EVE Search - --> Tempest Again <--

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

--> Tempest Again <--

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page

Author	Topic
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.27 19:54:00 - [361] Originally by: To mare ACs need a UNBONUSED dps between blaster and laser. ---- range: laser > autocannon > blaster damage blaster > autocannon > laser balanced ---- range: laser > autocannon > blaster damage blaster > laser > autocannon unbalanced ---- When comparing weapon systems (rather than ships) they should be compared them on with their racial bonus. This means blasters you should compare with 25% damage bonus, Projectiles w/25% rof bonus, and Lasers with 50% cap bonus. With that in mind the systems roughly compare currently as follows Shortrange Range: Pulse > Autocannon > Blaster Damage: Blaster > Autocannon > Pulse Tracking: Blaster > Autocannon > Pulse Longrange Range: Beam < Rail < Arty Damage Beam >= Rail > Arty Trackin: Beam > Rail > Arty If it's hard to belive actualy run the numbers yourself.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.06.27 19:57:00 - [362] Edited by: AstroPhobic on 27/06/2008 19:58:03 Edited by: AstroPhobic on 27/06/2008 19:57:46 Complete bull****. You're forgetting that minmatar has less turrets than other races. Artillery certainly doesn't have more range when fittings are taken into account, and the graph above proves that autos definitely don't have more damage than pulse.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:09:00 - [363] Edited by: Boz Well on 27/06/2008 20:15:54 Clav, I think you're again making an improper comparison to reach your results. Since when is the Apoc the only ship Amarr fly? I can only assume you're basing your conclusions on that, since both Geddon and Abby have rof/damage bonuses, yet you neglect to give Amarr any such bonus in your comparison. Are you referring to fleet ships? I doubt it, since then you start talking about blasters... So I guess my question is wtf are you talking about, lol. Since when is cap efficiency the only boost amarr get? And why is THAT the point of comparison?
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:17:00 - [364] Edited by: Jalif on 27/06/2008 20:16:58 Originally by: AstroPhobic Edited by: AstroPhobic on 27/06/2008 19:52:20 Double posting, because it's completely relevant. Put a Geddon up against a maelstrom. Give the geddon 7 MPL II/scorch, and add 3 optimal rigs. Give the maelstrom 8 800mm IIs with barrage and 3 ambit rigs. 4 Damage mods. Give them both Ogre IIs. Now... DPS graph. REMEMBER, the geddon can switch to AN MF and drastically increase DPS from 0-20ish KM, while the maelstrom can switch to RF EMP and do just about the same as barrage. Okay... ready to see it? Green for Geddon This is while being half the cost and having a much better, passive, EHP tank. Me Cries for training the wrong race! I am deeply hurt.... auw.... ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:17:00 - [365] Originally by: Trojanman190 But thats exactly what we want.... At short range we SHOULD get pwned by blasters. At long range we SHOULD get pwned by lasers. But we should be superior to blasters at mid range (im talking null here) and extremely competative with lasers at medium range. Assuming short range weapons this is alrady the case. In a slugfest, you stay as far away from blasters as possible while still hitting them, and vs lasers you go right in to point blank to make sure you outdamage them (and to exploit their weaker tracking). In the case of longrange weapons of course this flips around. Quote: It would also mean that we could still do damage, albeit extremely low damage, at insane distances, well beyond lasers... which might be a problem. Autocannons already do have a slight damage advangate over pulses in extreme falloff (Beyond Megapulse MF optimal + falloff, 800 EMP outdamage them) and it is not currently considerd a balance issue by CCP. Quote: Increasing optimal means that up to a certain distance we are garanteed some damage.. Falloff "garuntees" damage just as much as optimal does. The only differnece is that in optimal you can easily get one number for DPS which is easier for folks who do the most simplistc level of DPS comparision. When combat range and tracking aren't taken into account things are always simpler but you just cant ingnore them. If you want to compare weapons this way you'd need to give all weapons systems 0 falloff. Quote: Blasters will ALWAYS have the face melting dps in their optimal. Lasers will ALWAYS have better dps than ac inside laser optimal. Ac will be competative but still bottom rung at close range, highly effective (but not best) at mid range and at long range, due to lasers having a higher base dps, lasers will still be better (since they use cap). This can only be this way if falloff didn't exist Currently (using longrange t2 ammo) Neutron Blasters outdamage everything up 22km 800mm ACs outdamage MEgapulse until 21 km Megapulse outdamage AC beyond 21km and outdamage Blasters beyond 22km 800mm Ac outdamge Neutron Blaster beyond 24km (note that we are neglecting tracking for simplicity here, but it just puts the differneces in more focus and doens't change the result) So to summarize...even though AC are in falloff after just 6km they oudamage Megapulse from 0km to 21 km. Falloff doens't suck. It's just harder to understand than simplistic damage at optimal.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:20:00 - [366] Can I see your numbers? Mine thoroughly disagree.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:25:00 - [367] Quote: 800mm ACs outdamage MEgapulse until 21 km I think here you're using your assumption that Amarr ships only get a cap bonus and do not get a cap bonus. Sure, if you make that assumption, I suppose projectiles out damage lasers because you're giving them a 25% default bonus (lol). Give both ships the bonus and your numbers are wrong. I'll end this post here before my sarcastic troll side takes over, but suffice to say I think you're making faulty assumptions and your numbers mean little as a result.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:27:00 - [368] Originally by: Boz Well Clav, I think you're again making an improper comparison to reach your results. Since when is the Apoc the only ship Amarr fly? I can only assume you're basing your conclusions on that, since both Geddon and Abby have rof/damage bonuses, yet you neglect to give Amarr any such bonus in your comparison. Are you referring to fleet ships? I doubt it, since then you start talking about blasters... So I guess my question is wtf are you talking about, lol. Since when is cap efficiency the only boost amarr get? And why is THAT the point of comparison? That gets to the core of "wtf I am talking about". Ship bonuses and layouts are an important part of balance. For gunships, EVERY amarr laser boat gets 50% cap bonus, EVERY gallente hybrid boat gets 25% damage, EVERY Matari projectile boat gets 25% Rof. Other bonuses are unique ship flavor, but are not racial weapon related. You can't possibly compare just the weapon systems apples to apples in that case. Again if you want to discuss overall ship balance... theres lots of room for discussion there, but thats a different discussion than projtile vs hybrid vs laser balance
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:28:00 - [369] Edited by: Jalif on 27/06/2008 20:30:04 Originally by: Clavius XIV Originally by: Trojanman190 But thats exactly what we want.... At short range we SHOULD get pwned by blasters. At long range we SHOULD get pwned by lasers. But we should be superior to blasters at mid range (im talking null here) and extremely competative with lasers at medium range. Assuming short range weapons this is alrady the case. In a slugfest, you stay as far away from blasters as possible while still hitting them, and vs lasers you go right in to point blank to make sure you outdamage them (and to exploit their weaker tracking). In the case of longrange weapons of course this flips around. Quote: It would also mean that we could still do damage, albeit extremely low damage, at insane distances, well beyond lasers... which might be a problem. Autocannons already do have a slight damage advangate over pulses in extreme falloff (Beyond Megapulse MF optimal + falloff, 800 EMP outdamage them) and it is not currently considerd a balance issue by CCP. Quote: Increasing optimal means that up to a certain distance we are garanteed some damage.. Falloff "garuntees" damage just as much as optimal does. The only differnece is that in optimal you can easily get one number for DPS which is easier for folks who do the most simplistc level of DPS comparision. When combat range and tracking aren't taken into account things are always simpler but you just cant ingnore them. If you want to compare weapons this way you'd need to give all weapons systems 0 falloff. Quote: Blasters will ALWAYS have the face melting dps in their optimal. Lasers will ALWAYS have better dps than ac inside laser optimal. Ac will be competative but still bottom rung at close range, highly effective (but not best) at mid range and at long range, due to lasers having a higher base dps, lasers will still be better (since they use cap). This can only be this way if falloff didn't exist Currently (using longrange t2 ammo) Neutron Blasters outdamage everything up 22km 800mm ACs outdamage MEgapulse until 21 km Megapulse outdamage AC beyond 21km and outdamage Blasters beyond 22km 800mm Ac outdamge Neutron Blaster beyond 24km (note that we are neglecting tracking for simplicity here, but it just puts the differneces in more focus and doens't change the result) So to summarize...even though AC are in falloff after just 6km they oudamage Megapulse from 0km to 21 km. Falloff doens't suck. It's just harder to understand than simplistic damage at optimal. On your first point, that is using tactics, you can also switch it around for gallente & amarr, this has to do notting with balance issues On your second point, you can switch directly towards your long range crystals & you do more damage. EDIT: Btw, how can you say: and it is not currently considerd a balance issue by CCP - Do you work for CCP? If not, then you can't say that. Please leave that kind of comments out. On your third point, guess you follow the whole topic instead of reading the last posts On your forth point, that 800mm do more damage within 21km is bull**. Amarr can switch crystals in seconds & outdamage from that range. I geuss you should look more at the numbers my friend. Your bloody Armeggedon (Scorch) can do the same/more damage above 40km that a tempest (Barrage) would do in 5km. ******** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:32:00 - [370] Just a reminder (I think I've said this to you before), this thread is about battleships and large weapons. Let's just clear that up. SO, let's look at the large weapon using battleships. 2/3 Amarr battleships get a damage bonus. 2/3 Amarr battleships get a cap bonus. Huh. But we're doing a damage comparison here, so WHICH BONUS SHOULD WE PICK. Lolz. Do we pick the non-damage bonus for our comparison? Or do we pick the DAMAGE-related bonus for our comparison? Well, if we want the comparison to be worth a damn, lol, we pick the damage one. So, looks like you did bring out my sarcastic side, but please. You're making these long posts that have to be taking you some time to write, but put a few more minutes into generating your numbers before posting please.

Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.27 20:41:00 - [371] Originally by: Boz Well Just a reminder (I think I've said this to you before), this thread is about battleships and large weapons. Let's just clear that up. SO, let's look at the large weapon using battleships. 2/3 Amarr battleships get a damage bonus. 2/3 Amarr battleships get a cap bonus. Huh. But we're doing a damage comparison here, so WHICH BONUS SHOULD WE PICK. Lolz. Do we pick the non-damage bonus for our comparison? Or do we pick the DAMAGE-related bonus for our comparison? Well, if we want the comparison to be worth a damn, lol, we pick the damage one. So, looks like you did bring out my sarcastic side, but please. You're making these long posts that have to be taking you some time to write, but put a few more minutes into generating your numbers before posting please. Also not to forget that those cap bonusses are less "usefull" these days. WHy? PASSIVE TANKED ***ES WITH RIGS. Well, sorry about that, but we already spoke about this that cap isn't in issiu this days because of that. ******** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:26:00 - [372] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 27/06/2008 22:26:59 Originally by: Siddy I will own your mael with mega at close. My geddon will ***your mael at 45 km and close. My raven will do the same at max torp range, as prolly will rokh with null. GG You won't own mine unless you do something * with ECM drones or multiple neuts.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.27 22:51:00 - [373] Originally by: Boz Well But we're doing a damage comparison here, so WHICH BONUS SHOULD WE PICK. Lolz. Do we pick the non-damage bonus for our comparison? Or do we pick the DAMAGE-related bonus for our comparison? Well, if we want the comparison to be worth a damn, lol, we pick the damage one. If you want the comparison to be worth a damn you compare as close to apples to apples as you can. If Phoon damage is fine (which it is) and we want to claim that pest damage is poor, then boosting projectiles will break phoon balance. When comparing weapon systems (as opposed to ships) you should compare them with their racial bonuses. Laser racial bonus = 50% cap Projectile racial bonus = 25% rof Gallente hybrid racial bonus = 25% damage (and Caldari racial bonus = 50% range) Still if you insist on comparing racial + ship bonus (which isn't apples to apples) a Megapulse with scorch on geddon outdamages an 800 with Barrage on Pest beyond 17 km, and is outdamaged under that range. Again the main thing to take away from this is despite the fact that falloff starts at 6km it still allows the 800 to maintain a damage advantage until 17km over the megapulse.. so it would be erronious to just look at damage in optimal and discount damage in falloff as a negligable. Let's boost the pest without breaking a bunch of other ships in the process.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.06.27 23:37:00 - [374] Edited by: AstroPhobic on 27/06/2008 23:39:49 Increasing auto power won't "break" the phoon. It will only make it useful at a slightly longer range. Do you want me to post the tempest setup like a phoon again? It wasn't pretty. Edit: You don't seem to understand here. So (ignoring the fact that MP can easily switch to AN MF and outdamage the mael at ANY range... for whatever reason) autocannons are the best choice at what... 15-17km? Under this, they're raped by blasters, over this, they're raped by lasers. How do you see this as balanced? No cap? You're missing the fact that this thread is about large projectiles AND battleships, so both bonuses are completely relevant. You can compare the "racial" bonuses if you want, which only proves our battleships are broken. Which is semi-true (they're not that bad). It's really the weaponry that is underpowered, and this have been demonstrated time and time again.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.27 23:53:00 - [375] Making the comparison without looking at the ships (and in your example, giving Matar a 25% boost) makes for a useless comparison. In practice, Amarr don't have only a cap bonus. Not even all amarr ships have a cap bonus. And to be quite honest, I don't even really know what you're talking about with a racial bonus. Is that just the bonus most ships have? I'm guessing so, but that's really neither here nor there. What matters is the battleship comparisons, and just as many battleships have a damage bonus as have the cap bonus. If you ignore the damage bonus, you're giving Matar a 25% advantage in your comparison, a 25% advantage that in practice won't be seen, as typically both ships will have this 25% and it will equal out. I'm not saying we should just pick a single ship and balance an entire class of guns (here, large projectile) based on that one ship. However, I am saying you need to take ships into account generally, and not cherry pick bonuses like you're doing. Either compare the guns with no bonuses and assume they will generally equal out, or apply the likely bonuses the guns will have in practice. Don't cherry pick cap recharge for Amarr and damage for Matar and claim that's a realistic comparison.
Bellum Eternus Gallente D00M. The Requiem	Posted - 2008.06.28 02:46:00 - [376] Everyone keeps posting like AC boats are supposed to be equal to blaster ships (DPS wise) at any given range. They're not. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.06.28 02:48:00 - [377] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Everyone keeps posting like AC boats are supposed to be equal to blaster ships (DPS wise) at any given range. They're not. We don't. We've said several times that damage should be below both blasters and lasers. Read the thread?
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.06.28 02:52:00 - [378] Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: Bellum Eternus Everyone keeps posting like AC boats are supposed to be equal to blaster ships (DPS wise) at any given range. They're not. We don't. We've said several times that damage should be below both blasters and lasers. Read the thread? Obviously too hard.
Veryez	Posted - 2008.06.28 02:56:00 - [379] Originally by: Trojanman190 ....good ideas... What do you dudes think? I want a 15k t2 webber....It would be an improvement, but now put your new AC's on a abaddon with a huge armor tank and see if a Tempest can beat it (I haven't run the numbers yet) - if it can't then it won't work.
Veryez	Posted - 2008.06.28 03:16:00 - [380] Edited by: Veryez on 28/06/2008 03:23:19 Originally by: Clavius XIV When comparing weapon systems (rather than ships) they should be compared them on with their racial bonus. This means blasters you should compare with 25% damage bonus, Projectiles w/25% rof bonus, and Lasers with 50% cap bonus. That's a lie, the Geddon gets a ROF bonus and the Abaddon gets a damage bonus - the Apoc is the only ship that fits you statement - and it's not suppose to use pulse lasers.... Lastly while everyone can quote some range that blasters dps should be above, do you fight at that range? The incredibly short range of webbers really defines the range of small gang combat. Saying that blasters should out DPS everything inside 11k sounds great, until you realize that a huge majority of small gang combat takes place inside 10k....Try to keep a maga at 21k in a Tempest, let me know how you do.... Originally by: Bellum Eternus Everyone keeps posting like AC boats are supposed to be equal to blaster ships (DPS wise) at any given range. They're not. Had you actually read the thread you would have seen that everyone thinks Blaster boats should out DPS at close range, the questions come down to 1) What range should that be? and 2) How much difference is fair? I'm sure most Blaster pilots would say 1)25k and 2) 200% - but they both seem a bit excessive to me.

Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.06.28 03:51:00 - [381] Originally by: Clavius XIV EVERY amarr laser boat gets 50% cap bonus Abaddon. just fyi. __________________________________
Blind Jhon Amarr	Posted - 2008.06.28 08:18:00 - [382] Edited by: Blind Jhon on 28/06/2008 08:18:14 Macchiavelli (a medioeval italian thinker) sayd there are 2 level of truth, 2 lvl of reality. one he called effective truth, the reality like it is itself; the other is the storical reality, which is the world, the truth seen, from an objective point of view, as it should be. we all MUST to follow (we are oblyed to follow) the first one, but this do not mean we have to forget the storical reality of the things. From a pragmatical, and actuable poin of view,i second trojan's idea plus a general buff to short ranged proiectile ammo (EMP, P.Plasma, Fusion) but, (maybe i'm masokist, i allways want to be flamed )..... i'd like to underline some, obvious, simple matari facts. Minmatar in my very opinion, was created as a smuggler, small gang pvper, hit and run race. this mean warp in, outspeed-outturn everyone go to the target and despite: your cap is dry, your support drone are gone your prey want to escape..... you are able to melt his ship and run away i repete: WARP IN --> UBER VELOCITY (uber approach) --> UBER NERF-BATING THE NEMY and obvious, uber escape, if lucky, before the others are on you! this is why: we have bigger shield than armor we have great falloff (to start escaping while you finish smashing the prey's hull) we have great speed we have much missile hardpoint (missile allways hit) and most of all this is why WE DO NOT TANK except for sleimpnir and "maelstrom".... we are supposed to kill others before they kill us and if we can't... well run away and this is why amarr (our first enemy) hit farter, in order to pown us before we approach them (but so we shoul outdamage them in short range) the problem? we are the lowest damage dealing around!!!... there is something briken everyone noticed (even blind people) so gallente should soloblast (ok outdamage at low ranges, but do not forget ALL gallente take several dps from drone) amar are the real battleship race,they f-u-c you at middle range caldary the fleetranged king of hill (they snipe from the top) now i do not want go around messing in middlelow, long, falloff, here and there range.... is so illogic if i want to keep my actual falloff and be second (not too far just say 50dps from blaster, they have all the drone advantage anyways) from blaster at low range shooting? we do not tank, so the cap free gun are allready balanced! projectile gun must pwn at low range just a bit less than blaster this is just my, "storical", point of view....
Terracomm	Posted - 2008.06.28 08:18:00 - [383] Edited by: Terracomm on 28/06/2008 08:18:36 At this point I seriously find it difficult to see any change in the near future... the vast majority of EVE players are ignorant and oblivious to this game and its mechanics. As long as I continue to see players think 1400mm Artillery cannons are "Awsum DPS n fine"(Error implied), nothing will change. At least it is easy for me to cross-train something decent at this point, if nothing happens.
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.28 09:35:00 - [384] Originally by: Terracomm Edited by: Terracomm on 28/06/2008 08:18:36 At this point I seriously find it difficult to see any change in the near future... the vast majority of EVE players are ignorant and oblivious to this game and its mechanics. As long as I continue to see players think 1400mm Artillery cannons are "Awsum DPS n fine"(Error implied), nothing will change. At least it is easy for me to cross-train something decent at this point, if nothing happens. Well, it is totally not right if 20% of the eve pvp pilots who fly minmatar should suffer from the stupidity of other pilots who only think about their own race. I invested 20mil SP just only on minmatar (just calculated how ***** much time & money there is invested in this) & I am not going to train for another race because of lack of understanding by others. ******** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Terracomm	Posted - 2008.06.28 09:59:00 - [385] Edited by: Terracomm on 28/06/2008 09:59:57 Originally by: Jalif Originally by: Terracomm Edited by: Terracomm on 28/06/2008 08:18:36 At this point I seriously find it difficult to see any change in the near future... the vast majority of EVE players are ignorant and oblivious to this game and its mechanics. As long as I continue to see players think 1400mm Artillery cannons are "Awsum DPS n fine"(Error implied), nothing will change. At least it is easy for me to cross-train something decent at this point, if nothing happens. Well, it is totally not right if 20% of the eve pvp pilots who fly minmatar should suffer from the stupidity of other pilots who only think about their own race. I invested 20mil SP just only on minmatar (just calculated how ******* much time & money there is invested in this) & I am not going to train for another race because of lack of understanding by others. I know what you mean, I am in the same position you are... it is just ridiculous the ignorance demonstrated by the majority of players in regards to balance and change. I want to enjoy using Projectiles / Minmatar battleships again, my last sentence was just an ineffective quip.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.06.28 10:19:00 - [386] Ok guys, I have a solution. Bear with me because I will be talking about back story as much as game balance here. Also i will be adding what most people grudge about, real world artillery comparisons. So I apologize. Artillery as we know it in the real world is often a single shot system, or at the very least it was during WWII, Each shot was individually packed into the chamber by a team, adding the actual shot and the propellant then prepping the artillery to fire. These days anything using artillery is normally automated but thats few and far between, to the point that Australia is one of the last western nations with artillery still used in their navy, its considered a cost effective weapon but America and most other countries with advanced technology have completely moved to missiles. During the last invasion of Iraq, Australia although with a small fleet, was requested by America to bombard coastal installations as the price per shot was extremely low compared to what the American navy could do. Artillery is a very long range weapon, with the mass of a shot of such extreme weight that if propelled with enough force, it can travel distances previously unheard of before 'Iraq Super Gun' was developed by Gerard Bull and had a theoretical range of 1000Km with a non-rocket assisted 1000mm shot weighing in at 600Kg. That my friends is insane. Gerard Bull revolutionised artillery technology and was later assassinated by the Israeli intelligence because of his work with Iraq. Current Mobile Armored Artillery (Tanks) have a range of in excess of 70Km. Thats a little history lesson, now lets put this into practical use. If we assume we are thinking of a mix of old and new artillery technology, lets also assume that if the artillery was a new system there would be no delay or reloading required, automated systems don't take a break, they just keep on keeping on, the same rate of shots supplied as ever, the capacity is the capacity of the whole ammunition storage itself. All ammunition you have, not just 12 shots and your out. If we then also think of the low rate of fire of artillery, its hard to imagine that been required for an automated system, cooling wouldn't be an issue as much as the RoF would imply, so perhaps the low RoF is because the system is not automated. It required a crew to reload the guns. Now if its a crew, then an ammunition capacity is irrelevant as they are making the shots one at a time and loading them into the chamber as they finish preparing. That would explain the slow RoF that artillery has. Now if this is the case then I have my first suggestion. 1:> Remove Artilleries Capacity, having the ammunition been taken directly from cargo bay itself. There is no reload time. Next we have range + shot size & mass. With such a large and heavy object, accuracy is questionable but range is massive, currently however is that the accuracy is So So with a decent but not great optimal, and range is pathetic, honestly, Artillery should have the greatest range of all weapons. Considering all this I have my second suggestion. 2:> Decrease all Artillery optimal ranges slightly and increasing falloff by a large % in excess of 100%, 1400mm's should not have a range in optimal much past 70km with optimal boosting modules installed. There should be a 50/50 chance of hitting a target at 249Km. Once we have done this we will need adjust some modules to go inline with Artillery. Suggestion three. 2:> Add falloff and falloff+optimal scripts for targeting computers, add a falloff bonus to gyrostabilizers, modify range boosting T1 and Artillery T2 ammunition to increase falloff+optimal Thats my suggestions, I believe artillery could be a rather interesting and fleet effective platform with a massive difference to the other long range weapons, enough so as to warrant having them in an engagement.
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.28 10:43:00 - [387] Edited by: Jalif on 28/06/2008 10:44:28 Edited by: Jalif on 28/06/2008 10:44:09 Nian Banks, you made a wonderfull post. Nice background & nice intresting idea about the reloading time. However creating the falloff & fight further in falloff has been already suggested. Geuss by who: ME (3x times in 3 diffrent treads). Also with the tracking enhancers & tracking computers that improve falloff. Its nice to see that you have the excact same ideas as I have/had about artillery. I really hope that people will see your post & that they will agree with you. Atleast I agree with your idea. Only thing is, I hope we will get a better DPS & Alpha beside that. Because if we are at 250km & we only can hit 50% for the current damage then this range idea will be useless also :) but ones again, nice reply /signed. ********** BOOST MINMATAR!!! **********
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.06.28 10:59:00 - [388] Originally by: Jalif Edited by: Jalif on 28/06/2008 10:44:28 Edited by: Jalif on 28/06/2008 10:44:09 Nian Banks, you made a wonderfull post. Nice background & nice intresting idea about the reloading time. However creating the falloff & fight further in falloff has been already suggested. Geuss by who: ME (3x times in 3 diffrent treads). Also with the tracking enhancers & tracking computers that improve falloff. Its nice to see that you have the excact same ideas as I have/had about artillery. I really hope that people will see your post & that they will agree with you. Atleast I agree with your idea. Only thing is, I hope we will get a better DPS & Alpha beside that. Because if we are at 250km & we only can hit 50% for the current damage then this range idea will be useless also :) but ones again, nice reply /signed. Have faith, there have been several threads and suggestions over the years with falloff as the main aspect when it comes to artillery, I added one ages ago but it seems people are a little fickle and ignore most suggestions that go outside their little BOX. This is more of an extension of the falloff ideas, with the current game mechanics and developments of late. Anyway gladd theres atleast someone else interested in these sort of changes.
Jalif Deviance Inc Nocturnal Legion	Posted - 2008.06.28 11:46:00 - [389] Edited by: Jalif on 28/06/2008 11:50:36 Originally by: Nian Banks Originally by: Jalif Edited by: Jalif on 28/06/2008 10:44:28 Edited by: Jalif on 28/06/2008 10:44:09 Nian Banks, you made a wonderfull post. Nice background & nice intresting idea about the reloading time. However creating the falloff & fight further in falloff has been already suggested. Geuss by who: ME (3x times in 3 diffrent treads). Also with the tracking enhancers & tracking computers that improve falloff. Its nice to see that you have the excact same ideas as I have/had about artillery. I really hope that people will see your post & that they will agree with you. Atleast I agree with your idea. Only thing is, I hope we will get a better DPS & Alpha beside that. Because if we are at 250km & we only can hit 50% for the current damage then this range idea will be useless also :) but ones again, nice reply /signed. Have faith, there have been several threads and suggestions over the years with falloff as the main aspect when it comes to artillery, I added one ages ago but it seems people are a little fickle and ignore most suggestions that go outside their little BOX. This is more of an extension of the falloff ideas, with the current game mechanics and developments of late. Anyway gladd theres atleast someone else interested in these sort of changes. It will artillery so diffrent that is will be hard to see if it is balanced just with numbers. Always toughed that if you make weapon systems so diffrent that you won't be able to compare them. Only testing would make them balanced & whining becomes less in the world of eve. Its something that CCP should think about. Make stuff so diffrent that you won't be able to compare it to something else. This is why minmatar was never whined about. But now that everything is getting more hemogonized you will see that minmatar is the subpar compared to others. EDIT: Other thing you can see that minmatar got "nerfed" is because of the nano ships of the other races. Other races have something to nano now which was before only a luxury for the minmatar. To be honest it should stay like that. If we dedicate range in anyway then I don't mind then we don't get a projectile buff. But because of the nano-era this is been taken away from us. Now that I remember. We only have now 1 true nano ship & that is the Vegabond. Amarr which should be one of the slowest or the slowest around have 2: Curse & the Zeolot. Damn, ccp, fix this for ones.
To mare	Posted - 2008.06.28 12:01:00 - [390] about arty i already know i wont get what i want (see alpha). but now im fixed about autocannon i dont get the point why you all already gave up on the fact they must sux in dps.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.