EVE Search - Projectiles

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Projectiles

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.16 11:19:00 - [91] not only artillery and not only L size.
Saint SaintaN	Posted - 2009.05.16 15:24:00 - [92] Roll ROF into the guns themselves and remove the bonus from the minny ships so they can have something more handy. Fix T2 ammo. Give the higher tier guns more fall off increasing as the tier increases. Increase alpha hugely and DPS by a smaller amount. (increase tracking slightly...? but that may be a bit too far we don't want to make them op now ^^) Of course that is just my opinion. ^^
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.16 17:18:00 - [93] Edited by: Naomi Knight on 16/05/2009 17:27:14 Or maybe just rename amarr ships+weapons to minmatar, frankly this is what most matar want anyway. Just look at what they ask: -as much optimal as apoc has -as much dps as beams cant you think out a change to projectiles which wont make it overpowered? just tell me who would use rails if these changes were implemented, or who would use gallente or caldari ships , possibly noone...
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.16 17:41:00 - [94] Originally by: Naomi Knight Edited by: Naomi Knight on 16/05/2009 17:27:14 Or maybe just rename amarr ships+weapons to minmatar, frankly this is what most matar want anyway. Just look at what they ask: -as much optimal as apoc has -as much dps as beams cant you think out a change to projectiles which wont make it overpowered? just tell me who would use rails if these changes were implemented, or who would use gallente or caldari ships , possibly noone... you are so wrong most matar people want arty to alphastrike things as you can see by most of the suggestions about arty regard a volley dmg boost not optimal. also AC should do more or at least comparable DPS of beams since they have crap range(see falloff). oh and yes giving 25%rof bonus to AC is a lol idea.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.16 17:57:00 - [95] Originally by: To mare Originally by: Naomi Knight Edited by: Naomi Knight on 16/05/2009 17:27:14 Or maybe just rename amarr ships+weapons to minmatar, frankly this is what most matar want anyway. Just look at what they ask: -as much optimal as apoc has -as much dps as beams cant you think out a change to projectiles which wont make it overpowered? just tell me who would use rails if these changes were implemented, or who would use gallente or caldari ships , possibly noone... you are so wrong most matar people want arty to alphastrike things as you can see by most of the suggestions about arty regard a volley dmg boost not optimal. also AC should do more or at least comparable DPS of beams since they have crap range(see falloff). oh and yes giving 25%rof bonus to AC is a lol idea. I was talking about the 25% rof to weapon mainly, but there were other stupid ideas. Alpha strike ok , dps absolutly no , there are a lots of other advantaged of projectiles and matar ships , you should concider those before asking for any buff.
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.16 18:40:00 - [96] Edited by: To mare on 16/05/2009 18:42:16 Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: To mare Originally by: Naomi Knight Edited by: Naomi Knight on 16/05/2009 17:27:14 Or maybe just rename amarr ships+weapons to minmatar, frankly this is what most matar want anyway. Just look at what they ask: -as much optimal as apoc has -as much dps as beams cant you think out a change to projectiles which wont make it overpowered? just tell me who would use rails if these changes were implemented, or who would use gallente or caldari ships , possibly noone... you are so wrong most matar people want arty to alphastrike things as you can see by most of the suggestions about arty regard a volley dmg boost not optimal. also AC should do more or at least comparable DPS of beams since they have crap range(see falloff). oh and yes giving 25%rof bonus to AC is a lol idea. I was talking about the 25% rof to weapon mainly, but there were other stupid ideas. Alpha strike ok , dps absolutly no , there are a lots of other advantaged of projectiles and matar ships , you should concider those before asking for any buff. speaking of all those LOTS of advantage can you tell me some? cap usage and selectable damage(arguable advantage) arent alot to justify all the rest. oh if you gonna say tracking blaster track as well as AC and they still outdamage AC out to 24km, also as i said before yes laser have worst tracking but due to more base dmg they deal almost the same dps of AC that have more tracking, not to mention laser can switch charge almost istantly for short and long range while blaster and ACs need to waste 10 seconds worth of dps. AC at optimal 6km with barrage should have a dps advantage over laser at 45km with scorch.
Xorth Adimus Caldari The Perfect Storm Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2009.05.16 18:49:00 - [97] I agree with many points made here: Please however compare how great small minmitar ships perform and compare across the races to how the well battleships perform. T2 large autocannons do similar/less damage at the same range to medium T2 Autocannons in most situations. T2 large autocannons give too little range advantage damage and tracking to be useful. Using no cap and choosing damage type is fine but not enough of an advantage. Really currently for A/cs you have two options for PVP barriage or faction EMP everything else is pretty much worthless in damage. All artillary misses far too much for its low ROF and tiny clip size and its fitting requirements are absurd in comparison to the other races. For large artillary having 2 other ships using tracking links and one to tackle a target at extreame range just so that your large artillary can achieve comparible damage it is pretty much a waste of time if you could just train and fly a Apoc/mega/rokh to get the same effect at longer range! Some proposed options: 1. Nerf all other guns (ccp preferred easy option ) or; 2. Introduce a mixed bonus damage module for the lows (projectile+missile hybrid+missile laser+missile) so that a wider range of ships are used and hence it makes new interesting setups possible. or; 3. Optimal is the king at the moment.. Fix falloff (1x falloff = 7/8ths damage, 2x falloff = 4/8ths damage, 3 x falloff 2/8ths damage). Fixing falloff will fix both blasters and projectiles and making them a little bit more flexible. or; 4. Increase projectile clip size, this should be a strength for minmitar (think chain fed ammo). or; 5. Make all ammo types also affect falloff not just optimal. And please: 6. Increase Alpha 20% + tracking 5% and reduce ROF 10% for all artillary. It's called hit and run not, miss/graze and run! None of these various ideas is new and these kind of ideas have been reposted time and time again. I want to see more ships/setups being used in pvp not the flavour of the most recent nerf.
WillageGirl Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2009.05.16 19:35:00 - [98] If the biggest problem in balancing projectile weapons is other ships using then (as it seems to be for some people), then why cant CCP just slap static fitting bonus for intended systems on each ship and (for example) double all weapon system fitting requirements. With this in place other races dont get free rides just because projectiles need balancing. It could be as simple as this: "-50% to projectile weapon powergrid consumption." "-50% to launcher powergrid consumption." (on a minmatar ship) Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004
Cheekie Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.16 21:32:00 - [99] Quote: If the biggest problem in balancing projectile weapons is other ships using then (as it seems to be for some people), then why cant CCP just slap static fitting bonus for intended systems on each ship and (for example) double all weapon system fitting requirements. With this in place other races dont get free rides just because projectiles need balancing. It could be as simple as this: "-50% to projectile weapon powergrid consumption." "-50% to launcher powergrid consumption." (on a minmatar ship) I agree with you 100%, However this was said about 3 years ago and there was an argument that a very small portion of eve had. That is that eve allows for you to fit what ever you want on any ship. It can be proven 90 ways to breakfast that this is in fact not true. It is also the reason that everything is headed for a parallel feel. If you have a constant race to be able to fit what ever you want to what ever you want you will have one outcome. That is a constant whine to have everything become equal to the other, thus forcing us all to knuckle under and become like the Smiths. What you have purposed is to make everything unique and allow the player to chose between this unique choice by training the appropriate skills. I applaud this idea and love it but I am one of thousands so lets see what others have to say. I realize this is way off topic but yet it is not at the same time and I am so very curious as to what others think about it.
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.17 00:17:00 - [100] Originally by: WillageGirl If the biggest problem in balancing projectile weapons is other ships using then (as it seems to be for some people), then why cant CCP just slap static fitting bonus for intended systems on each ship and (for example) double all weapon system fitting requirements. With this in place other races dont get free rides just because projectiles need balancing. It could be as simple as this: "-50% to projectile weapon powergrid consumption." "-50% to launcher powergrid consumption." (on a minmatar ship) this isnt a big problem rally, just change minmatar ship bonus to projectile to 7,5% (naglfar anyone) unbonused weapon still sux but on the ship it become kind of decent and this goes for AC. for what regard arty, boost their dmg mod and REDUCE their dps so on a ship with 7,5% bonus they still do the same dps they do now with a 5% bonus but with double the volley damage. AC setups will do a decent damage (still less than blasterboat even with a 7.5%) arty setups will have a meaningful volley damage again, while unbonused AC stay the same failcrap as they are now and arty become even worse than now on unbonused ships
Tom Hanks Raype Inc.	Posted - 2009.05.17 07:34:00 - [101] This is what you get for flying a race that has ships which are basically space trash cans, taped to solar kites, and with bad tape. LOL Caldari Racial Purity
kyrv	Posted - 2009.05.17 09:40:00 - [102] The fact that a typhoon has 4 launcher slots a tempest 4 launhcer slots just about everything else has upto three spells out to me that a) Minmatar dont trust into their weapons b) Although not unique have problems putting there skills to either armor or shield tanking there ships b) There still looking for identity unlike the other races, like very much the story line to this affect c) Dishings of explosive damage lashings of of damage types, not as predictable when there forced from optimals. Rather obvious I would go on but this forum thingy is borked wont let me see what in typeing down the page :D. Very fun to play!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: 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.