Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Keith Planck
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
748
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
http://imgur.com/syL593X
Blasters do everything better now except cap Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag
http://imgur.com/2b0hJAV
Autocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now aka Pony Lord Planck |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
808
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:http://imgur.com/syL593X Blasters do everything better now except cap Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag http://imgur.com/2b0hJAVAutocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now I'm not sure why they nerfed the TE so badly. From what I understand it was due to so many complaints about the Macharel being OP with its bonuses.
|
Nimrod vanHall
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
74
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 19:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?
|
Desivo Delta Visseroff
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
210
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nimrod vanHall wrote:Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?
Don't you DARE touch my Moros |
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
809
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nimrod vanHall wrote:Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?
That's one way to fix it. When something gets nerfed so it sucks, nerf everything else so it sucks too. I like it! |
Paikis
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
1164
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:Nimrod vanHall wrote:Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?
Don't you DARE touch my Moros
The Moros is almost garuanteed to be nerfed. It is way too good. It's weak points (tank and cap) don't even come close to making up for the huge lead it has in damage. |
Keith Planck
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
749
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Desivo Delta Visseroff wrote:Nimrod vanHall wrote:Isnt the problem that XL blasters have too much optimal/falloff?
Don't you DARE touch my Moros The Moros is almost garuanteed to be nerfed. It is way too good. It's weak points (tank and cap) don't even come close to making up for the huge lead it has in damage.
except when fighting other caps where burst tank is 'EVERYTHING' >.> aka Pony Lord Planck |
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 21:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:http://imgur.com/syL593X
Blasters do everything better now except cap
Make Blaster capless!
then ask for boost dont ask blasters to be nerfed |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm. Black Flag Society
230
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:http://imgur.com/syL593X Blasters do everything better now except cap Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag http://imgur.com/2b0hJAVAutocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now
when my blaster can EM and explosive damage I'll consider your argument valid LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Hrett
Justified Chaos
368
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:http://imgur.com/syL593X Blasters do everything better now except cap Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag http://imgur.com/2b0hJAVAutocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now
Just curious - what do those charts looks like when you add 1 and 2 ("nerfed") TEs to both weapon systems? What about the pre-nerf TEs?
I dont know the answer, but I would guess it favors the minmatar systems by a good margin. A lot with the pre-nerf TEs, and some smaller amount with the post-nerf TEs. Again - this is just a guess.
ACs/TEs were a large part of the term/era of "Winmatar." At least that is how I remember it. Its been a good while since the discussions, but IIRC, TEs were nerfed because ACs were not a bad choice in any situation close range situation. Blasters did far more paper DPS, but because they had tracking issues close in (which makes no sense, but its true) and couldnt swap ammo quickly, they were really hard to justify over ACs except in rare situations (station and gate games, stationary dps situations, etc). AC actual applied DPS was far better in most situations. I still believe this to be true, but far less so than before.
I flew almost exclusively Gallente before, and now since the change I fly both Gallente and Minmatar. Both have numerous uses now. The same was not true before. I really think the current meta is the most balanced I have seen in Eve since 2007 (Ive taken a lot of extended breaks though). Literally all races have numerous useful ships. At least on the sub-cap level. I dont fly caps, so I cant comment on XL turrets. I'm probably typing on an iPad, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
|
chaosgrimm
Universal Production and Networking Services
93
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
IIshira wrote:Keith Planck wrote:http://imgur.com/syL593X Blasters do everything better now except cap Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag http://imgur.com/2b0hJAVAutocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now I'm not sure why they nerfed the TE so badly. From what I understand it was due to so many complaints about the Macharel being OP with its bonuses. If I recall correctly, the above is true, but also they felt that TEs offered too much compared to TCs which also use cap
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
811
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 22:56:00 -
[12] - Quote
chaosgrimm wrote:IIshira wrote:Keith Planck wrote:http://imgur.com/syL593X Blasters do everything better now except cap Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag http://imgur.com/2b0hJAVAutocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now I'm not sure why they nerfed the TE so badly. From what I understand it was due to so many complaints about the Macharel being OP with its bonuses. If I recall correctly, the above is true, but also they felt that TEs offered too much compared to TCs which also use cap True but with TC's you can chose between range, tracking speed, or a mixture of both. Also the little bit of cap they use is trivial on a battleship. I guess if you're getting neuted by a Bhaalgorn the TE would be superior but at that point you probably have other more pressing issues... Like lack of a tank and trying to get your pod out
Tracking enhancers were easier to deal with on shield tank ships. I'm not saying they didn't need adjustment but CCP nerfed them so badly they're not worth using anymore. The only complaints I've heard was with the Machariel but that was because it has a 50% falloff bonus |
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
252
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 00:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
The reason they nerfed TEs where to improve armor tanks in pvp(because shield tanked TE fittings where miles ahead in engagement range, speed and dps) and because they did give higher bonuses then TCs(full range of the range script with another 9.5% tracking on top of it).
As for blasters vs auto cannons, it is not like I pointed out back in 2011 that the extra falloff and making blasters more like auto cannons is a bad thing. I guess people did get what they asked for with "give more range, make them more like auto cannons" instead of actually revisiting the core point blank engagement mechanic of blaster pvp, separating it from auto cannons and lasers not by range and dps stats but viability in solo/small gang pvp by offering advanced range control options at point blank.
Then again I stopped caring because it is fairly unlikely that they ever will become a interesting weapon system with her own game play mechanic again. It's not that I requested a bit more optimal on blasters(and a 100% optimal bonus on caldari hulls with reduced rail optimal) and reworking point blank mechanics of gallente hulls instead of all the falloff nonsense for no reason back then. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
Jack Miton
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
3286
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 01:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Keith Planck wrote:http://imgur.com/syL593X Blasters do everything better now except cap Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag http://imgur.com/2b0hJAVAutocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now when my blaster can EM and explosive damage I'll consider your argument valid ^this. ACs are in a bad place not because of the weapon system but because CCP swung the pendulum way too far in their balance passes. minmatar ships used to be the best in all sub BS classes by a pretty wide margin and theyre now the worst by an almost equal margin because CCP buffed everything else and left them as is/nerfed them to the ground (looking at you hurricane, I miss you).
if you look at your charts, the curves of the projectile ammos are fine, they just start at a much lower point. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
233
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
According to the chart you linked barrage is best damage choice for medium turrets past 17 km and on any ship with a falloff bonus it's bound to be more than that, just saying. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
2081
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 06:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
The problem is that the Moros has ****** range for some reason... BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Luwc
Biohazard. WINMATAR.
118
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 07:15:00 -
[17] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:http://imgur.com/syL593X Blasters do everything better now except cap Hell, a blaster moros gets better projection then an autocannon nag http://imgur.com/2b0hJAVAutocannons get such ****** close range dps compared to blasters, the fact that ammo like antimatter has better projection then EMP is just broken, barrage is fine on some ships with a bonus like vagabonds, but on the whole, autos are in a pretty ****** place right now
ehhhhh
You forgot about the range (fall off) but gg on the rage post. http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
262
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 07:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
The TE nerf was a little less than logical. The reasons were sound but the execution was a little odd. When TEs were boosted to their pre-nerf values they were an underused module, the boost was designed to counter the problem - the current nerf not only counters the boost but (as I recall) reduces them to below their pre-boost value.
XL Blasters were boosted along with XL ACs. Prior to the change the Moros was all but useless for its intended purpose as, even loading Iron, they were in deep falloff even pressed right up against a large POS shield. Siege Moros were better off running rails... XL ACs weren't much better off at the time. The boosts to XL Blasters and ACs made it possible to remove the Moros' drone bay and reduced the pressure towards Revelations.
The TE nerf was severe, probably too severe, but I would not suggest that they broke XL weapons... |
Danny John-Peter
Snuff Box
420
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 07:42:00 -
[19] - Quote
Posting to say that Medium AC's were mediocre pre-nerf and are now barely worth using for long point kiting. |
Gal'o Sengen
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 08:07:00 -
[20] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:Posting to say that Medium AC's were mediocre pre-nerf and are now barely worth using for long point kiting.
Medium ACs really are kinda crap. Their main advantage is their selectable damage type... Which gets completely thrown out the window in practice, simply because they only operate better than Blasters deep in Barrage range, which limits you to explosive damage, which in turns tanks your damage far, far below what it would be if you were using Lasers or Missiles.
Honestly, i think Point Range itself is part of the problem. I've thought for a while that tackle modules should be revamped to be more like other Ewar, with optimal and falloff ranges where their effect diminishes. |
|
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
234
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 12:48:00 -
[21] - Quote
Gal'o Sengen wrote:Danny John-Peter wrote:Posting to say that Medium AC's were mediocre pre-nerf and are now barely worth using for long point kiting. Medium ACs really are kinda crap. Their main advantage is their selectable damage type... Which gets completely thrown out the window in practice, simply because they only operate better than Blasters deep in Barrage range, which limits you to explosive damage, which in turns tanks your damage far, far below what it would be if you were using Lasers or Missiles. Honestly, i think Point Range itself is part of the problem. I've thought for a while that tackle modules should be revamped to be more like other Ewar, with optimal and falloff ranges where their effect diminishes. Well pre-TE nerf, shield tanks were pretty much the order of the day unless you are talking fleet scale, ASBs had just been released solidifying shield superiority and armor rigs reduced speed making the job of kiters that much easier if you used them. This also contributed further to Minmatar dominance as ships with bonuses to shield boost could rep entire shield HP bars per cycle with an oversized booster and links and/or implants. This also lead to complaints that ASBs were insanely hard to break by the barrage wielding masses.
Times have changed, killboards no longer have so much orange in the background of ship icons that without looking you'd be certain that nebula was in the background of your driver's licence photo as well. I see a much wider variety of both race and tank types now than I did even a year ago. Armor tanks are a lot more common in small scale fights these days in which case, what damage type would you prefer to deal over what is primarily explosive? Certainly feels better than primary thermal damage. Speaking as someone who didn't start using projectile turrets until after the TE nerf they don't feel particularly weak to me although that being said I pretty much only fly hulls that have falloff bonuses unless I'm using artillery.
As for tackle mods having a falloff range, I like neither the idea of a point/web you can lose beyond optimal even though you are cycling it on target nor do I like the idea of the kind of range you could get with a faction point on an Arazu with links for example. Also how much falloff are we talking here? If it's a lot then there is the potential that something like an Arazu or Lach has an almost useless bonus because normal ships can point anything they can target if only slightly shakily. If the falloff is small then it won't effectively extend point range by much at all as too many cycles would miss beyond optimal (it would have to be like ECM as well where the cycle either works or not, as how do you partially warp scramble a target? It would just have to be a 100% success rate if below optimal). ~20-24 km or less engagement range should be fine, there's no reason to extend it much farther than that on small scale. |
Nimrod vanHall
Martyr's Vengence Nulli Secunda
76
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 13:23:00 -
[22] - Quote
My proposed change to tackle would be based on ship size, the larger the pointing ship the longer the point/scram range.
Something alon the lines of: small warp disrupter II 16 km point str 1 small warp scrambler II 6 km point str 2
Medium warp disrupter II 24km point str 1 medium warp scrambler II 9km point str 2
large warp disrupter II 40 km point str 2 large warp scrambler II 15 km range point str 3
Probably include stazis webbifiers in this change as well.
Fitting and cap for medium modules is simulair to the current usage. Small's use less cap+fitting while large mods use more. use shield boosters as a compairison.
In an ideal world battle cruizers / destroyers could either use oversided tackle or tank while friggates and crjizers need fitting comppromises to fit either oversized tank or over sized tackle.
The reasoning is thati feel that bigger/havier ships should have more holding power then smaller vessels at thd cost of more fitting and cap use. More fitting choices cant be bad :)
|
Keith Planck
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
750
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 13:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:According to the chart you linked barrage is best damage choice for medium turrets past 17 km and on any ship with a falloff bonus it's bound to be more than that, just saying.
*COUGH*railguns*COUGH* aka Pony Lord Planck |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation Brothers of Tangra
394
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 16:21:00 -
[24] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:Valleria Darkmoon wrote:According to the chart you linked barrage is best damage choice for medium turrets past 17 km and on any ship with a falloff bonus it's bound to be more than that, just saying. *COUGH*railguns*COUGH* See, now the thing is that that's two separate weapon systems. If someone's willing to sit on a mobile depot tanking your damage for the full deployment time until they can finally change weapons just to counter yours, suffering damage while you take none, and rendering them completely immobile until that happens, then that's all well and good. The thing about autocannons is that they deal better damage than blasters past 17km and have better application than rails under 17km (assuming you've got at least a minor orbit messing up their tracking).
Autocannnons have better versatility, allowing them to kite blasters at range, or get in under rails, and... sorta respond to pulse lasers by getting in under the tracking because there's no way they can kite that.
Of course, that's not to say I would mind seeing a bit more DPS on them, however it would have to be a careful adjustment. Too much just puts us back into Minmatar master race. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3883
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 17:51:00 -
[25] - Quote
While you can swap ammo mid fight, you cannot swap gun types.
Furthermore, your comparison doesn't take into account tracking.
Yes, blasters are the kings of scram/web range damage. Lasers are the kings of long range damage.
Autocannons are the red headed bastard child of the two, tracking much better than lasers, with the range to hit decently beyond scram/web range.
|
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
816
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 18:10:00 -
[26] - Quote
Nimrod vanHall wrote:My proposed change to tackle would be based on ship size, the larger the pointing ship the longer the point/scram range.
Something alon the lines of: small warp disrupter II 16 km point str 1 small warp scrambler II 6 km point str 2
Medium warp disrupter II 24km point str 1 medium warp scrambler II 9km point str 2
large warp disrupter II 40 km point str 2 large warp scrambler II 15 km range point str 3
Probably include stazis webbifiers in this change as well.
Fitting and cap for medium modules is simulair to the current usage. Small's use less cap+fitting while large mods use more. use shield boosters as a compairison.
In an ideal world battle cruizers / destroyers could either use oversided tackle or tank while friggates and crjizers need fitting comppromises to fit either oversized tank or over sized tackle.
The reasoning is thati feel that bigger/havier ships should have more holding power then smaller vessels at thd cost of more fitting and cap use. More fitting choices cant be bad :)
The problem with this is tackle is dependent on fast lock time. Large ships lock slower. This is why tackle is usually frigates
|
Keith Planck
Sky Fighters Sky Syndicate
751
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 19:42:00 -
[27] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: While you can swap ammo mid fight, you cannot swap gun types.
Furthermore, your comparison doesn't take into account tracking.
Yes, blasters are the kings of scram/web range damage. Lasers are the kings of long range damage.
Autocannons are the red headed bastard child of the two, tracking much better than lasers, with the range to hit decently beyond scram/web range.
That's the problem, in reality you don't have better damage past 10kms unless it's on a bonused hull like the vagabond. Null gets better projection out to 17kms, so the only ships who are ever at an advantage with autocannons are 20+km point kiters (even then, unless it's a bonused hull, your doing HALF of your dps at that range and barrage already has pretty low dps to begin with.
This is what these weapons should look like http://i.imgur.com/aDcfYNV.png aka Pony Lord Planck |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
234
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 01:03:00 -
[28] - Quote
Nimrod vanHall wrote:My proposed change to tackle would be based on ship size, the larger the pointing ship the longer the point/scram range.
Something alon the lines of: small warp disrupter II 16 km point str 1 small warp scrambler II 6 km point str 2
Medium warp disrupter II 24km point str 1 medium warp scrambler II 9km point str 2
large warp disrupter II 40 km point str 2 large warp scrambler II 15 km range point str 3
Probably include stazis webbifiers in this change as well.
Fitting and cap for medium modules is simulair to the current usage. Small's use less cap+fitting while large mods use more. use shield boosters as a compairison.
In an ideal world battle cruizers / destroyers could either use oversided tackle or tank while friggates and crjizers need fitting comppromises to fit either oversized tank or over sized tackle.
The reasoning is thati feel that bigger/havier ships should have more holding power then smaller vessels at thd cost of more fitting and cap use. More fitting choices cant be bad :)
This would require an awful lot of juggling of ship fittings. Right now all tackle uses 1 PG on any ship which for frigates could be significant and all but unnoticed on anything bigger. Ship CPU increases relative to the number of slots a ship has while PG increases with ship size. This means that having a high CPU requirement for larger warp disruptors puts a lot of pressure on a large ship's CPU by having a module that requires far more than average CPU to fit if you want to keep it off a small ship. This would probably lead to an unreasonable CPU requirement if you want to make sure to keep it off a frigate.
The second option is easier which is to increase the PG cost which easily makes the larger modules impossible to fit onto undersized hulls, the issue here is that it will require either giving the larger ships more PG to make fitting the ship reasonable which opens the door to OP fits for fleets that don't fit points of their own. The only alternative is to lower the fitting cost of many PG using modules which lands you in exactly the same place. Either option is one of two paths on a road that doesn't fork.
I think the ability to use longer range points and relying on projection may be something that will allow battleships to see more common use in small gangs so I kinda like the idea but I think the best way to do it would be by leaving the fittings and simply making the small > medium > large only fittable to frigates/destroyers > cruisers/battlecruisers > battleships and above respectively. I wouldn't add warp scramble strength to the large though the added range should be fine although I would set warp disruptors at 20 > 30 > 40 and scrams at 8 > 12 > 16. I know there are frigates that use long range guns with a scram and I wouldn't want to see scram range reduced so much as to not allow that to be effective. All that being said if this were to happen I feel Interdiction Maneuvers gang link would have to get beaten to death with a nerf bat and that's even if it is eventually made on grid links only.
I don't support changing webs since if they get much stronger than they are battleships go god mode. BS naturally project better than smaller ships so giving them long range webs on top of long range tackle is a recipe for making them overpowered. Consider that at the range those webs would work their guns would have much less trouble tracking already and it would substantially reduce the options for smaller ships as it would be a long trip in to get under a BS guns if you're webbed out much past 10 km, nor could you try to kite at the edge of optimal for medium rails or arty for example because the web might work at that range and the BS large guns will just tear you apart. Webs need to only allow battleships to have a prayer of tracking ships that try to dive in close not to hold them at 20 km for example, where their guns will be able to track and hit just fine. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
235
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 01:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
Keith Planck wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: While you can swap ammo mid fight, you cannot swap gun types.
Furthermore, your comparison doesn't take into account tracking.
Yes, blasters are the kings of scram/web range damage. Lasers are the kings of long range damage.
Autocannons are the red headed bastard child of the two, tracking much better than lasers, with the range to hit decently beyond scram/web range.
That's the problem, in reality you don't have better damage past 10kms unless it's on a bonused hull like the vagabond. Null gets better projection out to 17kms, so the only ships who are ever at an advantage with autocannons are 20+km point kiters (even then, unless it's a bonused hull, your doing HALF of your dps at that range and barrage already has pretty low dps to begin with. This is what these weapons should look like http://i.imgur.com/aDcfYNV.png You realize I hope that you pegged Antimatter, Null and Barrage at roughly the same damage @ 10 km and ACs as having an optimal range around the 8-9 km mark with EMP. Since optimal range and falloff are a product of gun + ammo and EMP carries a 50% optimal penalty, the default optimal of the AC in this case should be somewhere between 16-18 km (compared with 15 km base optimal for Heavy Pulses). So much for lasers, as now ACs have better optimal (trampling the only advantage of lasers) way better falloff, better dps and better tracking. Additionally the EMP graph loses 50% of its damage by around 18 km which would put falloff at approximately 10 km (1 km less than 220s have currently assuming a non falloff bonus hull) Literally what this graph looks like a suggestion that ACs should (assuming 220s on account of the falloff) get a roughly 600% boost to optimal range while sacrificing roughly 10% falloff or that they should become super lasers whichever description you prefer. There is no way to call this balanced with a straight face, although I could certainly see the appeal if you really like Minnie ships.
Your graph doesn't include any details about ship bonuses or fits so I have to assume this is all guns and ammo only on a non bonus hull.
I would like to see tracking enhancers get their falloff back to somewhere between the pre and post nerf value or perhaps a small boost to AC falloff to differentiate them from blasters a little bit more. I feel ACs need to exploit their superior falloff and the TE nerf prevents that on ships without a falloff bonus which is why as I said before I only fit ACs to falloff bonus hulls. Ships like the Hurricane I swapped to artillery fits so they can project a decent amount of damage and very high alpha. |
Shelom Severasse
Elite Kombat Academy
8
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 03:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
i believe i see a triple point in this graph
EDIT: 1.) you shouldve kept with the same color coding >.> 2.) seems like you just want to nerf hybrids and buff projectiles 3.) barrage till has the best damage projection |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |