Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.15 22:00:00 -
[181]
Edited by: Tagami Wasp on 15/02/2010 22:00:36 Edited by: Tagami Wasp on 15/02/2010 22:00:07 It's OK, English is a foreign language to me as well, sometimes translating does not work. I was perplexed because you gave support to the idea, but used the verb twist, which has negative connotations.
Anyway, I've been looking at frigate sized ships and I am not sure how to approach the comparison amongst them, they don't scale very well and in a frig fight 1Km is life or death. Do you have any ideas what fittings we should use to compare frigate sized ships? I want to continue this proposal and refine it with input from the rest of the players. ------------ Railgun performance required fix: - +15% railgun damage modifier - +10% PG for Caldari railgun ships |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 12:02:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 17/02/2010 12:02:18 not necessarily the OPs particular solution, but a look-into hybrids. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Zommari Jiruga
Missions Mining and Mayhem Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 15:50:00 -
[183]
|
Valumz
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 21:54:00 -
[184]
Rails need love too :(
|
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2010.02.17 22:30:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Tagami Wasp Edited by: Tagami Wasp on 15/02/2010 22:00:36 Edited by: Tagami Wasp on 15/02/2010 22:00:07 It's OK, English is a foreign language to me as well, sometimes translating does not work. I was perplexed because you gave support to the idea, but used the verb twist, which has negative connotations.
Anyway, I've been looking at frigate sized ships and I am not sure how to approach the comparison amongst them, they don't scale very well and in a frig fight 1Km is life or death. Do you have any ideas what fittings we should use to compare frigate sized ships? I want to continue this proposal and refine it with input from the rest of the players.
Ok, just to get the ball rolling, all ships are using two of the biggest small guns (t2) for simplicity (two damage mods fitted are shown in brackets):
Merlin Antimatter: 14+7.5km - 41dps 125 volley (60dps, 150 volley) Lead: 27km - 27dps 83 volley (40dps, 100 volley) Iron: 43km - 17dps 52 volley (25dps, 62 volley) Javelin: 6.8km - 68dps 146 volley (70dps, 175 volley) Spike: 49km - 27dps 83 volley (40dps, 100 volley)
Incursus Antimatter: 9+11km - 51dps 157 volley (75dps, 187 volley) Lead: 18km - 34dps 104 volley (50dps, 125 volley) Iron: 29km - 21dps 65 volley (31dps, 78 volley) Javelin: 4.5km - 60dps 183 volley (88dps, 218 volley) Spike: 32km - 34dps 104 volley (50dps, 125 volley)
Executioner Multifrequency: 7.5+5km - 59dps 171 volley (87dps 204 volley) Standard: 15km - 40dps 114 volley (58dps 136 volley) Radio: 24km - 25dps 71 volley (36dps 85 volley) Gleam: 3.8km - 69dps 199 volley (102dps 238 volley) Aurora: 27km - 40dps 114 volley (58dps 136 volley)
Rifter EMP: 7.5+11km - 47dps 365 volley (69dps 436 volley) Titanium: 15km - 32dps 243 volley (46dps 291 volley) Nuclear: 24km - 20dps 152 volley (29dps 182 volley) Quake: 3.8km - 55dps 425 volley (81dps 508 volley) Tremor: 27km - 32dps 243 volley (46dps 291 volley)
I'm no expert, but I'd say the little bit of extra range the incursus gets is not enough to keep it out of scram range, unless youi sacrifice a lot of damage. If you wanna shoot bb bullets, you can just about stay out of neut range, but only just.
|
Dalaryn
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 15:14:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Dalaryn on 18/02/2010 15:15:51 As a primarily Gal focused character I would dearly love Hybrids (both rails and blasters) to end up on the receiving end of a little bit of ccp love. Being less that a year old game wise I get the feeling that getting any of these propositions through the CSM is going to be an up hill struggle, a fair percentage of the CSM represent or have links to large 0.0 entities, logistically these entities are primarily focused on Amarr Hulls and weapons for the most part.
Changing 0.0 away from swarms of standard Amarr fleet fit BS is not really in their interest logistically.
But then again I'm a newbie to what the hell do I know.
|
Xtover
Suicide Kings
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 15:25:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Dalaryn Edited by: Dalaryn on 18/02/2010 15:15:51 As a primarily Gal focused character I would dearly love Hybrids (both rails and blasters) to end up on the receiving end of a little bit of ccp love. Being less that a year old game wise I get the feeling that getting any of these propositions through the CSM is going to be an up hill struggle, a fair percentage of the CSM represent or have links to large 0.0 entities, logistically these entities are primarily focused on Amarr Hulls and weapons for the most part.
Changing 0.0 away from swarms of standard Amarr fleet fit BS is not really in their interest logistically.
But then again I'm a newbie to what the hell do I know.
fleet battles do love rain rokhs and megas, just not as buch....but they do love them still.
|
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 18:12:00 -
[188]
A lot of the data and arguments presented in this conversation (and a few others parallel that are ongoing at the moment) makes me think that as far as fleet BS issues of Mega and Rokh, the major culprit in this case in Spike L.
In general, the major issue for railguns is focused on the interaction of the weapons and ammo. I am trying to focus the issue to the damage modifier because it is the simplest solution. Spike will need to be adjusted but the changes seem to be minimal.
Specifically for Spike L/M/S, if the optimal bonus was reduced to 65 - 70%, while it's damage was increased by 15%(which can be achieved by increasing the gun damage modifier) it would balance out and make the Rokh/ Eagle/ Deimos/ Ferox/ Brutix/ Cormorant/ Catalyst more usable for sniping while not making the Mega and Brutix OP (they would be fighting in falloff, with a low tracking ammo), which is a concern expressed by many.
This approach would also make the Javelin L/M/S ammo feasible as an alternative to CN AM.
Using Current modifier: T2 125mm (Javelin S) =24 base shield damage/ T2 125mm (CN AM S) =22.63 base shield damage (Current modifier)x 115%: T2 125mm (Javelin S) =27.6 base shield damage/ T2 125mm (CN AM S) =26.08 base shield damage
We can see that the difference between Javelin and CN AM will increase by 10% (1.52/1.37=110%) to demonstrate:
Now, nobody uses T2 short range because there is no significant difference: Rokh, T2 425mm (3xmagstabs/CN AM) =553 @ 54+30 (0.01971) Rokh, T2 425mm (3xmagstabs/Javelin) =561 @27+30(0.01478) Mega, T2 425mm (3xmagstabs/CN AM) =605 @41+39 (0.02327) Mega, T2 425mm (3xmagstabs/Javelin) =614 @21+39(0.01745)
15% increase to the damage modifier would yield: Rokh, T2 425mm (3xmagstabs/CN AM) =636 @ 54+30 (0.01971) Rokh, T2 425mm (3xmagstabs/Javelin) =645 @27+30(0.01478) Mega, T2 425mm (3xmagstabs/CN AM) =695 @41+39 (0.02327) Mega, T2 425mm (3xmagstabs/Javelin) =706 @21+39(0.01745)
Note: for those that will cry foul: Apoc MegaBeam(3x Heatsinks/IN Multi)= 641 @47+26 (0.02096) Apoc MegaBeam(3x Heatsinks/Gleam)= 651 @24+26 (0.01572)
Even though the difference between Javelin and CN AM seems marginal, it allows Rokh to get over 600 dps and in the case of the Mega over 700 (which is perfectly acceptable if we also consider the tracking and optimal/falloff it has. It's a brawler by nature after all). Furthermore, if the tracking of the Javelin is amended (I haven't done any calculations on it), then usage of T2 short range ammo might become more attractive.
Therefore, I am refining my proposal to:
+15% to all railguns' damage modifier -reduce spike optimal bonus to 70% instead of 80% +10% to PG output for all Caldari railboats (so they are up to par with Gallente ones as far as fitting requirements).
Suggestion for Javelin: pending ------------ +15% to all railguns' damage modifier -reduce spike optimal bonus to 70% instead of 80% +10% to PG output for all Caldari railboats |
Calistai Huranu
Gaping Axe Wound Promotions
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 18:51:00 -
[189]
Supported.
|
Altaica Amur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 20:40:00 -
[190]
I don't support a change to spike simply because all t2 ammo should probably be looked at and addressing issues with spike should be done in the company of fixes to Aurora as well. My own feeling on it is that the tracking penalty and high cap use in the long range t2 ammo at the cost of reducing the exceptional damage and range bonus that has largely ruined the advantage of using the right ammo at the right range for distances over 160km. As shown in the graphs of my previous posts there's no consistency in the damage curves as they near the end of range, all weapons systems pinning their hopes of being effective on the range of their t2 ammo even when that's impractical as is often the case of a Rokh which simply out-ranges the lock limit.
Overall I think that a 75% range bonus and damage equal to the longest range high faction ammo +7.5% would provide a sufficient bonus over t1 ammo to still be considered useful without providing the huge disincentive to switching ammo types as targets move to different ranges. Not only that but it would allow sniper ships to be more relevently balanced for who has the most damage at a specific range instead of simply worrying about their t2 damage as the only effective option. As an example with the 15% damage/rof boost to rail guns it would allow a Rokh shooting Dread Guristas Iridium to compete ( 6% less damage) with an abaddon's aurora & tachs with a little more range, bringing into reality the bonus for the Rokh of being able to switch to more damaging ammo types at reduced range instead of the current setup which leaves the abbadon with a nearly 50% advantage in damage at that range.
Leave t2 ammo alone in a railguns fix as their problems are broader and won't be fixed effectively by a piecemeal approach of one weapons system at a time.
|
|
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 21:23:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Altaica Amur
Overall I think that a 75% range bonus and damage equal to the longest range high faction ammo +7.5% would provide a sufficient bonus over t1 ammo to still be considered useful without providing the huge disincentive to switching ammo types as targets move to different ranges.
1. Switching ammo is by design, I don't think you should be able to bypass that constraint, however unwieldy it is.
2. Faction ammo should not be used to balance the weapon systems, it skews the picture. Furthermore they are not player made, thus readily available, so they are an exception to the rule. If you noticed, I used faction ammo to compare their prevalent use over T2. When comparing HACs for example, I used T1 AM.
3. Spike has 80% bonus to optimal, taking it down to 75% is not enough if you want to really balance the ships. a) To reach same range as the rest, Mega needs to be gimped (2 magstabs+2 TE) does subpar dps (19% less than Apoc) and Rokh does subpar dps also(16% less than Apoc) b) If fit the same number of damage mods Mega does less dps (7.5% less than Apoc) and the Rokh is still crap (16% less than Apoc)
Although I am using Mega and Rokh, the ratios hold for the other railboats as well (especially HACs, although Brutix is a bit OP). I had to pick a number to append to my proposal and I obviously took the average, which is 15%. Taking that into consideration, anything less than 15% is just as good as nothing, cause it really does not solve the issue.
Originally by: Altaica Amur Not only that but it would allow sniper ships to be more relevently balanced for who has the most damage at a specific range instead of simply worrying about their t2 damage as the only effective option.
T2 is the only real option for Mega/ Tempest and Apoc. The only ship using T1 that can reach 170Km and do some damage (281 dps) with T1 ammo is the Rokh. Apoc does 232 at 172+33, Tempest does 232 at 125+72 optimal, Mega does 219 at 150+49. It's the Rokh's only saving grace.
Originally by: Altaica Amur As an example with the 15% damage/rof boost to rail guns it would allow a Rokh shooting Dread Guristas Iridium to compete ( 6% less damage) with an abaddon's aurora & tachs with a little more range, bringing into reality the bonus for the Rokh of being able to switch to more damaging ammo types at reduced range instead of the current setup which leaves the abbadon with a nearly 50% advantage in damage at that range.
How much for that DG Iridium? I use CN AM for close range, but only when we go toe to toe with enemy fleets. When shooting POS mods, why should I spend that kind of isk? T2 is cheap and plentiful, using faction ammo to get high EFT numbers should not influence our view of the problem, such exceptions just validate the need for improvement.
Originally by: Altaica Amur Leave t2 ammo alone in a railguns fix as their problems are broader and won't be fixed effectively by a piecemeal approach of one weapons system at a time.
Why not? If balance is to achieved, T2 ammo must be looked into, your approach just ignores a huge factor in the problem. Widen your perspective, or you will lose the forest for the trees. ------------
+15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG |
Altaica Amur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 21:59:00 -
[192]
Quote: 1. Switching ammo is by design, I don't think you should be able to bypass that constraint, however unwieldyuseless it is.
Not entirely sure what you're getting at here but it needed to be fixed either way, currently there's only 1 ammo type that matters beyond 160km and you could make arguments for that envelope being even smaller. Switching ammo types should allow you to trade damage for range in a meaningful fashion as is clearly designed for with t1 ammo, t2 ammo, ranged ammo in particular, breaks that relationship.
Quote: 2. Faction ammo should not be used to balance the weapon systems, it skews the picture. Furthermore they are not player made, thus readily available, so they are an exception to the rule. If you noticed, I used faction ammo to compare their prevalent use over T2. When comparing HACs for example, I used T1 AM.
I wouldn't mind comparing t2 to t1 myself but in anticipation of people complaining that t2 ammo shouldn't be eclipsed by high faction ammo I opted for the least contrast comparison that allows people to determine that t2 ammo would retain it's advantages in relation to the next most competitive ammo type.
I could be swayed on the range bonus reduction and opted for a 70% value initially but once again wanted to opt for a minimalist approach to change so as to avoid overbalancing and continually ocillating between two unbalanced points. My main point of contention is that all t2 ranged ammo needs to have it's damage taken down.
Quote: It's the Rokh's only saving grace.
Except it isn't... I really wish it was though since it would be neat to max out the range on a Rokh and use other ammo types to get close to, if not equal to, the damage amounts seen in other ships at that range. Reducing the damage t2 ammo does, while unnerfing it to retain it's usefulness is the only way to give the Rokh this much-toted advantage.
Once again on the use of DG ammo, it's to actually show the worst-case scenario for the ships after my suggested changes as balancing around t1 ammo would tend to leave faction ammo with serious advantages over or parity with t2 ammo which would invite a lot of complaints.
I'm not saying t2 ammo shouldn't be looked into in fact I'm saying it should, but on a broader basis looking at balancing all weapons platforms instead of balancing rails around beams with broken t2 ammo. IMHO changing t2 ammo is outside of the scope of this proposal and deserves it's own thread for discussion... might have to do that tonight
|
Red Raider
Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 22:24:00 -
[193]
Edited by: Red Raider on 18/02/2010 22:26:02 The range problem could be fixed differently by applying more logic to how hits are registered. Right now we have a system that doesn't make sense but is was easier to program. It probably reduces server load as well but it would fix long range ammo and weapons.
For example, currently, if you have a ship that is stationary firing at another object that is stationary as long as you are inside optimal it doesn't make a bit of difference to your accuracy what range they are at. 100m is as good as 100km's as long as it's inside optimal. In reality the signature radius of a ship should be a base size at 0m which gets smaller from there depending on range. Then to hit that target further away you would need more accurate guns. Since the signature resolution on guns is by class and not by function the system is inherently broken before it even began.
What should have been a system where range was irrelevant became a system where functional balance is impossible.
As we all know in space these weapon systems would continue on until they struck something(for the most part). The trick to hitting a target isn't reaching it but tracking it and having a weapon that can accurately fire that distance. The system should be:
[Sig Radius at 0m-(range X signature resolution)]x(optimal tracking speed - transversal)= chance to hit
Or something like that. The idea being you can always hit your target even if it's orbiting you at a ridiculous speed but your chances might be extremely low based on your signature resolution(which would be low for blasters, pulse lasers, and ACs and high for rails, beams, and arty) and optimal tracking(which would be the opposite).
But I digress...[edit: because it will never happen]
Still like the change Tagami.
|
Altaica Amur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 06:37:00 -
[194]
Quote: For example, currently, if you have a ship that is stationary firing at another object that is stationary as long as you are inside optimal it doesn't make a bit of difference to your accuracy what range they are at. 100m is as good as 100km's as long as it's inside optimal. In reality the signature radius of a ship should be a base size at 0m which gets smaller from there depending on range. Then to hit that target further away you would need more accurate guns. Since the signature resolution on guns is by class and not by function the system is inherently broken before it even began.
Just to be clear I'm not particularly concerned with the quality of hits as at the very least those statistics affect all weapons systems more or less equally, seeing a more realistic simulation would certainly be nice but is not my primary concern with regards to balancing railguns. For rails it's a question of having a point where they get competitive raw damage to other weapons systems particularly in the longer ranges where they are in theory supposed to reign supreme.
|
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 19:41:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Altaica Amur
Quote: For example, currently, if you have a ship that is stationary firing at another object that is stationary as long as you are inside optimal it doesn't make a bit of difference to your accuracy what range they are at. 100m is as good as 100km's as long as it's inside optimal. In reality the signature radius of a ship should be a base size at 0m which gets smaller from there depending on range. Then to hit that target further away you would need more accurate guns. Since the signature resolution on guns is by class and not by function the system is inherently broken before it even began.
