapon should generally be better at stripping away untanked ehp, and probably about the same at damaging tanked ehp (depending on loadout.) It would be especially effective against Gal/Cal T2 and T3 ships.

So yeah, I think it would be an interesting damage profile. The damage profile itself would be viable, and the existing drawbacks already make the choice matter.


(Cindy the Sewer) #8

You are looking at base resists but…

I lost a golem to a cruiser because i fired on it in highsec while running an L4 mission in mimmatar space, all EXP/KIN and zero EM resist, neut plus EM and i died quickly (i use amplifiers for my resistance so if he had chosen exp or kinetic damage even neuted out i had a chance for survival. It takes no genius to figure what most people in minmatar space will have as their resist profile most of the time and he was prepared.

I later moved to Amarr space and as you mentioned armor ships are weak to EXP but when I’m running most amarr missions I leave that EXP resist hole empty in favor of EM and THERMAL because a quick Google search shows that zero EXP damage will be encountered on the mission.

When i lived in Blood Raider nullsec i also flew without defense against explosive damage on a armor hull because i needed the mods for running blood raider sites again another opportunity for the EXP component of my proposed system to become lethal. (And of course in other parts of nullsec that EM shield hole might be left open because the mission runner, knowing they will receive little or no explosive damage simply leaves it empty in favor of the resists they know they will need.

In conclusion, I believe my proposed EM / EXP turret system has merit.


(Cypherous) #9

I’m looking at base resists because those matter, in terms of balance there isn’t any real merit to a weapon that pretty much always hits a very high resist, people in minmatar space (not that space really matters for PvP) will fly fit with the resists they need for their current activity, i ran missions in caldari space, doesn’t mean i didn’t encounter ships that used EM damage aka blood raiders and the amarr navy, i had to fight against pretty much all racial splits and had to refit as required for the specific mission at hand, for PvP people will fly with a more uniform resist profile unless they know for a fact they will encounter specific hostile ships, generally speaking this means shield tanks filling the EM hole and armour tankers plugging the EXP hole, and with that in mind considering the triglavian ships are PvP focussed they aren’t really going to want to be entirely screwed by hitting massive resists at all times and the weapon damage reflects that, they have previously experimented with an EM/EXP split on lasers, it wasn’t any good so it never actually made it to the live server


(Cindy the Sewer) #10

You narrowly define pvp to suit your particular preferred type of pvp but other types of pvp exist, ive lost billions to empty EM and EXP holes. It wasnt the pvp you keep speaking of in which two parties intend to engage one another in pvp but rather the very common practice of one pvp party ganking a pve player. In this second type of pvp EM and EXP can come into play as i describe in my previous three examples.

Also, you keep referencing that the ships CCP added this expansion have high EM and EXP resists and while I keep saying that my suggestion has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT EXPANSION. My original comment was an off-handed comment to CCP that perhaps they should consider an EM / EXP turret system in the future.

As to your comment about CCP already having tried to implement a EM/EXP turret system to be honest as poorly as you read my own statements i cannot accept anything you say about things i cannot personally investigate myself.


(Cypherous) #11

I never referenced the ships being added in this expansion had high resists, i am talking about all existing ships, the base resist profile on T1 hulls has ships with low EM shield resists with high explosive shield resists, mirrored for armour, the triglavian hulls themselves have very little to do with this, as such a standard PvP fit for unknown hostiles will generally have people packing omni-resist mods like adaptive invulns or adaptive plating where proper tanks are used, if you know for sure the ships you’re going to fight its different but generally speaking that show its done

I “narrowly” define PvP as 2 ships attacking each other, ganks have little to no bearing on it and the triglavian ships having an EM/EXP weapon won’t change that nor will having any specific turrets with that exact split as the PvP player, although for the record, as you seem to be under the impression that EM/EXP doesn’t exist anywhere, i point you to EMP which has EM/EXP/THM as its damage split

Well you are free to believe what you like, back when the T2 ammo was originally being designed there were ammo types with “radically” different damage profiles that didn’t match the expected racial profiles, there was an EM/EXP T2 laser crystal among other things (http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=12832) named Lux and another named Blaze (http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=12812)

These were never actually used ingame as they failed during testing, although their stats remain archived so you’re free to inspect them all you like, not sure if that will be enough to satisfy your desire to see it tested, but an EM/EXP based laser isn’t a new idea, by far, i haven’t read anything poorly, i actually think its more a case of you assuming i’ve said something i didn’t as you seem to think i was only referring to the triglavian ships when i mentioned the base resist profile which is the base T1 resist profile across all 4 races

And this is something you can easily investigate for yourself, once we start talking T2 resist profiles its a different matter as they are generally designed to counter their racial enemies, minmatar T2 resists have higher EM resists on shields and armour while T2 amarr resists do the reverse based on the fact that they are enemies in terms of faction lore


(Cindy the Sewer) #12

When i proposed my idea it had two damage types one did ONLY em and the other did ONLY explosive, thus the quoted crystal damage that got shelved is NOT my idea nor anything like it.


(Cindy the Sewer) #13

So we finally agree that there are 2 types of pvp one consensual which you are solely focusing on and non-consensual which is more my concern but still is pvp, your declaration that non-consensual pvp isnt real pvp not withstanding nor relevant.


(Cypherous) #14

Then what you want is missiles which do a single damage type, there is even less reason to add a turret that does a single damage type than one that does 2 easily resisted damage types, i mean we can do this dance as often as you like, that doesn’t change that its a bad idea

Also, you didn’t originally propose a turret that did a single damage type, you know we can see the original post right?

So you might not want to decide your original idea has changed when someone points out that your exact idea was tested and shelved as being terrible :stuck_out_tongue:

The “types” of PvP don’t really matter, in a gank scenario an EM/EXP mixed turret wouldn’t save you from getting your ass handed to you unless you already had it fitted and the enemy ship happened to have those exact resist gaps, you listed a single example where it might have helped, although to be fair considering you also said you were in a golem trying to kill a cruiser, which unless you had precision cruise missiles loaded and a painter you were unlikely to do regardless of the damage type used, which incidentally you had free choice of because missiles do only a single type of damage and a smart player is going to be carrying all the damage types they could need for their chosen activity, my level 4 mission golem is always carrying all 4 damage types in both fury and precision cruise, its also extremely unlikely to die to a single cruiser considering its tanked for level 4 damage and could easily permatank a cruiser in bastion

None of your reasons for why this turret needs to be added make any sense to begin with and then you decided you were changing your idea, you really need to sort your posts out :stuck_out_tongue:


(Cindy the Sewer) #15

You know that missiles and turrets have different combat dynamics and are not a simple substitution for one another, at least i hope you do.

While my original wording was unclear this posting should have clarified my intent. You simply have chosen to ignore the clarification.

Im not going to go over the golem loss i suffered again it is circular argumentation and not worth spending more time on. I lost my ship exactly as stated.

Your insistence that im changing my ideas is an obvious attempt to pull this discussion from anything productive to some tangent where you are intentionally feigning ignorance of my intent and instead tossing up straw-man fallacies left and right to attack instead.

I will end our discussion knowing that if anyone reads these posts they should reasonably follow what im asking for, why i asked and examples of how it could work to add a new turret system to the game.

I have laid out both personal examples and discussed examples from my time playing EVE in nullsec where people often run sites with defense holes left open which could be exploited with a turret that delivers either an all EM charge or an all EXP charge as its basis of attack.


(Cypherous) #16

Sure but he is talking damage types, if you’re smart then missiles can apply decent enough damage aslong as you’re not trying to kill an interceptor with torps lol

Well you did change, the idea in the OP isn’t anywhere near the same as having 2 new ammo types that deal entirely EM or entirely explosive, explosive only lasers don’t make a lot of sense mechanically or from a lore standpoint, EM only lasers are more realistic but a mono damage type makes it more easier to counter, from a balance perspective its not a great idea

Oh we understand what you’re asking for, but on the subject of “why”, i’m not really sure its something we really “need” and adding it just for the sake of adding a new turret isn’t really an answer, what exactly would differentiate this new trret from the others, why do we need a turret with a monochrome source of damage, why would someone want to use this new mono turret over an already existing turret, where exactly would this new turret fit, are you now also going to need a new line of ships just to handle this unique turret or are you just asking for CCP to add a bunch of monochrome ammo types to every single turret in the game, there is a lot more to this that just thinking that we need a mono source of turret damage

So your turret literally has a singular purpose, for hunting PvE players because in terms of actual PvP a mono source of turret damage really isn’t something people want, you also already have weapons that can exploit those holes, Fusion does 80% of its damage in explosive, EMP does 75% of its damage in EM, Radio crystals already do 100% EM damage, Phased Plasma already has about 85% of its damage in thermal, i’m not really seeing scenarios where we need a whole new turret system just to give monochrome damage and i’m not seeing a scenario where CCP really want loads of ships doing a single damage type either, yes missiles already have a singular damage type but as you already point out, they work slightly differently, fun fact, when they were created they didn’t and missiles applied huge damage even to much smaller targets, when that was changed they never bothered to adjust the damage types as missiles are much more a PvE weapon than PvP and they fit that role just fine, yes there are PvP uses for missiles but in terms of where the majority of missile boats are used, you’ll find them in PvE activities and as far as CCP adding a deliberate weapon aimed at only really killing PvE players, i would see this as rather unlikely


(system) #17

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.