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
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.07.04 23:14:00 - [541] I'm serious, I'll fight your laser maelstrom.
Siddy Minmatar Gay Nationalist Association of Amamake	Posted - 2008.07.05 06:53:00 - [542] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter I'm serious, I'll fight your laser maelstrom. Are you challenging my e-peen, mr whos-corp-name-is-spelled-all-in-capitalized-letters?
Blind Jhon Amarr Alenia psy departement	Posted - 2008.07.05 09:22:00 - [543] Originally by: EglantinFinfleur Chainlinking ammo and no reload time when changing ammo type please mister computer it would be anice effect but.... c'mon do you think in about 2 minutes of shooting 10 second reload an AC would change my dps? it will become a easy way CCP can say "fixed" and we would be screwed. minmatar battleship need more dps from projectile gun, we all agree. now stop lazering your maelstrom, and put out some ideas how to fix tempest's tank .... maybe a 7th turret would increase so much dps we do not need to tank..... or a 7th low would add versatility your 650mmII autocannon perfectly turn of wreking your untanked minmatar ship
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.07.05 13:40:00 - [544] Originally by: Blind Jhon Originally by: EglantinFinfleur Chainlinking ammo and no reload time when changing ammo type please mister computer it would be anice effect but.... c'mon do you think in about 2 minutes of shooting 10 second reload an AC would change my dps? it will become a easy way CCP can say "fixed" and we would be screwed. minmatar battleship need more dps from projectile gun, we all agree. now stop lazering your maelstrom, and put out some ideas how to fix tempest's tank .... maybe a 7th turret would increase so much dps we do not need to tank..... or a 7th low would add versatility Lets see, if Autocannons and Artillery had no reload time. Chain linking all ammunition but still keep the 10 second timer for changing ammo types, well it would definitely give us a near 10% DPS increase, it would also solver all issues with regards to massive fleet battles where your firing at POS's and the like. Its a good thing... Is 10% enough for minmatar weapons to be truly viable? Well to be quite honest, for Autocannons YES it is. For Artillery? Nope, needs a bit extra, It needs a MASSIVE and I mean like 100% MASSIVE increase to minmatar Falloff for Artillery. Once thats done, all T1 and T2 Artillery Minmatar ammunition needs to have falloff bonuses added to them. Thats a good enough fix IMHO
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.05 14:16:00 - [545] I really don't think falloff is the answer for either weapon. For autocannons: You still do less DPS than lasers at every range. You're still outdamaged by blasters till about 20km, depending on the boost. 24km is current IIRC. A buff in damage (with a bit of falloff) balances them with lasers, but sparks whines with autos stepping on blasterboats' toes. Regardless of their higher EHP, they will whine till the cows come home. IMO, the only way to truly balance them without chucking a little 5% boost is: give them an optimal. Autos should dominate between 15 and 30km. Lasers beyond that, blasters under that. Of course lasers should be damn-well near or maybe even slightly higher than auto DPS in these ranges (read: 1-2%), but it should be very competitive. Again a reminder that autos have better tracking, but amarr has EHP. For Artillery: What does falloff change? Fleets want you to operate at a magic number, which usually resides between 150-160km. You can just barely get there with 1400s, tremor, and a bunch of optimal mods. Increasing falloff to even something rediculous, lets say 200km, has nothing to do with my damage at 150km. Sure it allows me to shoot far at a slightly reduced damage, but how often do you need to? The only reason you'd need to shoot that far is because your optimal sucks. It's just setting artillery up to suck. Now, I realize falloff is a "minmatar" thing and we should have lots of it, and that's fine. I realize that. However, we shouldn't have to rely completely on falloff, it should compliment a decent optimal. Astro
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.07.05 14:55:00 - [546] Hence why you remove the need to reload. A Maelstrom with BS5 and 3x Gyrostabilizer II's using a 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II with Tremor L gives you 10 charges. With those skills you have a a RoF of 9.75435 seconds and will reload after 97.5435 seconds. With a 10 second reload time you will have a period of 107.5435 seconds per clip. If you subtract that 10 second reload, you will gain a 9.07% DPS boost. I believe a 9% increase to the dps of 1400mm's with an increased Falloff is all we need. Thats a big boost, wether you agree or not. NB: This is my old brain working on it, if its inaccurate then my apologies, but I believe its correct.
DoctorBautz	Posted - 2008.07.05 18:00:00 - [547] you got 5 mids on the tempest and the cpu to use them. go figure.....
Siddy Minmatar Gay Nationalist Association of Amamake	Posted - 2008.07.05 18:08:00 - [548] Originally by: DoctorBautz you got 5 mids on the tempest and the cpu to use them. go figure..... HAHA IM USING INTERNETS! now give us ECM bonuses pl0x
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.05 18:27:00 - [549] Originally by: Nian Banks Hence why you remove the need to reload. A Maelstrom with BS5 and 3x Gyrostabilizer II's using a 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II with Tremor L gives you 10 charges. With those skills you have a a RoF of 9.75435 seconds and will reload after 97.5435 seconds. With a 10 second reload time you will have a period of 107.5435 seconds per clip. If you subtract that 10 second reload, you will gain a 9.07% DPS boost. I believe a 9% increase to the dps of 1400mm's with an increased Falloff is all we need. Thats a big boost, wether you agree or not. NB: This is my old brain working on it, if its inaccurate then my apologies, but I believe its correct. I kind of like the chaining ammo option. I'm still not sure if falloff on artillery is the best choice. It seems very situational to me that you would be fighting in falloff with the long range weapon systems, and fighting in optimal would still be preferable. But in optimal ranges, we'd still be outperformed by the other weapons. However, the no-reload benefit of chaining would help a lot in that department. I'd personally prefer chaining and something else, but either way, I think it's a good idea. Originally by: DoctorBautz you got 5 mids on the tempest and the cpu to use them. go figure..... Do you have a point?
Siddy Minmatar Gay Nationalist Association of Amamake	Posted - 2008.07.05 18:43:00 - [550] Edited by: Siddy on 05/07/2008 18:43:00 see, i get all the best ideas for fixing prjectiles, like chainlinkking. CCP shuld hire me and stuf

AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.05 18:59:00 - [551] Edited by: AstroPhobic on 05/07/2008 19:00:01 Chain linking is an excellent idea for artillery (read - good start). For autocannons... the boost may be the same, "numbers" wise, but by the time you reload, the fight's probably already over. Yes it would increase DPS in extended encounters, but more times than not you're going to have some "down time" to reload. I'm just afraid that we'll be thrown a 5% boost for autos and artillery and CCP will consider it fixed.
Halock	Posted - 2008.07.05 20:20:00 - [552] I gota get in on this epic thread........ HHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!
Noelle Fay State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.07.05 20:22:00 - [553] I suggest an exchange. We buff your BS, but nerf your nano**gotry. Deal? -- -- -- -- -- -- -- The secret to success, whether it's women or money, is knowing when to quit. I oughta know: I'm divorced and broke.*
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.05 20:33:00 - [554] Originally by: Noelle Fay I suggest an exchange. We buff your BS, but nerf your nano***gotry. Deal? Don't even bring nanos into this. Also, don't pretend that minmatar is the "nano-race". May I point you towards the zealot, ishtar, cerberus?
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.05 21:11:00 - [555] Originally by: Noelle Fay I suggest an exchange. We buff your BS, but nerf your nano***gotry. Deal? Right, because no other race has reasonable to excellent cruisers/hacs. ::coughsacrilegecough:: ::coughzealotcough:: ::cougheaglecough:: ::coughishtarcough:: Damn, forgive the allergies. Must be all the bullshit you brought into this thread with you. In all seriousness, the "Matari BS's suck because their cruisers are decent" argument has been destroyed 7 ways to Sunday. Next? -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.05 21:52:00 - [556] Originally by: Noelle Fay I suggest an exchange. We buff your BS, but nerf your nano***gotry. Deal? i have a better one: meke minmatar BS able to nano like old nanophoon. no need of fix to weapons
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.05 21:57:00 - [557] Originally by: To mare i have a better one: meke minmatar BS able to nano like old nanophoon. no need of fix to weapons */SIGNED* -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.07.05 22:30:00 - [558] Originally by: Siddy Edited by: Siddy on 05/07/2008 18:43:00 see, i get all the best ideas for fixing prjectiles, like chainlinkking. CCP shuld hire me and stuf Yes its a cute name for what I also suggested previously in this thread. With clip size been such a massive negative to minmatar projectile weapons, removing the clip all together should be a great boost. Multiple threads have suggested increasing the clip size, but with it gone all together, mmm I can feel all fuzzy inside. Let me remind you on the falloff issue, if we increased the falloff to artillery and then added falloff bonuses to all minmatar t1 and t2 artillery ammunition, this would allow those without T2 projectile skills to still use best named auto cannons and get a modest increase through their ammunition to fight in falloff. It would also allow for minmatar pilots to fight in extreme ranges if need be. This is better than finding it nearly impossible or to the point of gimping everything else to worthlessness.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.05 22:51:00 - [559] Edited by: AstroPhobic on 05/07/2008 22:51:58 I have to massively disagree. Minmatar is supposed to be (and still is) THE most skill intensive race. Making things easier on noobies doesn't fix the problem at hand. While chainlinking is a good start, autos need an optimal, and artillery STILL needs something. Period. I'm kind of stuck on my idea of autocannons with an optimal, and I haven't seen a better one yet, IMO. Artillery I'm not sure on.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.05 22:53:00 - [560] Originally by: AstroPhobic While chainlinking is a good start, autos need an optimal, and artillery STILL needs something. Period. I'm kind of stuck on my idea of autocannons with an optimal, and I haven't seen a better one yet, IMO. Artillery I'm not sure on. The more I think about it, the more I want a 4x increase on alpha strike. I mean, do you have any idea how cool it would be to have a pair of Tempests sitting on a gate alphastriking mission ships?! -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.

AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.05 22:56:00 - [561] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: AstroPhobic While chainlinking is a good start, autos need an optimal, and artillery STILL needs something. Period. I'm kind of stuck on my idea of autocannons with an optimal, and I haven't seen a better one yet, IMO. Artillery I'm not sure on. The more I think about it, the more I want a 4x increase on alpha strike. I mean, do you have any idea how cool it would be to have a pair of Tempests sitting on a gate alphastriking mission ships?! -Liang Yes, and while this would be an excellent fix for artillery... CCP doesn't want it. When they buffed HP, didn't they specifically mention increasing the length of battles and trying to "get rid of" high alpha ships? I'd be all for it (and personally I don't see the issue with big alpha), however I don't see this blowing over too well with the big men holding the strings.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.05 22:58:00 - [562] Originally by: AstroPhobic Yes, and while this would be an excellent fix for artillery... CCP doesn't want it. When they buffed HP, didn't they specifically mention increasing the length of battles and trying to "get rid of" high alpha ships? I'd be all for it (and personally I don't see the issue with big alpha), however I don't see this blowing over too well with the big men holding the strings. Astro, you're not allowed to use my own line of reasoning against me. Stop it! :P -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.05 23:04:00 - [563] Originally by: Liang Nuren Astro, you're not allowed to use my own line of reasoning against me. Stop it! :P -Liang It would be helpful to get some sort of word from CCP on alpha. I didn't think it was a big issue before, and it's certainly not anymore. However I don't see how they can think that artillery is good for anything, given it's current state. It does need something (it's alpha back, pleeeease?), but if at least CCP could come here and give us a stern "no" or a backhand to the face, we can start looking for alternatives.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.05 23:09:00 - [564] Originally by: AstroPhobic It would be helpful to get some sort of word from CCP on alpha. I didn't think it was a big issue before, and it's certainly not anymore. However I don't see how they can think that artillery is good for anything, given it's current state. It does need something (it's alpha back, pleeeease?), but if at least CCP could come here and give us a stern "no" or a backhand to the face, we can start looking for alternatives. Man, you must really be into S&M!! ::looks at the forum title:: That can't be a mistake... -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.05 23:16:00 - [565] Originally by: Liang Nuren Man, you must really be into S&M!! ::looks at the forum title:: That can't be a mistake... -Liang If only they paid as much attention to S+M as they did to the "CCP STOLE MONEY FROM ME" threads, we might actually get somewhere. But you know, we have to look after the isk buyers before the customers that actually give a crap. Cheers CCP.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.05 23:17:00 - [566] Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: Liang Nuren Astro, you're not allowed to use my own line of reasoning against me. Stop it! :P -Liang It would be helpful to get some sort of word from CCP on alpha. I didn't think it was a big issue before, and it's certainly not anymore. However I don't see how they can think that artillery is good for anything, given it's current state. It does need something (it's alpha back, pleeeease?), but if at least CCP could come here and give us a stern "no" or a backhand to the face, we can start looking for alternatives. I'd personally just like to see a CCP acknowledgement that projectiles need some loving, and I agree it'd be nice if they'd go above and beyond and give us their thoughts on alpha.
Veryez	Posted - 2008.07.06 06:20:00 - [567] Edited by: Veryez on 06/07/2008 06:22:27 Originally by: AstroPhobic Yes, and while this would be an excellent fix for artillery... CCP doesn't want it. When they buffed HP, didn't they specifically mention increasing the length of battles and trying to "get rid of" high alpha ships? I'd be all for it (and personally I don't see the issue with big alpha), however I don't see this blowing over too well with the big men holding the strings. Actually the exact quote was: "Ships A number of changes have been made to ships in an effort to prolong PvP combat. These changes include: The capacitor capacity for all ships has been increased by 25%. The capacitor recharge time for all ships has been increased by 25%. The shield recharge time of all ships has been increased by 25%. Ship Hit Points (Shield, Armor and Structure) have also been increased by the following percentages: Tech 1 battleships, cruisers and frigates receive a 25% increase. Tech 2 cruisers and frigates receive a 12.5% increase. Tech 1 Destroyers receive a 66.67% increase. Tech 2 Destroyers receive a 33.33% increase. Tech 1 Battlecruisers receive a 56.25% increase. Tech 2 Battlecruisers receive a 28.125% increase. Capital Ships (not freighters) receive a 400% increase in hit points. Modules A number of changes have been made to modules in an effort to prolong PvP combat. These changes include: The capacity of Capacitor batteries have been increased by 25%. The charge capacity of cap boosters have been decreased by 20%. The volume of cap boosters have been decreased by 20%. Plate and Shield extenders have been increased by 25%" And they also added rigs and removed the stacking nerf on plates and extenders ..... Patch Notes build 27912. I thought there was a response in one of the old feedback threads where we complained about the loss of alpha, and the response was a 10% increase in DPS and making ammo smaller - but I can't find it now.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.06 14:25:00 - [568] I remember that thread as well - but I wasn't specifically talking about the patch notes. I think it was a dev blog that talked about prolonging combat. I don't recall. I'll take a quick look for it. In any case... bring back our alpha!!!
Blind Jhon Amarr Alenia psy departement	Posted - 2008.07.06 18:56:00 - [569] Edited by: Blind Jhon on 06/07/2008 18:56:44 Originally by: AstroPhobic bring back our alpha!!! ::quote:: decrease 10% our rof (both larges: ac and arty) we are hit and run men give tempest am extra damned 7th low, so it gain versatility .... ::/quote:: ninja FIXED your 650mmII autocannon perfectly turn of wreking your untanked minmatar ship
Bernard Bolzano	Posted - 2008.07.06 19:41:00 - [570] tracking disruptor in the 5th mid; cripple optimal vs amarr at medium range, criple trascking vs amarr in close combat, cripple falloff vs gallente at medium and tracking at close range.... thinking about boosting tempest dps to geddon level without the cap penalty and with the (in case of geddon) 2 extra mids is just stupid...

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.