Just to be clear I'm not particularly concerned with the quality of hits as at the very least those statistics affect all weapons systems more or less equally, seeing a more realistic simulation would certainly be nice but is not my primary concern with regards to balancing railguns. For rails it's a question of having a point where they get competitive raw damage to other weapons systems particularly in the longer ranges where they are in theory supposed to reign supreme.
Even with another system in place, the damage potential of railguns is lacking. If you change uniformly how range affects all ships, you won't do anything to remedy the damage output disparity. ------------
+15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG |
Red Raider
Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 20:08:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Tagami Wasp
Originally by: Altaica Amur
Quote: For example, currently, if you have a ship that is stationary firing at another object that is stationary as long as you are inside optimal it doesn't make a bit of difference to your accuracy what range they are at. 100m is as good as 100km's as long as it's inside optimal. In reality the signature radius of a ship should be a base size at 0m which gets smaller from there depending on range. Then to hit that target further away you would need more accurate guns. Since the signature resolution on guns is by class and not by function the system is inherently broken before it even began.
Just to be clear I'm not particularly concerned with the quality of hits as at the very least those statistics affect all weapons systems more or less equally, seeing a more realistic simulation would certainly be nice but is not my primary concern with regards to balancing railguns. For rails it's a question of having a point where they get competitive raw damage to other weapons systems particularly in the longer ranges where they are in theory supposed to reign supreme.
Even with another system in place, the damage potential of railguns is lacking. If you change uniformly how range affects all ships, you won't do anything to remedy the damage output disparity.
By no means was I arguing for a change but yes you would alter the damage output by altering the chance to hit. However, using current mechanics I agree that railguns are underpowered and that range is largely irrelevant in their case since the only advantage they have is a narrow band of the engagement window(the last 12% of 250 km's) that isn't realistically operated in anyways.
It would be very interesting to see the usage numbers on ammo by type because I suspect that for railguns Anti-matter and Iron are more or less the entire market for tier 1 ammo. Though interpreting that could be difficult since the rarity of mid range fighting and problems ammo switching are more of a deterrent than DPS.
|
Altaica Amur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 20:12:00 -
[197]
It won't, but it creates breathing room for rails to preform in, one of the key issues currently is that railguns outpreform other weapons beyond the lock limit, bringing ranges down in concert with the 15% boost to damage puts railguns in the position of being able to out preform other weapons systems in the ranges after Tach aurora. This would be made more potent by a reduction in all t2 ammo damage as it would allow all weapons systems to compete using t1 ammo types in the 160+km ranges.
The only part of this that would specifically apply just to rails though, is the 15% damage boost though, changes to t2 ammo should be done accross the board to avoid inbalancing them vis a vis each other.
|
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 21:34:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Red Raider
It would be very interesting to see the usage numbers on ammo by type because I suspect that for railguns Anti-matter and Iron are more or less the entire market for tier 1 ammo.
Actually the ammo most used are AM,Plutonium, Lead and Iridium, no-one uses Iron.
Originally by: Altaica Amur It won't, but it creates breathing room for rails to preform in, one of the key issues currently is that railguns outpreform other weapons beyond the lock limit, bringing ranges down in concert with the 15% boost to damage puts railguns in the position of being able to out preform other weapons systems in the ranges after Tach aurora. This would be made more potent by a reduction in all t2 ammo damage as it would allow all weapons systems to compete using t1 ammo types in the 160+km ranges.
The only part of this that would specifically apply just to rails though, is the 15% damage boost though, changes to t2 ammo should be done accross the board to avoid inbalancing them vis a vis each other.
Why penalize T2 ammo damage? If people train for T2 there must be some reward. T2 ammo should have higher damage output than any T1 with the same range or vice versa, T2 ammo should have higher range than any T1 with the same damage output. ------------
+15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG |
Red Raider
Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 23:04:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Tagami Wasp
Originally by: Red Raider
It would be very interesting to see the usage numbers on ammo by type because I suspect that for railguns Anti-matter and Iron are more or less the entire market for tier 1 ammo.
Actually the ammo most used are AM,Plutonium, Lead and Iridium, no-one uses Iron.
Why would no one use the longest range ammo? I can understand the others in terms of balancing DPS vs Cap usage but if you are sniping Iron will far out range any of the alternatives.
|
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 23:24:00 -
[200]
Piddly damage, the only T1 ammo worth using if sniping is CN Iridium, and that is only if yu can't fit T2 guns YET. The others I listed are cap stable/ damage.
For example when shooting the station, there is no reason to use anything else than Lead (cap). ------------
+15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG |
|
Altaica Amur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 10:09:00 -
[201]
Quote: Why penalize T2 ammo damage? If people train for T2 there must be some reward. T2 ammo should have higher damage output than any T1 with the same range or vice versa, T2 ammo should have higher range than any T1 with the same damage output.
Did you read what I said? 75% range bonus and 7.5% damage bonus over the longest range high faction ammo, that's more range and more damage, against normal t1 ammo the damage advantage broadens to 35%, a very large bonus under any circumstances, but still less then the 68% damage advantage that invalidates half the t1 ammo types. If a 35% damage bonus and 15% range bonus over t1 isn't enough on top of the extra 2% damage per level applied to the gun isn't enough to be a 'reward' then we'll just have to disagree. All that said I wouldn't mind if t2 ammo remained as it was if there was a full set of t2 ammo at varying ranges like t1 which would at least allow range flexibility to not come at a terrible damage penalty.
You said it yourself, iron does piddly damage and it isn't until DG iridium that you get equal damage to t2 after having lost 60% of the range bonus, on a Rokh that's 75km of range where there's no benifit to switching up for shorter ranged ammo and that's only if you have some of that expensive and rare faction ammo on hand. For pure t1 ammo damage equal to spike lies someplace between lead and thorium after we've started to tread into negative range bonuses, broadening the distance where spike is the only one worth bringing to more then 100km. This is why the Rokh's 'advantage' of being able to use 'higher damaging ammo' is utterly and completely laughable.
|
Sorien Marutor
Brigade of Guards
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 11:29:00 -
[202]
|
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 14:19:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Altaica Amur For pure t1 ammo damage equal to spike lies someplace between lead and thorium after we've started to tread into negative range bonuses, broadening the distance where spike is the only one worth bringing to more then 100km. This is why the Rokh's 'advantage' of being able to use 'higher damaging ammo' is utterly and completely laughable.
I don't disagree with your numbers, but with the method. All balancing should be done around T1/ weapons/ammo since the existent differences already implemented in the ammo tiers/ ranges will take care of the scaling.
My correction to Spike ties directly with preventing the Gallente ships becoming OP, w/out restricting them to being subpar. To suggest modifyng more the ammo-wepon interaction needs more data, which I don't currently have. (That means fields data, from in game engagements and tactical scenarios used). Until then, I suggest we keep the changes requested to an absolute minimum.
Thanks for your support though, as well as everyone else, it is after all an issue affecting 50% of EvE pilots. In that light, why don't you poke corpmates and friends to come add that support? Maybe even get some acknowledgment from CSM too? ------------
+15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG |
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 04:31:00 -
[204]
bump, cause I can. ------------
+15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG |
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 18:02:00 -
[205]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 21/02/2010 18:03:35 I do not support a 10% boost to all caldari railboats. There is zero reason the rokh should have more PG than the hyperion (and only 325 less than the abaddon). PG increases should be case by case.
I do however support a railgun damage boost so I'll give an overall thumbs up. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 12:44:00 -
[206]
Funny that, 'cause I could've sworn I've seen other issues with less thumbs getting CSM attention...
|
Fak Jaelt
Cabal Armaments
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 16:00:00 -
[207]
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 18:01:00 -
[208]
Hybrid guns balance (CSM)
Anyone know what came of this? Has/is CSM discussing this? Also, much love to Korvin for addressing it at least.
Fix Local |
Tagami Wasp
Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 23:23:00 -
[209]
Beats me why no response from CSM, especially since they know hybrids have huge issues. ------------
+15% to railguns' dmg modifier -reduce Spike optimal bonus to 70% +10% to Caldari railboats PG |
Emsee
Darkwave Technologies Blade.
|
Posted - 2010.02.23 00:01:00 -
[210]
As a Gallente spec'd player, I support this idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |