Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
220
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:23:33 -
[1] - Quote
This is a proposal to re-balance the larger GÇÿmulti barrelledGÇÖ versions of next class down weapons, e.g. dual/quad cruiser weapons on Battleships. It is based upon the addition to the game of Rapid Heavy Launchers, but with specific iterations to take into account the differences between missiles/turrets. Firstly, though centred on the specific example Dual 250mm Railguns, this is not intended as a single solution for a single weapons system. While IGÇÖm a Battleship hybrid man through and through, this methodology can (and should) be ported across the three turrets types.
First key/must read point:
Quote:Dual 250mm Railguns do less DPS than 250mm Railguns.
Let me just re-state that for the doubters:
The Battleship GÇÿdual barrelGÇÖ equivalent does less DPS than cruiser version, with no tangible benefits to compensate for thisGǪ
(Proof in spreadsheet below)
With this in mind, moving onto the detail of the proposalGǪ.
Key attributes (fixed)
1.Give the GÇÿdualGÇÖ versions the same ammo size as base, i.e. medium railgun ammunition for Battleship Dual 250mmGÇÖs
2.Give the GÇÿdualGÇÖ versions the same signature resolution as the base weapon
3.Maintain the same optimal/falloff range, as per the base weapon
Key attributes (to develop by iteration)
1.Increase the base damage modifier of the GÇÿdualGÇÖ versions to match the base weapon
2.Increase the tracking of the GÇÿdualGÇÖ versions, but less than 100% that of base weapon
3.Increase the RoF of the GÇÿdualGÇÖ versions, to minimum of +100% over that of base weapon (i.e. 2x)
4.Decrease the clip size of the GÇÿdual weaponsGÇÖ, maximum size being less than that of the base weapon
5.Increase the reload time of the GÇÿDual weaponsGÇÖ, minimum of 400% of base weapon (i.e. 4x)
In order to aid visualisation IGÇÖve knocked together a spreadsheet which allows you to iterate up/down the changes above. Coloured/grey cells cannot be changed, only white cells. Cells highlighted in green are the ones affected by the above iterations.
http://www.filedropper.com/dt-proposal
(image):
http://eve-files.com/dl/272728
My initial iteration, which I propose is a good starting point for a Dual 250mm Railgun is:
-80% tracking of the medium railgun -120% bonus to rate of fire compared to the medium railgun -100% i.e. same damage modifier as the medium railgun -700% increase in reload time compared to the medium railgun (i.e. to 35 seconds) -60% the ammo capacity of the medium railgun (i.e. 24 rounds)
This gives a peak DPS comparable to a Cruise Launcher, less than a Rapid Heavy Launcher and above that of a 425mm railgun. Overall a 36% increase.
In terms of the sustained DPS, it doesnGÇÖt change the pecking order in the large railgun family, overall only a 4% increase, which wonGÇÖt upset the apple cart IMO.
Accuracy wise; this improves the situation from having worse performance vs cruiser-sized targets compared to a 425mm at respective optimals, but still being capped below the performance of the medium weapon (80%).
In short, this proposal:
-greatly increases the accuracy against targets at respective optimal range -Improves GÇÿpeakGÇÖ DPS (without excessively increasing sustained vs class equivalents) -Iterates upon the Rapid Heavy vs Heavy launcher model for missiles -Provides an interesting option for Battleship doctrines, rather than a crappy GÇÿlower tierGÇÖ weapon system, without blowing Battleship weapon balance out of the water -Can be ported across to all the dual/quad versions of smaller class weapons
Please feel free to use the spreadsheet to play around with values, or even try on something other than Dual 250mmGÇÖs (if someone wishes this, IGÇÖll upload an unlocked version). One aspiration of mine would be to see the return (but done properly) of GÇ£Dual Heavy Ion BlastersGÇ¥ as they were formally known, currently called GÇ£Heavy Electron BlastersGÇ¥GǪ (hello 2004)
TL:DR - Look at the spreadsheet, play with numbers.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
221
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:40:29 -
[2] - Quote
Just to chip in a bit more detail before someone comments; even with the proposed changes in the Dev blog to medium railguns, a 250mm still has higher base DPS a Dual 250mm...
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
314
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 12:36:44 -
[3] - Quote
Looks reasonable. I've always wondered why those "multibarreled" turrets were not more based on the individual turrets that composed them. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
223
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 17:56:08 -
[4] - Quote
I think, historically, as in back at the start, it might have been more difficult to balance (when you look at base damage modifiers/base ammo damage between medium and large weapons - you could very quickly end up overpowering them).
However, with the new mindset (Fozzie/Rise) to try different approaches to balancing (e.g. reloads on 'rapid' launchers), it could work out and add interesting tweaks to the meta/Battleship doctrines. I used dual 250's as they are a good example of a module in a poor state, where 'tiericide' hasn't yet been developed.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
48
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:29:12 -
[5] - Quote
i like the idea... but i fear that balancing this would be a very delicate situation.
given your example, would the dual 250mm receive hull-boni for large guns?
|
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University Minmatar Republic
319
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 18:49:49 -
[6] - Quote
Here's what I got from this: Large Dual Weapons are useless. Significantly buff tracking and sig radius in exchange for DPS nerf.
+1 Fully support.
EDIT: Instead of DPS nerf though... why not keep DPS roughly the same as it is now, but implement the reload mechanic (or a slightly gentler version of it) from the Rapid Missile Launchers? For the pulse/beam version, just make it use TONS of cap. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
224
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:31:22 -
[7] - Quote
Oh no doubt delicate balancing, hence the 'numbers' used above are more a stake in the ground to generate discussion. What I would say is, it has be demonstrated as viable previously (Rapid Heavy Launchers on the Raven) so I don't see a fundamental reason for hull bonuses not to apply, as long as everything is iterated upon properly and mindful of the likely impact.
With the 'example' I gave, you could imagine workable Dual-250mm fits appearing for the Megathron, which would be great at smashing cruiser doctrines in the medium ranges, but would in turn get murdered by ABCs/Battleships with the larger weapons in class (big range advantage, much bigger alpha advantage), or by true close-up brawler setups (sustained DPS advantage).
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
224
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 19:36:41 -
[8] - Quote
Ravasta Helugo wrote:Here's what I got from this: Large Dual Weapons are useless. Significantly buff tracking and sig radius in exchange for DPS nerf.
+1 Fully support.
EDIT: Instead of DPS nerf though... why not keep DPS roughly the same as it is now, but implement the reload mechanic (or a slightly gentler version of it) from the Rapid Missile Launchers? For the pulse/beam version, just make it use TONS of cap. Well, not quite on the final point (your edit is basically what I've proposed);
The peak DPS would be quite a bit higher than currently, due to switching over to the medium weapon base ammo damage/medium weapons base damage modifier, and certainly higher than the 'top tier' weapons in class. However with the reload disadvantage, sustained DPS would be broadly comparable to where it is now (below the 'top tier', which itself still has massive range/Alpha advantages).
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Sigras
Conglomo
1010
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:07:10 -
[9] - Quote
There are a few problems with the reload time approach ... namely laser turrets... |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
226
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:26:42 -
[10] - Quote
Indeed!
I did start writing a laser specific one (I was thinking about more rapid crystal 'burn-out' and an associated long reload) but haven't fleshed it out any further yet (been away the past two weeks, drafted this before I left).
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
151
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:39:38 -
[11] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Indeed! I did start writing a laser specific one (I was thinking about more rapid crystal 'burn-out' and an associated long reload) but haven't fleshed it out any further yet (been away the past two weeks, drafted this before I left).
Perhaps similar to how AAR's operate? They still shoot and cost cap but at the cost of a big dps nerf once the alotted "shots" have been exhausted.. Call it crystal overheat. Its not a reload, just a cooldown timer until max dps is available again.
|
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises
17389
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:10:05 -
[12] - Quote
I fully support this- I've never really understood why they are the way they are:
+1, and I hope this can get talked about
A City made of Wood is built in the forest
A City made of Stone is built in the mountains
But a City made of Dreams...is built in heaven.
Jovian Proverb GÖâ
|
Catherine Laartii
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
485
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:13:17 -
[13] - Quote
I love this a lot; I proposed something similar awhile back, but didn't put anywhere near as much into figuring out the specific numbers on it. In the end, the idea I had for laser balance is as follows:
-Increase the cycle time for quad light beam laser to 15 seconds, and dual heavy beam laser to 25 (as an example; balancing the cycle time to achieve the desired results without being OP would be the end goal)
-Introduce a sustained damage mechanic to the game where hp steadily takes damage over time instead of bursts, and let all lasers partake of it to varying degrees, but have the 'rapid' undersized variants like above do the longest sustained dps over time (this solves the ammo reload issue).
-While the available time to apply dps is shorter than current rapid lights or ammo with what you proposed, once committed you do continuous amounts of dps, which amount to a full clip of ammo from the 'undersized' weapons, and quite a lot of dps in a short period of time. You just commit to your shots when you make them.
-This is ideal for laser weapons, since you have a continuous 'beam' laser doing damage over time, with a long reload timer to cool down. |
Catherine Laartii
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
485
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:18:51 -
[14] - Quote
Also, shouldn't these weapons have the same tracking speed and alpha damage of the ones they double up on below them, but just have a higher RoF? The same is true for rapid missile launchers since all they're really doing is using this same type of ammo below them. They just have to have significantly less ammo in their bay and a higher reload time overall. |
Alexis Nightwish
112
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:53:39 -
[15] - Quote
I'm definitely in support of something like this, so long as the current dual/quad/etc. weapons are not replaced with what you propose. I can think of several fits right of the top of my head that use the smallest weapon for the ship simply because it's not feasible to fit the larger ones (typically heavily tanked fits, or fits for newbros who don't have the skills for the ultra tight fits that largest-in-class weapons typically require).
If the current 'dual' type weapons' stats were ported over into replacement weapons (eg: current dual 150mm rail stats given to a new 175mm rail), and new ones with you're proposed stats were added using the current, multi-barreled names and models, I'd support this 100%.
I can still remember my noobie days and reading the description of the multi-barreled guns which actually said they were two of the smaller sized guns together and thinking "Oh cool! These will be great against frigates in my missions!" then being confused when small ammo didn't go in them, and being disappointed when they didn't perform like I expected.
Regarding lasers, since fast ammo swapping is their jam, maybe make them use an excessive amount of capacitor such that firing continuously for longer than other multi-barreled turrets' can would totally deep throat the ship's capacitor? And/Or giving them prop mod-levels of overheat damage?
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
|
Tusker Crazinski
Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels
35
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:21:46 -
[16] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Indeed! I did start writing a laser specific one (I was thinking about more rapid crystal 'burn-out' and an associated long reload) but haven't fleshed it out any further yet (been away the past two weeks, drafted this before I left).
I could see a massive cap usage being an issue, then again I also could see quadruple cap booster abbadons....... still interested.
also I think these Dual weapons should fire 2 charges per volley, as for projectiles. I'd really like to see the bottom tier howitzers just become dual weapons like their railgun counterparts.
so dual 720s, dual 250s and dual errm 150s?
they'd essentially be long range assault autocannons, with really bad tracking. but all things considered 100km tracer spam best tracer spam. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
233
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:33:00 -
[17] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:Also, shouldn't these weapons have the same tracking speed and alpha damage of the ones they double up on below them, but just have a higher RoF? The same is true for rapid missile launchers since all they're really doing is using this same type of ammo below them. They just have to have significantly less ammo in their bay and a higher reload time overall. I've gone for exactly the same alpha (same base ammo, same base damage modifier), but slightly lower tracking - I felt they shouldn't perform quite as well as the medium weapon. From a 'fluff' perspective, bulkier turret, harder to traverse e.t.c e.t.c
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
233
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:36:26 -
[18] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:I'm definitely in support of something like this, so long as the current dual/quad/etc. weapons are not replaced with what you propose. I can think of several fits right of the top of my head that use the smallest weapon for the ship simply because it's not feasible to fit the larger ones (typically heavily tanked fits, or fits for newbros who don't have the skills for the ultra tight fits that largest-in-class weapons typically require). If the current 'dual' type weapons' stats were ported over into replacement weapons (eg: current dual 150mm rail stats given to a new 175mm rail), and new ones with you're proposed stats were added using the current, multi-barreled names and models, I'd support this 100%. I can still remember my noobie days and reading the description of the multi-barreled guns which actually said they were two of the smaller sized guns together and thinking "Oh cool! These will be great against frigates in my missions!" then being confused when small ammo didn't go in them, and being disappointed when they didn't perform like I expected. Regarding lasers, since fast ammo swapping is their jam, maybe make them use an excessive amount of capacitor such that firing continuously for longer than other multi-barreled turrets' can would totally deep throat the ship's capacitor? And/Or giving them prop mod-levels of overheat damage? I'm not certain why you would have an issue with them replacing the current crop?
Optimal/Falloff range are identical, alpha strike and sustained DPS are ever so marginally improved (5% and 4% respectively), while you get the big increase in peak DPS, at the expense of the reload.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
98
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 22:48:12 -
[19] - Quote
when you talk about sustained DPS, you refer to dual turret's current DPS?
other question is will Hull bonus affect dual turret? |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
233
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:05:10 -
[20] - Quote
unidenify wrote:when you talk about sustained DPS, you refer to dual turret's current DPS?
other question is will Hull bonus affect dual turret? When I refer to 'Sustained' that is factoring in the reload times, so represents that actual time averaged DPS over an infinite duration. 'Peak' is the DPS until the clip runs out (clip duration is also shown in the spreadsheet I linked).
Just as Rapid Heavy Launchers get the hull bonus applied (e.g. Raven, Scorpion Navy Issue), I would do the same with these.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
Lienzo
Amanuensis
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:57:22 -
[21] - Quote
I'd definitely like to see a battleship sized weapon with a target res between 250-400m. This would give it a battlecruiser sized target zone, but on the high end. If it used medium rounds, then gravy. That's a hell of a lot more difference than 15% more tracking. I don't even know how you would adjust your flying to benefit from a 15% increase in tracking, so the current system pretty much encompasses a distinction without a difference.
Currently, all people do is fit as much gun as their fitting allows, so we aren't getting as much ecological diversity as we might like. If fitting requirements were static across the board, it would be just as functional. Anti-support fits really don't even need all that much tank, so I'd rather see the range get buffed instead, but have the damage multiplier lowered so the high hit-rate, normal range guns don't outperform the standard anti-BS weaponry.
On the flip-side, I'd like to see the heaviest medium guns be able to punch up, with reduced tracking and range, but then have a significantly increased damage multiplier. However, their target sig would be somewhere between 125-250m. That would make them really popular with battlecruiser, as they'd have an own class normalized weapon system.
That would have Ruptures fitting 425mm ACs with the intent of getting under the guns of battleships, or hitting harder against battlecruisers. They'd fit 220mm ACs for fighting other cruisers, and Dual 180mm ACs for anti-support work.
I don't think anybody could have a problem with Cormorants fitting 125mm rails to do a better job of hitting interceptors, and actually doing a better job of than when fitting 150mm rails, which would have a target sig somewhere between the current 40m and 75m. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
233
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 09:13:18 -
[22] - Quote
If I get chance I'll look at lasers properly.
One area that you'd need to be careful with is the peak DPS and the penalties, say for example, for Dual Heavy Pulses; even if the cap usage was astronomical, I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties, hence why my initial thoughts were on crystal damage and a long reload.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 10:01:34 -
[23] - Quote
I really like this idea.
Gabriel Karade wrote:One area that you'd need to be careful with is the peak DPS and the penalties, say for example, for Dual Heavy Pulses; even if the cap usage was astronomical, I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties, hence why my initial thoughts were on crystal damage and a long reload. I sort of prefer a long cooldown after x cycles to extra crystal damage, but I don't know if this is technically feasible. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
240
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:11:12 -
[24] - Quote
beakerax wrote:I really like this idea. Gabriel Karade wrote:One area that you'd need to be careful with is the peak DPS and the penalties, say for example, for Dual Heavy Pulses; even if the cap usage was astronomical, I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties, hence why my initial thoughts were on crystal damage and a long reload. I sort of prefer a long cooldown after x cycles to extra crystal damage, but I don't know if this is technically feasible. I think it could be relatively straightforward, and do take the point that could be a better means than crystal damage. The 'Fluff' element could be reasonably satisfied too...
"... due to the rapid rate of fire, the heat sinks become dangerously saturated, requiring an extended cool down period to prevent system damage...."
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
173
|
Posted - 2015.04.06 19:37:49 -
[25] - Quote
Seems like I may have created a similar thread on this very issue
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread
See how I define the problem and propose the solution. Post your thoughts.
Gabriel Karade wrote:beakerax wrote:I really like this idea. Gabriel Karade wrote:One area that you'd need to be careful with is the peak DPS and the penalties, say for example, for Dual Heavy Pulses; even if the cap usage was astronomical, I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties, hence why my initial thoughts were on crystal damage and a long reload. I sort of prefer a long cooldown after x cycles to extra crystal damage, but I don't know if this is technically feasible. I think it could be relatively straightforward, and do take the point that could be a better means than crystal damage. The 'Fluff' element could be reasonably satisfied too... " ... due to the rapid rate of fire, the heat sinks become dangerously saturated, requiring an extended cool down period to prevent system damage...."
My POV is that we probably shouldn't look directly to Rapid L/HMLs for a solution.
These turrets could have a medium sustained DPS - higher than the medium/small equivalents - with no need for long reloads.
( -í° -£-û -í°)
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
241
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 20:50:40 -
[26] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Seems like I may have created a similar thread on this very issue https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread See how I define the problem and propose the solution. Post your thoughts. Gabriel Karade wrote:beakerax wrote:I really like this idea. Gabriel Karade wrote:One area that you'd need to be careful with is the peak DPS and the penalties, say for example, for Dual Heavy Pulses; even if the cap usage was astronomical, I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties, hence why my initial thoughts were on crystal damage and a long reload. I sort of prefer a long cooldown after x cycles to extra crystal damage, but I don't know if this is technically feasible. I think it could be relatively straightforward, and do take the point that could be a better means than crystal damage. The 'Fluff' element could be reasonably satisfied too... " ... due to the rapid rate of fire, the heat sinks become dangerously saturated, requiring an extended cool down period to prevent system damage...." My POV is that we probably shouldn't look directly to Rapid L/HMLs for a solution. These turrets could have a medium sustained DPS - higher than the medium/small equivalents - with no need for long reloads. I don't think changing the sig resolution alone is enough; even with the latest changes to medium railguns, the Battleship dual 250's still do less DPS as demonstrated in the OP.
Sadly, with the way small-medium-large weapon tiers were originally setup, the difference in DPS between them isn't sufficient to allow 'proper' dual weapons (using the class below ammo size) without going down the burst fire route. Kinda curious why you have discounted that? (especially when it works really well for RHML's).
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Cade Windstalker
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
348
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 21:26:23 -
[27] - Quote
I think giving small battleship sized guns (in general, not just rails) the ability to engage small targets is a good idea, but I think the changes should be based on what makes sense from a game design perspective not what makes sense for what is technically a "dual ___" weapon. Boosting DPS by 120% for example doesn't make sense and just creates a weapon that has far far better DPS than the largest size of the Battleship weapons (including the largest size of *short range* weapon by the way), and buffing *those* in turn just creates power creep and all sorts of other problems.
So yeah, I like the basic idea but your specific numbers not so much. They swing the weapon from the current "meh, not worth it" to "wildly and completely over-powered". |
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
64
|
Posted - 2015.04.07 22:21:22 -
[28] - Quote
Maybe look at heat generation as a balancing mechanism? I realize it's not much, but it fits the theme (an array of multiple small guns is easier to cool than a single large gun).
Just my 0.02isk |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
500
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 00:40:59 -
[29] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=417162&find=unread has a very similar, if slightly less fleshed out version of this. I like the discussion here and the general way this is trending more than the much more general numbers in the other thread though.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
242
|
Posted - 2015.04.08 23:44:44 -
[30] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I think giving small battleship sized guns (in general, not just rails) the ability to engage small targets is a good idea, but I think the changes should be based on what makes sense from a game design perspective not what makes sense for what is technically a "dual ___" weapon. Boosting DPS by 120% for example doesn't make sense and just creates a weapon that has far far better DPS than the largest size of the Battleship weapons (including the largest size of *short range* weapon by the way), and buffing *those* in turn just creates power creep and all sorts of other problems.
So yeah, I like the basic idea but your specific numbers not so much. They swing the weapon from the current "meh, not worth it" to "wildly and completely over-powered". It's not 120% though (not sure where you've gotten that from?), it is a 3.6% increase in sustained DPS, with the iteration in my original post, over what the weapon currently does now on TQ:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1503/DT_-_Proposal.png
In terms of peak DPS (i.e. before the clip runs out), that equivalent to 83.7% that of a Neutron blaster Cannon II, while sustained DPS (factoring re-loads), is still marginally lower than the 250mm medium weapon.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |