Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Scorpyn
Caldari Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.07.12 22:10:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 12/07/2007 22:20:09 Standard rockets are better than javelin rockets. There are only 2 things that the javelin is better at : velocity and flight time. The explosion velocity is 1/4 of standard rockets, and the explosion radius is doubled.
The explosion radius increase is not a major problem imo, but the explosion velocity decrease is. It should be higher on the javelin than on the standard.
(I am also of the opinion that the drawbacks of T2 ammo is generally too harsh.)
|
Selene Le'Cotiere
Amarr Dark Oracle Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 03:04:00 -
[62]
I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet... But the Caldari Navy passive resist mods are better than their Tec2 counterparts.
40% resist vs 37.5%
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 05:29:00 -
[63]
Caldari Navy hardeners are fine. They're faction, which is generally supposed to be better than T2 in some way, even if their item stats say 't1'.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 08:11:00 -
[64]
Personally I am getting the impression that I am doing something wrong skilling T2 rails.
Prototypes have the same damage and range, better fitting, require 20% less capacitiy, and currently cost less.
I see a 10% damage increase (a skill level V) as hardly worth it, and the T2 ammunition are useful only in specific circumstances (this for a mostly PvE point of view, in PvP it can be different).
|
Slythought
Sly Inc
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 08:17:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Syrann
Originally by: Par'Gellen The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award.
True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE.
I lol'd and I am getting funny looks around the office -------- Yes ... I am an alt...get over it! |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 21:19:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Venkul Mul Personally I am getting the impression that I am doing something wrong skilling T2 rails.
Prototypes have the same damage and range, better fitting, require 20% less capacitiy, and currently cost less.
I see a 10% damage increase (a skill level V) as hardly worth it, and the T2 ammunition are useful only in specific circumstances (this for a mostly PvE point of view, in PvP it can be different).
I personally don't think T2 guns are a big enough benefit to warrant the obscene training time. I don't like the way T2 guns require all the skills for the smaller sizes of T2 guns. Training for T2 large guns is an obscene waste of time, in my opinion.
But you do recognise that T2 guns deal more damage due to the 2%/level bonus they get from the specialisation skill. And T2 ammo, while specialised, is good at its specialised task, especially in PvP.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Thommy
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 19:58:00 -
[67]
I fully agree with this too, it shouldn't be that T1 named outperforms T2 modules (considered the training needed for T2).
Are any more of the modules fixed after the last patches?
Guide to fix eve problems. Patch day recommendations |
Velvet69
eXceed Inc. INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 06:35:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Venkul Mul Personally I am getting the impression that I am doing something wrong skilling T2 rails.
Prototypes have the same damage and range, better fitting, require 20% less capacitiy, and currently cost less.
I see a 10% damage increase (a skill level V) as hardly worth it, and the T2 ammunition are useful only in specific circumstances (this for a mostly PvE point of view, in PvP it can be different).
I personally don't think T2 guns are a big enough benefit to warrant the obscene training time. I don't like the way T2 guns require all the skills for the smaller sizes of T2 guns. Training for T2 large guns is an obscene waste of time, in my opinion.
But you do recognise that T2 guns deal more damage due to the 2%/level bonus they get from the specialisation skill. And T2 ammo, while specialised, is good at its specialised task, especially in PvP.
I'm quoting the pair of you
A T2 sniper fleet is the backbone of any alliance that wants to hold 0.0 space.
Sure the training time is long, best part of 3 months to get caldari BS lvl4 and large rail spec lvl4. But the 1st time you take a rokh into battle with an optimal of almost 240k with some sniper eagles in gang to pick off the inties that are trying to get close, you will forgive every minute of the 3 months it took to get those guns and ammo, trust me ;)
Now back on topic
o/
Velve
IXC Velvet69 Proud Member of 'The House of Prawn' |
William Hamilton
Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 06:53:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Scorpyn Edited by: Scorpyn on 12/07/2007 22:20:09 Standard rockets are better than javelin rockets. There are only 2 things that the javelin is better at : velocity and flight time. The explosion velocity is 1/4 of standard rockets, and the explosion radius is doubled.
The explosion radius increase is not a major problem imo, but the explosion velocity decrease is. It should be higher on the javelin than on the standard.
(I am also of the opinion that the drawbacks of T2 ammo is generally too harsh.)
Half of all t2 ammo is useless, the other half renders everything else obsolete...
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr Riggers Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 12:29:00 -
[70]
Main reason t1 named items should outperform t2 items, it the availability of t2 items.
Otherwise, the market for any t1 item would be completely ruined and look to much like WoW, where items keep getting obsolete. No need to use a lvl 20 sword if you are lvl 28. In EvE, there are still reasons to fit a lvl 20 mod even though you are level 50.
And I like that everything has a purpose and use (well, allmost everything anyways )
|
|
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Minmatar Grumpy Old Farts Gruntfuttocks
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 12:33:00 -
[71]
You forget that tehre are now 'name' moduels with the quotes, these are cosmos modules and are the same as t2, have sometimes better fitting stats. These modules are rare and expensive as you need some wierd stuff to build them if you actually can find a bpc as no bpo's excists.
So yes, you can geta betetr fit than t2, it however will without doubt cost you a great deal more isk than fitting t2.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.07.26 02:18:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Nyphur on 26/07/2007 02:20:18
Originally by: Thommy I fully agree with this too, it shouldn't be that T1 named outperforms T2 modules (considered the training needed for T2).
Are any more of the modules fixed after the last patches?
Yes, actually. Energy transfer arrays were rebalanced according to my exact suggestion. How long before they fix Nos and Neuts is anyone's guess.
Originally by: Ssoraszh Tzarszh You forget that tehre are now 'name' moduels with the quotes, these are cosmos modules and
I do know about cosmos modules, I dealt in them for years. They aren't named, they're a separate class and are not what I am discussing.
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes Main reason t1 named items should outperform t2 items, it the availability of t2 items.
Like everyone else that brought this argument up, you made the mistake of assuming I'm requesting a blanket change in game balance across all module types. I'm not, I'm pointing out that MOST modules already follow the idea that t2 is better than best named but with worse fittings and that a few select modules are broken in that regard.
What anyone thinks should or shouldn't be in force with regard balance between T2 and best named is not important. What's important is that the devs have shown repeatedly, though design of other modules and fixing of some of those on my list, that they intend T2 to be better than best named. By CURRENT design standards, the modules listed in my original posts as broken are broken.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Vladtsun Raide
|
Posted - 2007.07.26 08:20:00 -
[73]
Agree that T2 ammo and gun requirements are obscene, specially when we can all train Cruise to 3 in a day and pound the hell out of a gun ship.
I'd like to see T2 improved, not 'named' reduced.
|
Sartaron
Amarr Quantar Swords SynchronizerZ
|
Posted - 2007.07.26 10:54:00 -
[74]
With T2 weapons you get at least the T2 skill-bonus.
But i think T2 items, which don't have a related skill, which espeacially boosts them should be "stronger" than all T1 counterparts and should have higher fitting requirements. This goes for most(or all?) ECM modules, where the strength is equal to the T1 counterpart and the T1 counterparts have lower fitting requirements.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 03:53:00 -
[75]
Hopefully with the nos changes and neuts becoming more useful, they'll actually fix them so the T2 versions aren't useless.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:09:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Nyphur Hopefully with the nos changes and neuts becoming more useful, they'll actually fix them so the T2 versions aren't useless.
I knew I was being overoptimistic :(. The patch occured and no change has been made to the stats of best named or t2 nos or neuts. That's disappointing.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.05 01:47:00 -
[77]
Just a quick update to this old thread. The patch notes for trinity now state:
Quote: * Heavy Energy Neutralizer II is now better than its best T1 counterpart.
I'll recheck every item in the list when the server comes up to see what's left, if anything.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 00:43:00 -
[78]
I just logged on after the patch and am severely disappointed to see that the patch notes lied about the change.
There are patch notes relevant to Heavy energy neutralisers:
Quote: Patch notes here : "Heavy Energy Neutralizer II is now better than its best T1 counterpart."
Quote: Patch notes here "The capacitor need of neutralizers has been reduced to improve efficiency"
Neither of these are true. The first one is untrue because the new stats are as such:
Named: Energy used: 500 Energy neutralised: 600 Duration: 24 s Range: 25 km Heat Damage: 4.6 HP Overload duration bonus: -15 % Required skills: Energy Emissions Systems 3 CPU: 32 TF Grid: 2000 MW
T2: Energy used: 500 Energy neutralised: 600 Duration: 24 s Range: 25 km Heat Damage: 4.6 HP Overload duration bonus: -15 % Required skills: Energy Emissions Systems 5 CPU: 40 TF Grid: 2250 MW
As it stands, the stats are identical and the fittings and skill reqs for the T2 version (as expected for a T2 module) are much worse. The T2 version is in no way at all better than the best named version. In fact, this change was propogated across the board and now all three size classes of energy neutraliser have T2 versions identical in stats to best named but with worse fittings.
Now to the second patch note, which claims that energy neutralisers have been made more efficient by reducing their energy use. On the surface, this appears to be true because large T2 neuts used to take 600 cap and now take 500, but that's not the whole story. The patch notes say energy neutralisers have lower energy use, so I checked large, medium and small neutralisers.
Apart from smalls, the stats haven't changed. Large best named still take 500 cap can neut 600 and mediums still take 150 cap and neut 180. Compared to energy transfer arrays, where balance WAS achieved and T2 actually ARE better than best named, this situation is a joke. It shows that the devs actually looked at energy neuts and nosferatu, spent time and effort rebalancing them and still failed even though an alternative and successful measure for balance already exists with how they handled energy transfers.
I'll update the main post.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 01:51:00 -
[79]
Still broken.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 02:03:00 -
[80]
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 18:30:00 -
[81]
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 20:59:00 -
[82]
yup named stuff is ridicules now that t2 have been nerfed to oblivion
|
Zeph Solaris
NYIT Gangstaz SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 22:31:00 -
[83]
The only benefit I see with t2 gear is its cost. A tech 2 heavy launcher costs much less than the arbalest version. I see it as the time you spend training skills helps you pay less in the future while adding a couple of new benefits. Same thing with the F-90 sensor booster and its tech 2 counterpart. They have the same attributes (minus different fitting), but the F-90 costs much more. T2 items are also more common than the best named. Being able t.o use t2 items greatly benefits you when it's time to buy modules for your new ship.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.26 00:05:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Zeph Solaris The only benefit I see with t2 gear is its cost. A tech 2 heavy launcher costs much less than the arbalest version. I see it as the time you spend training skills helps you pay less in the future while adding a couple of new benefits. Same thing with the F-90 sensor booster and its tech 2 counterpart. They have the same attributes (minus different fitting), but the F-90 costs much more. T2 items are also more common than the best named. Being able t.o use t2 items greatly benefits you when it's time to buy modules for your new ship.
I already addressed the supply and cost arguments somewhere on page 1 I think. This isn't about concept, this is about a few modules which are broken, some of which CCP have officially recognised that are unbalanced and have yet to fix. T2 neuts being made better than best named was even in the patch notes but wasn't implemented.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.27 16:43:00 -
[85]
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 14:11:00 -
[86]
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 15:35:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Nyphur fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 01:37:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Nyphur fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Bane Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 04:05:00 -
[89]
Definitely need to do something about damps, at least. T2 damps have always used so much cap that they're unusable, and it inflated the price of Phased Muons for no good reason.
Damps are less popular now, yes, but the point still stands. |
abbagabba
Gallente Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 12:09:00 -
[90]
2 more modules where T2 are worse, don't think ive seen them on your list.
Cargo scanners : meta 4 has an activation time of 3s, so does the tech II but has higher CPU requirements.
Passive Targetters : Higher CPU requirements, uses slightly less energy but has double the activation time (!), which is basically the time before you can use it again. A lower activation time would make the tech II worth using.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |