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)
Cheekie Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.06 03:45:00 - [1] I did some looking for this topic but have not seen an actual response from dev on what is to become of this. Are they looking into these rubber bands that shoot paper wads? My wife throws rocks for more damage than these and they usually land 2 feet in front of her. CCP you can not see me but if you could you would feel ashamed by my stink eye I am giving you. CCP are you looking into these?
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.06 06:57:00 - [2] Projectile weapons are fine , why should ccp look into these?
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.05.06 07:13:00 - [3] Originally by: Naomi Knight Projectile weapons are fine , why should ccp look into these? Rather a lot of people disagree Secretly MirrorGod. Apparently Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.06 07:21:00 - [4] Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Naomi Knight Projectile weapons are fine , why should ccp look into these? Rather a lot of people disagree And they are all wrong. If something needs to be changed are the op lasers. Whats wrong with projectile weapons anyway?
Jalif Black Sinisters	Posted - 2009.05.06 07:30:00 - [5] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Naomi Knight Projectile weapons are fine , why should ccp look into these? Rather a lot of people disagree And they are all wrong. If something needs to be changed are the op lasers. Whats wrong with projectile weapons anyway? Amarr fanboy detected.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.06 07:34:00 - [6] Originally by: Jalif Amarr fanboy detected. Lol you couldnt be farther on from the truth :P
Lewyrus Jugis Modo Utopia Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.05.06 08:18:00 - [7] For starters: low base damage and fighting in falloff reduces DPS (at opti+falloff you do 37,5% of paper DPS [tracking and sig not included]), falloff don't change with higher tiers (IMO it should change with all guns), arty has abysmal optimal and ammo cap, hiest tier AKs virtually identical with mid tiers...
Shadow Devourer	Posted - 2009.05.06 08:25:00 - [8] Arty is majorly borked. But ACs? I'm not so sure.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.06 08:59:00 - [9] Originally by: Lewyrus For starters: low base damage and fighting in falloff reduces DPS (at opti+falloff you do 37,5% of paper DPS [tracking and sig not included]), falloff don't change with higher tiers (IMO it should change with all guns), arty has abysmal optimal and ammo cap, hiest tier AKs virtually identical with mid tiers... For starters ac still do more dmg at optimal+falloff than blasters do. Nobody forces you to fight at optimal+falloff --> go closer for better dmg. You start from the wrong angle, it is the lower tier guns that doesnt change falloff they should have less falloff. Arties have the same optimal as beas or around that but better falloff. Yeah they have a small clip size thats all what should be changed. 1400mm arty is in the same tier as the 425mm rail or mega beam laser. And look at projectiles pros: no cap use , ac are so easy to fit , can change dmg type to some extend , huge alpha which is much better than dps in most fleet ops and add the matar ships advantages: better speed and agility , lower signiture , much more cap stable with buffer tank , faster lock time , easy to fit If you would be right then there would be more ferox/brutix than hurricanes in pvp. Muninns and hurricanes are awesome with arty fits. Or vaga+ hurricane with ac fits. Nothing is wrong with med projectiles. Large projectiles: tempests are very good in snipe fleets , little module lag and the alpha matters much more than dps. Large ac-s same with large blasters , where do you want to use them anyway?
MalarEnares Decemviri	Posted - 2009.05.06 09:06:00 - [10] Quote: tempests are very good in snipe fleets Haha.
ollobrains Caldari State Inc. People for Organised Peace	Posted - 2009.05.06 09:09:00 - [11] projectiles are fine just orbit in close or use artys
CaperPuts Minmatar Life. Universe. Everything.	Posted - 2009.05.06 09:22:00 - [12] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Lewyrus For starters: low base damage and fighting in falloff reduces DPS (at opti+falloff you do 37,5% of paper DPS [tracking and sig not included]), falloff don't change with higher tiers (IMO it should change with all guns), arty has abysmal optimal and ammo cap, hiest tier AKs virtually identical with mid tiers... For starters ac still do more dmg at optimal+falloff than blasters do. Nobody forces you to fight at optimal+falloff --> go closer for better dmg. You start from the wrong angle, it is the lower tier guns that doesnt change falloff they should have less falloff. Arties have the same optimal as beas or around that but better falloff. Yeah they have a small clip size thats all what should be changed. 1400mm arty is in the same tier as the 425mm rail or mega beam laser. And look at projectiles pros: no cap use , ac are so easy to fit , can change dmg type to some extend , huge alpha which is much better than dps in most fleet ops and add the matar ships advantages: better speed and agility , lower signiture , much more cap stable with buffer tank , faster lock time , easy to fit If you would be right then there would be more ferox/brutix than hurricanes in pvp. Muninns and hurricanes are awesome with arty fits. Or vaga+ hurricane with ac fits. Nothing is wrong with med projectiles. Large projectiles: tempests are very good in snipe fleets , little module lag and the alpha matters much more than dps. Large ac-s same with large blasters , where do you want to use them anyway? First, I'd like to say I'm fine with AC's, but not fine with Artillery. 1. Blasters do more DPS at optimal + Falloff. I don't know what you're talking about. 2. You're absolutely right that projectiles don't use any cap, but Minmatar ships have a lower base cap/recharge so there really is no advantage here. Yeah I suppose if you're drained completely dry you could still keep shooting... but you'll probably be dead anyways. Here's my problem with artillery: There's nothing special about it. It's supposed to be the "Alpha king" yet Tachyons have comparable alpha, but with better range and MUCH better DPS. Artillery gets a lot more Falloff than the other guns, but even fighting a little in falloff hurts alpha quite substantially. It has by far, the worst tracking out of any long range weapon. Worst optimal and effective range (Ties with Mega Beams technically, but I generally fit Tachyons over Beams 90% of the time) Worst DPS by quite a bit. Now let's go back to one of your points: Fleet fights (I do not participate in fleet warfare much anymore) No cap use on artillery? Why does this matter? You generally fit the biggest buffer possible in hopes to survive at least two volleys from the enemy fleet. You are not going to be using much, if any, cap during fleet fights. Now with range, when you have the lowest base optimal and you put a mod or two on that increases optimal... compared to the other ship with say, 20km more, the range gap is going to increase between the two weapon systems. Where does this weapon excel exactly? In fleet fights, a Tempest with 6 1400mm II's does make a good, cheap, alpha ship. But so does the Apocalypse, and it gets a 25% bonus to optimal and can fire out to nearly 250km with no problems. The solution isn't always to nerf other ships and modules. A damage multiplier buff with an increased RoF (Giving it similar/same DPS) and giving it a noticeable alpha difference would be nice. My two cents.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.06 09:35:00 - [13] Blaster does less dmg at ac's optimal+falloff :P No cap use is significant especially when hybrid/laser bs can cap out themselves within minutes just by firing their guns.Where you dont run out are the fights which lasts less than 3 minutes where alpha>> dps. And even in cruiser size no cap use let you use your mwd much more frequently or longer period , which is good. Tachion is overpowered pls dont compare arties to that , compare it to the 425mm rail or mega beam. Most fc-s try to set up warp ins for tempest/mega optimals , so it doesnt matter much if it has lower optimal than the apoc/rokh. And with better speed and more cap for mwd you can escape from bubbles much easier and faster. I wish my rails would have as much alpha as the arties. If ccp decides to boost arties they have to boost rails/ missiles aswell.
Bonny Cloud	Posted - 2009.05.06 10:09:00 - [14] I¦ve come to the conclusion that you have no idea about what you are talking.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.06 10:11:00 - [15] Originally by: Bonny Cloud I¦ve come to the conclusion that you have no idea about what you are talking. Must be because your conclusion is wrong :P
Resalan	Posted - 2009.05.06 11:33:00 - [16] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Naomi Knight Projectile weapons are fine , why should ccp look into these? Rather a lot of people disagree And they are all wrong. If something needs to be changed are the op lasers. Whats wrong with projectile weapons anyway? why nerf laser when you can boost projectile and hibrid?
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2009.05.06 11:57:00 - [17] I've seen alliance e-mails asking people NOT to bring Tempests to fleet fights. Arty needs an increase in the dmg multiplier to bring back some alpha after the HP buff. Increase the ROF to keep DPS the same. Change the bonuses on one Minmatar BS to make it the sniper choice. Ab optimal range bonus on the mael for example...
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.06 12:34:00 - [18] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Bonny Cloud I¦ve come to the conclusion that you have no idea about what you are talking. Must be because your conclusion is wrong :P Actually his conclusion isn't Naomi, yours is. Had you read the thread acking for suggestions, you would have moticed that large projectiles, especially large Artillery, is thought by most to be underpowered and in need of help. Somehow you think you know more than the people who answered in that thread, which is actually rather amazing since you obviously don't use large projectiles. A few years back I thought lasers needed the boost they got when CCP nerfed all ship's EM resistance, then I started using them. They are amazing, their cap use is a minor hinderance at best is today's buffer tanking age, easliy overcome with a cap booster. Sure if you tried to active tank their cap use would be significant, but active tanking in EvE is not nearly as good as buffer tanking after the revelations boosts, and we all know that. No, projectiles and minmatar large ships need a boost, I can fly Minmatar, Caldari and Amarr Battleships and can safely say that minmatar are last on my list. Both the weapons and the ships need a boost, here's what I suggest: 1) All minmatar Battleships lose the ROF bonus. 2) The ROF Bonus gets rolled into large AC and Artillery base stats. 3) New bonuses to replace the ROF bonus: Mael - 10% optimal Tempest - 7.5% tracking Phoon - 10% falloff Vargur - 5% damage - the only ship that gets a raw boost in DPS(and god knows it also needs about 1700 more PG) Panther - 7.5% tracking As far as large projectiles go: 1) Give EMP back it's missing damage (yes take it from the long range ammo) and swap EMP and fusion so that fusion is the highest damage ammo. 2) Bump up the damage on 800's, jumping from 650's to 800's is a much smaller increase in DPS (percentage wise it's around 5% increase in DPS) that any other short ranged gun, 800's need a bit more damage (like a 3% increase (or a total of 8% increase in DPS) thus keeping scaling closer to pulses and/or blasters (15% and 12% increase respectively)) 3) Triple the clip size of ALL artillery (it would still have the smallest clip size, but would be closer). 4) Increase the damage of all Artillery by 20% - while this won't make up for the revelations boosts and rigs, it will go a long way toward helping out. CCP put this on SiSi and let us try it out, no new models, no new annimations, yet NEEDED improvements to the worst line of battleships. You asked for suggestions, please take the time to listen.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.06 13:20:00 - [19] Do you have any idea how absurdly overpowered would be the projectiles with these changes?
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2009.05.06 13:23:00 - [20] Edited by: fuxinos on 06/05/2009 13:24:51 Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Naomi Knight Projectile weapons are fine , why should ccp look into these? Rather a lot of people disagree And they are all wrong. If something needs to be changed are the op lasers. Whats wrong with projectile weapons anyway? Lasers are the best balanced weapon atm, Blasters/Projectiles should be balanced around them. Your logic to only "nerf, nerf, nerf" is outdated.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.05.06 14:33:00 - [21] Forgetting DDD proofing ect and just fitting for general med gang snipe ops. Range vs DPS comparison. The APOC with 3 x HS can lock and hit at 240-249km optimal for 401 turret dps (3707 volley DMG). The ROKH with 3 x MS can lock and hit at 249km optimal for 321 turret dps (1688 volley DMG). The MEGA with 3 x MS can lock and hit at 190-200km optimal for 351 turret dps (1847 volley DMG). The MAEL with 3 x GS can lock and hit at 152km optimal for 380 turret dps (2763 volley DMG). At the MEGAS 190-200km optimal the MAEL gets 167-199 turret DPS. At 210km the MEGA gets 278dps the MAEL gets 110dps. At 220km the MEGA gets 203dps the MAEL gets 72dps. At 230km the MEGA gets 125dps the MAEL gets 42dps. At 240km the MEGA gets 67dps the MAEL gets 23dps. At 249km the APOC gets 366dps the MEGA gets 32dps the MAEL gets 13dps. Obviously the ROKH gets to do its max turret dmg out to 249km. TRACKING Im using stats from standardly fitted ships using T2 long range ammo. TachII's (apoc) 0.00516. T2 RAILS (mega) 0.00490. T2 RAILS (rokh) 0.00301. T2 Arte (mael) 0.00281. PS: The figures i used have the rokh, mael and apoc using 8 guns. For those who are about to fly into the thread with a emoragerant about how difficult it is to fit a apoc with 8 guns: 1. Meh it can be done. 2. Even with 7 guns it gets the same turret DPS as the 7 gun MEGA but with better tracking AND much longer optimal.
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.05.06 14:56:00 - [22] please find another thread to troll naomi
RedSplat Heretic Army	Posted - 2009.05.06 15:14:00 - [23] I have one point to make here, rather than engaging in discussion again about a subject done to death with people that aren't interested in discussion, only pushing an agenda. NO CAP USE IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE WHEN AC'S OR ARTY IS FIT ON MINMATAR BOATS. Secretly MirrorGod. Apparently Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting. Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
Commander Vic Minmatar Ioncross	Posted - 2009.05.06 16:47:00 - [24] Originally by: RedSplat I have one point to make here, rather than engaging in discussion again about a subject done to death with people that aren't interested in discussion, only pushing an agenda. NO CAP USE IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE WHEN AC'S OR ARTY IS FIT ON MINMATAR BOATS. Yeah, it's sad that the capless guns are only a real advantage when you stick them on Gallente or Amarr ships. If you stop shooting your lasers for 10 seconds will your cap recharge? Projectiles have to stop shooting for 10 seconds to reload, so what's the difference? As for the other 'advantages' of Projectiles & Minmatar Ships... meh. The ships aren't much faster with a few exceptions. Once you get into BC/BS the speed and agility advantage is irrelevant except in a case where that extra few m/s means you get back to the gate with <10% structure instead of popping, of course since you probably have lower EHP than everybody else they would have survived in that case too. The balance issue of projectiles vs all other weapons is present at all sizes, not just large & x-large. The problem is when you're dealing with small & medium turrets the difference is less extreme so when you see smaller numerical differences you assume they're pretty equal. However, on a frigate a difference of 10 DPS on a ship with 4000 EHP is no better than a difference of 100 DPS on a ship with 40000 EHP. Also, keep in mind that there is no module to increase falloff (there is a rig though). Would the Amarr pilots be happy if there was no longer a module to increase optimal? Let's not even discuss the fact that there is a way to decrease falloff with ewar... And why, if there is a skill to reduce cap use on weapons that use no ammo is there not also a skill to reduce ammo use on weapons that use no cap?
jaws104	Posted - 2009.05.06 17:26:00 - [25] Think this kind of highlights the problem --Maelzors with BS V 25% rof bonus arty is still outdamaged by megabeams on a maelstrom. Cue 'but look at your cap' brigade
Muad' Dib Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2009.05.06 17:44:00 - [26] Originally by: RedSplat I have one point to make here, rather than engaging in discussion again about a subject done to death with people that aren't interested in discussion, only pushing an agenda. NO CAP USE IS NOT AN ADVANTAGE WHEN AC'S OR ARTY IS FIT ON MINMATAR BOATS. It is when you do level 5's ... that pretty much in itself should say how ***ed large projectiles are. --- I smack just for myself. Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.06 18:07:00 - [27] Originally by: Naomi Knight Do you have any idea how absurdly overpowered would be the projectiles with these changes? Actually, they wouldn't be all that much more powerful than they are now.... and they'd still be significantly less powerful than lasers. I can't decide if that says something about how ****ed over large projectiles (and arty in general) is or how amazingly overpowered lasers are compared to the other weapons platforms. -Liang
arbiter reborn	Posted - 2009.05.06 18:39:00 - [28] actually i love not too have to put a capbooster on my phoon
Pvt Public7 Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.07 03:02:00 - [29] Boost projectiles. --- SWA was here IAC is a loser
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.07 03:38:00 - [30] Originally by: Naomi Knight Do you have any idea how absurdly overpowered would be the projectiles with these changes? Actually I know exactly how close to being balanced they would be. And If I were revising projectiles I would remove the ROF bonus from ALL minmatar ships, and put it into the weapons. Would that change anything, would it effect balance - not directly. But it would allow minmatar ships to have more useful bonuses. For instance I would add: For dedicated AC boats - 10% falloff per level (note again not change in DPS here, just impacting range) For dedicated Artillery boats - 10% optimal per level (allowing the dropping of a target computer perhaps, but still no change in DPS) For boats that can do either - 7.5% tracking per level (slightly inferior to either above, but fitting with CCP's idea of versatility) For split weapon systems - 5% damage per level (very controversal I know, and it would have to be tested on sisi, but split weapons systems are hurt by needing 2 damage mods to have the same effect as 1 on non-split ships, so it should be looked at - I thought of this for the phoon, but falloff might be better since the ship gets a large amount of DPS from drones) If you flew minmatar, you would quickly realize that they do best when they can 1) control range and/or 2) minimize damage. Cruiser and frigate sized minmatar ships are very good at controling range, thus they are currently balanced and I would think long and hard before changing their stats. The significant nerfs to EW and NOS hurt minmatar battleships ability to mitigate damage, and they never had the speed advantage to dictate range, thus their poorer performance against their peers. I'm not saying that blasters and rails don't need help, but they should get their own thread. Lasers are fine, and since I am against nerfs of any kind, I would rather see projectiles and hybrids brought up. Once you fly ships you begin to see their faults as well as strengths. Minmatar battleships have sub-par damage and sub-par tanking compared to other battleships. The Mael can field a good tank, but in general active tanking battleships are frowned upon in larger groups. The others are meh. Lastly for those at CCP that point to the old arguement of the apoc (etc.) being better than minmatar ships using projectiles if the weapons were boosted, I ask a simple question - Why are you balancing Minmatar Weapons and Ships based on how others would use them? Who really cares? So what if the Abad is a better tempest than a tempest? The result is that the Tempest should get nerfed? Certainly there are other ways to accomplish this. This line of thinking is what lead to every minmatar ship NEEDING a ROF bonus just to be competitive. So in effect you removed one ship bonus from every minmatar ship because you were afraid of how amarr ships would perform using lower cap weapons (minmatar weapons wern't capless until revelations, but they always used the lowest amounts of cap). That line of thinking was ok (at best) while active tanks were better than passive ones, but is almost 3 years behind the times. CCP you have dragged your feet long enough. You asked for balance ideas and got them. Many, many people are tired on minmatar battleships and artillery being second rate. Yes we've all cross trained because we want to be competitive in our ships, but some of us would like to actually fly ships like the Tempest again.
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.05.07 04:41:00 - [31] Originally by: jaws104 Think this kind of highlights the problem --Maelzors with BS V 25% rof bonus arty is still outdamaged by megabeams on a maelstrom. Cue 'but look at your cap' brigade irrefutable fact is irrefutable - putting the gist back into logistics
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.07 04:58:00 - [32] If you want a projectile boost, you'd better be willing to give up your speed advantage. Projectiles must be the worst type of weapon, or you will end up with ships with equally effective guns but the speed to always fight at their preferred range. In other words, there will no longer be any reason to fly anything other than Minmatar. -----------
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.07 05:05:00 - [33] Originally by: Merin Ryskin If you want a projectile boost, you'd better be willing to give up your speed advantage. Projectiles must be the worst type of weapon, or you will end up with ships with equally effective guns but the speed to always fight at their preferred range. In other words, there will no longer be any reason to fly anything other than Minmatar. You're wrong. There's a big difference between 'balanced weapons and ships' and 'complete **'. Right now, they're complete . Balancing them doesn't mean that you have to over the rest of the race. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.07 05:23:00 - [34] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Merin Ryskin If you want a projectile boost, you'd better be willing to give up your speed advantage. Projectiles must be the worst type of weapon, or you will end up with ships with equally effective guns but the speed to always fight at their preferred range. In other words, there will no longer be any reason to fly anything other than Minmatar. You're wrong. There's a big difference between 'balanced weapons and ships' and 'complete **'. Right now, they're complete . Balancing them doesn't mean that you have to ** over the rest of the race. -Liang Only battleship projectiles are a problem, and only because the Minmatar "speed advantage" is much less effective at the battleship level. The rest are just fine, if you boost them at all you're going to have to nerf something to compensate. -----------
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.07 05:36:00 - [35] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 07/05/2009 05:39:36 Originally by: Merin Ryskin Only battleship projectiles are a problem, and only because the Minmatar "speed advantage" is much less effective at the battleship level. The rest are just fine, if you boost them at all you're going to have to nerf something to compensate. Yeah, that totally explains why the Zealot > Muninn. I might agree that small/med projectiles are passable, but small/med artillery is still pretty bad. -Liang Ed: Also, the idea bandied about here (integrating ROF into the weapons themselves) wouldn't really break the weapons. They'd be just slightly better than they are now, but it's not like they'd suddenly displace lasers as mid range DPS (they do operate in falloff) nor would they displace blasters as close range DPS (not enough actual DPS). Also, Med Artillery and Large Arty/Autos are where 90% of the complaints originate. -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.07 05:53:00 - [36] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 07/05/2009 05:55:08 Originally by: Liang Nuren Yeah, that totally explains why the Zealot > Muninn. I might agree that small/med projectiles are passable, but small/med artillery is still pretty bad. The Muninn sucks because the Muninn is a confused mess of a ship with the slot layout of an armor tanker, the resists of a shield tanker, a sniper bonus without the mids to fit a proper sniper setup, drones/missiles that are only useful up close, and a marginally useful tracking bonus. It's hopelessly outclassed by the Vagabond as a fast AC boat, dominated by the Hurricane in a close-range slugging match, and hopelessly outclassed by the Eagle in the fleet sniper role (which is a very narrow role, rails and beams suffer the same problem of a marginal role). Even if CCP completely removed the Zealot from the game nobody would fly the Muninn. Quote: Ed: Also, the idea bandied about here (integrating ROF into the weapons themselves) wouldn't really break the weapons. They'd be just slightly better than they are now, but it's not like they'd suddenly displace lasers as mid range DPS (they do operate in falloff) nor would they displace blasters as close range DPS (not enough actual DPS). Yes it would. It would be just as broken as integrating the Amarr cap bonus into the weapons themselves, giving the Vagabond/Hurricane/Sleipnir/Jaguar another 50% falloff would be a HUGE boost. Even if you feel it's a necessary boost, don't pretend this is some minor little tweak to slip into the patch notes with no warning or testing. Quote: Also, Med Artillery and Large Arty/Autos are where 90% of the complaints originate. Note that if you boost artillery you also have to boost rails, and to a lesser degree, beams. None of them are very useful. -----------
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.07 06:35:00 - [37] Now this is why Merin and Liang are wrong and should be banned from balancing topics, saying that the muninn is a bad sniper ,are you playing the same game? Because in 0.0 you see muninns everywhere, they are nearly as favoured ship as the zealot most sniper hacs are zealots and muninns, and most sniper bcs are hurricanes. Medium arties are awesome you have no clue at all what you are talking about. Yes muninn could be better with some changes but it is nowhere near useless , actually it is much more usefull than the eagle or deimos.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.07 06:44:00 - [38] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 07/05/2009 06:45:18 Originally by: Naomi Knight Now this is why Merin and Liang are wrong and should be banned from balancing topics, saying that the muninn is a bad sniper ,are you playing the same game? Because in 0.0 you see muninns everywhere, they are nearly as favoured ship as the zealot most sniper hacs are zealots and muninns, and most sniper bcs are hurricanes. Medium arties are awesome you have no clue at all what you are talking about. Yes muninn could be better with some changes but it is nowhere near useless , actually it is much more usefull than the eagle or deimos. 0.0 sniper blobs are hardly all of EVE PvP. Even if the Muninn is a good fleet sniper, that still doesn't mean it's a good ship or that artillery/rails/beams don't have issues. In fact I clearly stated that once already, that the major problem with them is how narrow their role is. Not that the Muninn is good, of course. It might be used in its narrow role (a fact which probably has more to do with Rapier/Vagabond pilots not wanting to train Caldari Cruiser V just for a small boost to a very narrow role than any amazing performance from the Muninn), but it's still terribly designed for that role. The tracking bonus is underwhelming, and the slot layout is *terrible* (lol, 3 mids on a sniper?). If the Muninn is a pure sniper HAC (and it must be, since it fails utterly in every *other* role), it should be properly focused on that role, just like the Eagle. By the numbers, the Zealot and Eagle simply outclass the Muninn even in the sniper role. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. -----------
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.07 07:09:00 - [39] Where does it say that the muninn was designted as a pure sniper hac?It wasnt thats why it is much more versalite than the eagle, which makes it a better choice in most cases. Anyway sniper hacs only should be used in medium-large fleets and it is there where the muninn is realy good with its huge alpha+ fast locking. Matar pilots don't train caldari cruisers, because matar ships are much better than caldari ones for pvp. Vaga>> cerb anytime for small gang Muninn>> eagle any time for fleets. Rapier >> falcon for solo. Broadsword = onyx more or less. Anyway why eagle considered a good sniper hac? With spike its dmg is less than acceptable. And at close range the other hacs are much better. Or you try to make the a comedy ceptor hunter with Lead ammo... even there the muninn is better at killing ceptors.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.07 07:14:00 - [40] Originally by: Naomi Knight Where does it say that the muninn was designted as a pure sniper hac?It wasnt thats why it is much more versalite than the eagle, which makes it a better choice in most cases. Because it's utter trash at everything *but* sniping? Quote: Anyway why eagle considered a good sniper hac? With spike its dmg is less than acceptable. And at close range the other hacs are much better. Or you try to make the a comedy ceptor hunter with Lead ammo... even there the muninn is better at killing ceptors. Max range, dps at range, ability to use faction ammo instead of T2. -----------
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.07 08:07:00 - [41] Max range okay ,but only useable if you are with bs fleet. Fraction ammo , use republic carbonized lead with the muninn + drones it will be much better anti ceptor with better tracking and nearly twice the alpha dmg.
eliminator2 Gallente Annihilate. Shock Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.07 08:53:00 - [42] Originally by: Naomi Knight Blaster does less dmg at ac's optimal+falloff :P No cap use is significant especially when hybrid/laser bs can cap out themselves within minutes just by firing their guns.Where you dont run out are the fights which lasts less than 3 minutes where alpha>> dps. And even in cruiser size no cap use let you use your mwd much more frequently or longer period , which is good. Tachion is overpowered pls dont compare arties to that , compare it to the 425mm rail or mega beam. Most fc-s try to set up warp ins for tempest/mega optimals , so it doesnt matter much if it has lower optimal than the apoc/rokh. And with better speed and more cap for mwd you can escape from bubbles much easier and faster. I wish my rails would have as much alpha as the arties. If ccp decides to boost arties they have to boost rails/ missiles aswell. 1. blasters do way more dps than arty fallof or not (i fly both) 2.train ur electronic skill and engeenering up mmmkay? or fit a heavy/med cap injector i can use the amarr and gal ships and never get capped out un less someone nuets me with 3 heavy nuets :p 3.reason amarr get capped out so fast and have cap penalty is the fact they can change ammou in a few secs there ammou never runs out unless its faction/ i think t2 but it still takes ages and ages before they run out 4. my rails actually do more dps than my arties, and my caldari alt does hell alot of dps with missiles even same/abit more than a mega
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.07 11:07:00 - [43] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Yes it would. It would be just as broken as integrating the Amarr cap bonus into the weapons themselves, giving the Vagabond/Hurricane/Sleipnir/Jaguar another 50% falloff would be a HUGE boost. Even if you feel it's a necessary boost, don't pretend this is some minor little tweak to slip into the patch notes with no warning or testing. While I could see how you could read this into what I said, let me be very clear I am NOT suggesting that the vaga/sleip/jag get a double falloff bonus. The Hurricane doesn't have a falloff bonus so I don't know how that got added, and per my suggestion it's second bonus would be tracking. I did say my second suggestion was "in general", if losing the ROF bonus on the vaga by incorporating it into guns, I would have no objection to the vaga simply losing the bonus with no other bonus gained, or as per CCP give it some useless bonus (like a target painter). If they simply had to have 4 bonuses, then reduce it's shields by 25% and give it a 5% shield bonus per level so it's a wash. The vaga is fine as it is. Each ship would have to be analyzed individually, with t2 ships easily being the toughest to balance. The Jag (and wolf) should really have a tracking bonus (like the rifter). The Muninn needs work, but an 5% increase in sensor range per level would be welcome. Obviously, I don't want to go into detail on this since this thread was primarily about large projectiles. Minmatar battleships are hurt primarily by the weakness in large projectiles, fixing large projectiles would go a long way in correcting both issues. That's why I posted specific changes to the battleships and large projectiles.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.05.07 12:44:00 - [44] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: RedSplat Originally by: Naomi Knight Projectile weapons are fine , why should ccp look into these? Rather a lot of people disagree And they are all wrong. If something needs to be changed are the op lasers. Whats wrong with projectile weapons anyway? when the best alpha ship in the game is amarr something is wrong.... And it's not lazers or amarr or ship bonuses that are the problem here, seeing as how I can't remember the last time I saw a ship get alpha'd by a minmatar in pvp I'd say something is wrong there. ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Fish Mittens Minmatar 0utbreak	Posted - 2009.05.07 21:23:00 - [45] Edited by: Fish Mittens on 07/05/2009 21:26:58 I love the lazor Maelstrom example, this shows so clearly how broken Artillery is. Why not apply the proposed changes to Capital Projectiles to all Artillery? Decrease ROF, Increase Damage IMO I could accept artillery having the worst range and poor DPS, if they just had 1 useful unique attribute, Alpha Strike. This was how it was before the HP buff to all ships in eve. Then all that would need to be tweaked would be an increase in clip sizes for 1400's and 750's and also a tweak to the grid usage so that a Tempest could actually fit 6x1400s and an MWD without needing an RCU or a PDS.
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.07 21:46:00 - [46] Originally by: Fish Mittens Edited by: Fish Mittens on 07/05/2009 21:26:58 I love the lazor Maelstrom example, this shows so clearly how broken Artillery is. Why not apply the proposed changes to Capital Projectiles to all Artillery? Decrease ROF, Increase Damage IMO I could accept artillery having the worst range and poor DPS, if they just had 1 useful unique attribute, Alpha Strike. This was how it was before the HP buff to all ships in eve. Then all that would need to be tweaked would be an increase in clip sizes for 1400's and 750's and also a tweak to the grid usage so that a Tempest could actually fit 6x1400s and an MWD without needing an RCU or a PDS. While most minmatar players would love to have our pre-revelations alpha back, it will never happen. CCP specifically stated they were raising the HP of ships and hardners/extenders to prolong battles. repeatedly we told them this was a pretty substantial nerf to minmatar ships, and their answer remained, "We know." CCP doesn't want alpha to matter, they want longer battles where DPS and EHP mean all, artillery and minmatar BS will consistently suffer because we can't get high DPS or EHP with our setups. While I would love to have a huge alpha, I have given up any hope of that occuring, and will settle for better range and DPS.
Fish Mittens Minmatar 0utbreak	Posted - 2009.05.07 21:58:00 - [47] Originally by: Veryez While most minmatar players would love to have our pre-revelations alpha back, it will never happen. CCP specifically stated they were raising the HP of ships and hardners/extenders to prolong battles. repeatedly we told them this was a pretty substantial nerf to minmatar ships, and their answer remained, "We know." CCP doesn't want alpha to matter, they want longer battles where DPS and EHP mean all, artillery and minmatar BS will consistently suffer because we can't get high DPS or EHP with our setups. While I would love to have a huge alpha, I have given up any hope of that occuring, and will settle for better range and DPS. Well I was suggesting an increase in alpha, and a decrease in ROF, giving the same low dps but higher volley damage. This would be different to what we had pre-revelations, but give Projectiles a unique attribute, not making them better than other races weapons, just different, with their own tactical uses. This is what having different races and weapon classes is about no? Also If CCP are prepared to make this change to Capital Projectiles, then why not consider it for all Artillery? Don't give up man! If CCP are prepared to change the nag then there is hope :D
Heimdal Galplen Minmatar Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2009.05.07 23:43:00 - [48] Why are so many people being baited by one troll? HURR DURR DURR PROTECTILES ARE FINE, NOW NOURISH ME WITH YOUR RESPONSES. You all need to spend some more time on the internets.
Turiel Demon Minmatar Shadow Reapers	Posted - 2009.05.08 00:58:00 - [49] Originally by: lecrotta Forgetting DDD proofing ect and just fitting for general med gang snipe ops. Range vs DPS comparison. The APOC with 3 x HS can lock and hit at 240-249km optimal for 401 turret dps (3707 volley DMG). The ROKH with 3 x MS can lock and hit at 249km optimal for 321 turret dps (1688 volley DMG). The MEGA with 3 x MS can lock and hit at 190-200km optimal for 351 turret dps (1847 volley DMG). The MAEL with 3 x GS can lock and hit at 152km optimal for 380 turret dps (2763 volley DMG). At the MEGAS 190-200km optimal the MAEL gets 167-199 turret DPS. At 210km the MEGA gets 278dps the MAEL gets 110dps. At 220km the MEGA gets 203dps the MAEL gets 72dps. At 230km the MEGA gets 125dps the MAEL gets 42dps. At 240km the MEGA gets 67dps the MAEL gets 23dps. At 249km the APOC gets 366dps the MEGA gets 32dps the MAEL gets 13dps. Obviously the ROKH gets to do its max turret dmg out to 249km. TRACKING Im using stats from standardly fitted ships using T2 long range ammo. TachII's (apoc) 0.00516. T2 RAILS (mega) 0.00490. T2 RAILS (rokh) 0.00301. T2 Arte (mael) 0.00281. PS: The figures i used have the rokh, mael and apoc using 8 guns. For those who are about to fly into the thread with a emoragerant about how difficult it is to fit a apoc with 8 guns: 1. Meh it can be done. 2. Even with 7 guns it gets the same turret DPS as the 7 gun MEGA but with better tracking AND much longer optimal. /thread Ok, not really, but that's a perfect summation about what's wrong with artillery, that's why large artillery in particular needs to be fixed. Lets now move on to just talk about HOW to fix, and keep this thread on top of a pile a bit longer than the 'concise whine' from a little while ago. Also, it has come to my attention that I'm really in need of a proper signature.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.05.08 01:10:00 - [50] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 08/05/2009 01:16:53 Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 08/05/2009 01:13:21 Originally by: lecrotta The MAEL with 3 x GS can lock and hit at 152km optimal for 380 turret dps (2763 volley DMG) You are not accounting for reload time in your DPS figures. The Maelstrom only does 345dps. Originally by: Veryez 1) All minmatar Battleships lose the ROF bonus. 2) The ROF Bonus gets rolled into large AC and Artillery base stats. All this would do is make large autocannons stronger on ships other than minmatar. Both the abaddon and the hyperion would be able to gain DPS, tracking, and rid themselves of cap usage by switching to autocannons. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Fish Mittens Minmatar 0utbreak	Posted - 2009.05.08 01:12:00 - [51] Originally by: Heimdal Galplen Why are so many people being baited by one troll? HURR DURR DURR PROTECTILES ARE FINE, NOW NOURISH ME WITH YOUR RESPONSES. You all need to spend some more time on the internets. OP was an obvious troll yes, but that does not change the fact that Artillery is broken and need fixing badly. This has been broken for a long time, but with the proposed changes to Capital Projectiles, and the overwhelming response for change to Artillery being brought up in the "top 3" change request thread, many want this to be looked into and not ignored by the Devs. This Sums up the problem perfectly for me :D
Rahjadan Shardur Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.05.08 01:53:00 - [52] Edited by: Rahjadan Shardur on 08/05/2009 01:54:27 Edited by: Rahjadan Shardur on 08/05/2009 01:53:55 Just because the numbers are biggest and so more obvious dosn't mean the small and medium Proj turrets are fine. You don't realy get the picture from only looking at the T2 ships, they usualy can compensate the shortcommings of certain mecanics with the 4 bonus they get. However if you look at the T1 Cruiser you'll see that nether Artys nor Autocannons work as they sould. The Stabber for instance only works right if you slap on one or two falloff rigs (Vagabond in the same role relies on it's falloff bonus). I don't think a T1 cruiser should have to be rigged to work correctly. The other example would be the rupture (yes i know many peole belive the ship works so it must be in ballance) it has one less turret slot than the counterpats of the other races and compensates with a second damage bonus, where it should have 5 turrets (or 4 better turrets than the current ones) and only one damage bonus leaving it with a second usefull bonus to comlement a sertain role. the reason the ship still works even with it's bonus out of balance is that it has the fitting options most ships should have: you don't need graet skills do fit a good fitting but with max skills you can get realy good fittings going. // off topic rant follows: [this brings me to a short off topic excourse about fitting skills: i hate them almost as much as i hate lerning skills because they are implemanted as a timesink not as something usefull optional. beeing a 3 year old player i have them all maxed out but thats the problem. maxed fitting skills don't let me fit realy good fittings, on the most ships they allow me to fit them at all, with some exeptions like the omen that can't be resonably fit even with max fitting skills or on the other side the rapture that allowes for all the fits i want even without max fitting skills allowing me to upgrade the weapons with AWU5] ------------------ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.05.08 03:48:00 - [53] You can't seriously complain about the Minmatar T1 cruisers with a straight face can you? You think the Rupture is bad? Try fitting an Omen. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2009.05.08 04:18:00 - [54] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter You can't seriously complain about the Minmatar T1 cruisers with a straight face can you? You think the Rupture is bad? Try fitting an Omen. I raise your Omen an Augoror. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Hexor V I.M.M	Posted - 2009.05.08 07:05:00 - [55] Boost the Rokh. Boost the Rokh. Boost the Rokh. Boost the Rokh. I want to be OP too. Trashcan snipers do need looking at though. ROF Decrease, Damage increase. Make them hit hard, but shoot slow as hell. That was the idea behind artillery initially wasn't it? ____ YHBT
Guru Saurfang Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.08 08:53:00 - [56] the thing is... I wish to have known this before training for T2 big arty. Now is a long way till I get the lasers in line
Chellfire Minmatar Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.08 14:48:00 - [57] it's simple.... i want my high alpha, instapopping. king 'o' the hill, badass Pest back!! boost matari tracking and put the nerfbat away. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Rahjadan Shardur Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.05.08 15:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter You can't seriously complain about the Minmatar T1 cruisers with a straight face can you? You think the Rupture is bad? Try fitting an Omen. Originally by: Rahjadan Shardur // off topic rant follows: ... some exeptions like the omen that can't be resonably fit even with max fitting skills ... I did already mention the Omen, an i have to say i realy tryed to fly it but there is just no way to fit it even with max fitting skills. ------------------ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)
D3stroyer	Posted - 2009.05.08 17:22:00 - [59] To fix, a simple solution: AC's Swap the optimal & falloff stats for the weapons along with the Ship bonuses (Falloff bonus becomes optimal bonus) This now means AC's are getting their FULL 'paper' DPS instead of the horrendous falloff DPS! And as we're still fighting with inferior tanks compared to other races we're getting a better overall DPS, & still relying more on speed to keep us out of harms way Arties Reduce the ROF Increase Alpha by 50% Double the Clip size Increase optimal by 25% This give the Arties their Alpha back (at range), greater reduction in stupid reloads during lagtastic fleet fights & moves their snipe range to that of other ships. Why the hell this race has some of the worst fighting distances on it weapons when its defensive capabilities are sub standard to the other 3 races is beyond me! It should be: greater defense = closer range weapons / weaker defense = longer range weapons!! Ship bonuses still need to play the most important part of any boost/balance or we'll end up with every bugger slapping Projectiles onto their ships (regardless of the race!).
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.08 17:29:00 - [60] Originally by: D3stroyer Swap the optimal & falloff stats for the weapons along with the Ship bonuses (Falloff bonus becomes optimal bonus) That's called "lasers". I don't really wanna play the game with everything exactly the same. :-/ -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.08 18:20:00 - [61] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 08/05/2009 01:21:38 All this would do is make large autocannons stronger on ships other than minmatar. Both the abaddon and the hyperion would be able to gain DPS, tracking, and rid themselves of cap usage by switching to autocannons. 800mm IIs would do comparable DPS to damage-bonused Ion Blaster Cannon IIs and would do more DPS than damage-bonused Mega Pulse Laser IIS. And that is the worst possible reason to not balance large projectiles, to nerf them because of what other ships 'might' do. besides what does the abaddon or the hyperion need the cap for? A dual rep tank? Maybe in a very small gang, but you're better off with HACs or BCs in a very small gang. With the superiority of passive tanks today, I can't get too upset over a dual rep hyperion possibly imbalancing projectiles. No, not boosting large projectiles because amarr or gal ships might benefit because of it is foolish. Does it benefit Minmatar battleships? If so, then it should be looked at seriously. Otherwise we get the situation we have here now, which doesn't work. Even with the boosts I recommended, an abaddon with AC's will not be close to one with pulse lasers, and a hype with neuts will always out DPS one with 800's.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.05.08 19:04:00 - [62] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 08/05/2009 19:04:54 Run the numbers. The abaddon with 800s and a ROF bonus does MORE damage than with megapulse, though admittedly at much shorter ranges. The Hype does slightly less with neutrons, which it has trouble fitting anyway. Why not just add some range and tracking to the weapons instead of trying to give the ships a tracking or range bonus. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.08 19:10:00 - [63] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Run the numbers. The abaddon with 800s and a ROF bonus does MORE damage than with megapulse, though admittedly at much shorter ranges. The Hype does slightly less with neutrons, which it has trouble fitting anyway. Why not just add some range and tracking to the weapons instead of trying to give the ships a tracking or range bonus. Comments: - The Abaddon range issue is a really freaking big deal. Nobody would fly Autos simply because their damage sucks once they're in falloff (which is pretty well immediately) - The Hype with Autos would be a big deal, but the answer there is probably fixing blasters to not suck, since they already suck, no? - I'm a big fan of simply unnerfing minnie high damage ammo and adding falloff to the higher weapon tiers (both for AC and Auto). (This is an "I agree, mostly") That said, I don't think the suggestion is really that bad, and I'd have to really crunch numbers to see how it would affect things. I'll very closely crunch the numbers on whatever CCP decides to do though, you can bet your hiney! -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.05.08 19:26:00 - [64] I would rock autos on the Abaddon if it got the ROF increase. It would give me more DPS up close as well as better tracking, and it would completely remove the need for a cap booster. I would also try out the auto-Rokh with a pure HP tank and again no cap booster, since I don't need it. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.08 22:04:00 - [65] my numbers says unbonused neutrons are better on mael than bonused 800s up to 25km. You must play on difrent server or another world. 60D GTC - shattared link
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2009.05.09 00:50:00 - [66] Projectiles and Minmatar BS were one of the most requested balancing issues. I'm somewhat sad that neither has shown up as a sticky yet.
Rahjadan Shardur Minmatar Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.05.09 02:54:00 - [67] OK i don't see why people would fit AC on other ships if they got boosted even by such a massive amount as having the ROF bonus added to the guns because as it stands today: (no drones just guns. all skills to 5. the second range number of cause is 1x falloff, the point where damage is about 50%.) Meal 3x Gyro t2, 8x 800mm ACt2 RF EMP L: 805dps at 3+20km Meal 3x Gyro t2, 8x 800mm ACt2 Barrage L: 700dps at 6+30km Abaddon 3x HS t2, 8x Megapulse t2 AN Multi L: 916dps at 15+10km Abaddon 3x HS t2, 8x Megapulse t2 Scorch L: 730dps at 45+10km Hyperion 3x MFS t2, 8x ION Blaster t2 CN Anti L: 1002dps at 3.8+10km Hyperion 3x MFS t2, 8x ION Blaster t2 Null L: 799dps at 9.4+13km I do not see how it would be unbalanced to boost AC compared to ether of this weapon. ------------------ In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. (Douglas Adams)
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.09 05:37:00 - [68] I can't help but question... If blasters suck, and autocannons suck, then autocannons aren't "terrible compared to all other weapons", pulses are great compared to all other weapons. If you knocked a bit of damage off of pulses, you'd be in the same place as if you boosted falloff on projectiles and dps or tracking on blasters. No?
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.05.09 06:30:00 - [69] well... i always tend to defend minnies for their expl damage, which makes quite some sense in this world of armor. but as soon as i compare the numbers in regard to rep fleet fusion, an entire gene pool of kitten dies. about the "flavour" of projectiles... 1400mm could have 20km optimal + 100km falloff, both w/o skills. ammos could be changed to various tracking modifiers. -> all-lvl-V would shoot 25km+125km with emp L - may look great on paper with 450-500 dps (2-3 gyros) but in falloff-reality, it'd be no better than the ~200dps dd-proof fits we have these days. since no module adds f/o anyway, the only helpers would be ambit extensions (feel free to introduce the stacking penalty then) and we could focus on tracking scripts in tracking comps rather than poorly imitating tracking enhancers. - putting the gist back into logistics
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2009.05.09 07:05:00 - [70] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 09/05/2009 07:06:54 Originally by: Ecky X I can't help but question... If blasters suck, and autocannons suck, then autocannons aren't "terrible compared to all other weapons", pulses are great compared to all other weapons. If you knocked a bit of damage off of pulses, you'd be in the same place as if you boosted falloff on projectiles and dps or tracking on blasters. No? No, you are 100% wrong. Nerfing pulses might make all weapons equal, but it would be a nerf to *offense in general* (in gank vs. tank balance). On the other hand, boosting blasters and ACs up to the level of pulses is a boost to offense as a whole, something that is badly needed. -----------
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.09 07:46:00 - [71] Originally by: Merin Ryskin No, you are 100% wrong. Nerfing pulses might make all weapons equal, but it would be a nerf to *offense in general* (in gank vs. tank balance). On the other hand, boosting blasters and ACs up to the level of pulses is a boost to offense as a whole, something that is badly needed. While you're correct about what the implication of boost or nerf is, it's also worth noting that active defense is actually badly underpowered. Boosting offense as a whole would (further) nerf active tanking bonuses. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.09 12:43:00 - [72] Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 08/05/2009 19:20:59 Run the numbers. The abaddon with 800s and a ROF bonus does MORE damage than with megapulse, though admittedly at much shorter ranges. The Hype would deal slightly less than with neutrons, which it has trouble fitting anyway. Why not just add some range and tracking to the weapons instead of trying to give the ships a tracking or range bonus. Did you run the same numbers as I did? Here's what I get, numbers without any damage mods, all skills @ 5, best faction ammo, just adding the ROF bonus: Abaddon 8x800 II's w/Rf EMP - 487 dps, 3k optimal 20k falloff Abaddon 8xMega Pulse II's w/AN MF - 554 dps, 15k optimal 10k falloff Hype w/800's - same as above Hype 8xNeut IIs w/CN AM - 647 dps, 4.5k optimal 13k falloff adding gyros, heat sinks or mags and the numbers are: Abaddon 8x800 II's w/Rf EMP 3xGyro II's - 804 dps, 3k optimal 20k falloff Abaddon 8xMega Pulse II's w/AN MF 3xHS II's - 916 dps, 15k optimal 10k falloff Hype w/800's - same as above Hype 8xNeut IIs w/CN AM 3xMag II's - 1069 dps, 4.5k optimal 13k falloff That's with the ROF boost, add in the returned damage to emp and the 3% to 800's like I earlier stated: Abaddon/Hype 8x800's RF EMP - 526 dps(without Gyros) 868 dps (with Gyros), same optimal and falloff as above. Obviously to utilize that damage you must get 3k from your opponent, and keep him there which implies MWD and probably double webs. So even then you're doing less damage at lower ranges. If you choose to fly these setups, then so be it - they don't seem op to me, but that's what sisi's for. Minmatar Battleships and large projectiles need help, even without the damage boosts I suggested, just adding in the ROF would go a long way in closing the gap between minmatar battleships and others.
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.05.09 13:36:00 - [73] Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 09/05/2009 13:40:27 Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 09/05/2009 13:37:08 Originally by: Ecky X I can't help but question... If blasters suck, and autocannons suck, then autocannons aren't "terrible compared to all other weapons", pulses are great compared to all other weapons. If you knocked a bit of damage off of pulses, you'd be in the same place as if you boosted falloff on projectiles and dps or tracking on blasters. No? Laser tracking sucks for shooting anything moving at close range. Unfortunately the same is true for Blasters and ACs as well. Simply boosting tracking and range slightly for ACs and boosting tracking significantly for blasters would at least give them their small gang and solo roles back. Originally by: Veryez Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 08/05/2009 19:20:59 Run the numbers. The abaddon with 800s and a ROF bonus does MORE damage than with megapulse Did you run the same numbers as I did? I got that one wrong, I think one of my ships had drones on it while the other didn't. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Koniss	Posted - 2009.05.10 00:12:00 - [74] giving to AC +33% (25% rof) dps boost and remove the rof from the ships is a bad idea imho as it make projectile more usable to other races. boost AC damage to put them in a level between pulse and blaster and scale falloff with the incrasing size of the gun, for example 16km on dual425 (same as now) 18km on dual650, 20km on 800mm (examples made on large guns but they would still apply to med and small guns). change arty with doubled dmg mod and adjusted rof to mantain dps the same. another thing to mention is both blaster and pulse get a noticeable DPS inncrease when changing the tier of the guns, while on AC most of the times there is no real reason to use the larger tier of the weapon unless you really have the grid left.
RabbitofDoom	Posted - 2009.05.10 01:15:00 - [75] Increase rof a lot on projectile weapons while keeping a low clip sizes. Make a projectile damage mod +optimal/falloff +damage. Projectiles would turn in to burst weapons of eve. Delivering devastanting barrage of projectiles but in same time you would hear click click before you could say dakadakadaka.
Cheekie Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.13 15:01:00 - [76] Edited by: Cheekie on 13/05/2009 15:03:52 All these great ideas, a lot I agree with, however some of the objections to a change... well common logic will prevail right? To the nay sayers, you do not understand fall off and that minnie ships are not capable of fitting other guns systems properly do to cap issues (Yes Minnie ships are designed to suck in the cap department). So in other words we are stuck with the CCP master blue print of these ships. You can however put projo's on any other racial ship if you like, clearly not a good idea. So if we can not change out our racial guns with much success, give us bone and bring our guns up to par. I am going to suggest what par is because that I believe is up to eve to decide. What really gets my goat is that the people that produced this great game have not offered up a response to this thread yet. I am still waiting, watching and not letting this die like so many other things you have waited for us to drop. I have played this game for 5+ years and have never seen projo's be anything but sub par. There is no real reason that a pod jockey should train these other than to say "I like the sound they make". Eager for a decent response, Cheeks
Cheekie Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.15 04:05:00 - [77] Played with the dread (Nag) today, You almost have it fixed. You know what would finalize it? Fix the projo's. Give then a larger clip, reduce the rate of fire and increase the dps/alpha. Just enough to give it a little more dps and a way better alpha. As for the current projectile figures, My wife is in the back yard throwing rocks to give you the exact figures you need. So far if my kinematic formula does not lie, it looks like .5m/s in the trash bin direction. All jokes aside, fix these dead weights already.
Stretchmeat Crotchquake GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.05.15 07:17:00 - [78] Change the Maelstrom booster bonus to a resist bonus, and/or give it +7.5% optimal per level, and the battleship artillery issue will be essentially fixed.
Opraxis	Posted - 2009.05.15 07:36:00 - [79] I am not seeing how that helps every other minmatar ship suffering from falloff syndrome and weak dps.
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.15 09:03:00 - [80] since projectile weapon sux hard CCP should do something in the style of what they did to naglfar: change all bonus to projectile weapons of minmatar ship from 5% to 7,5% per level. yes minmatar ships will have high paper dps with that but cansidering the great amage reduction of falloff and the weakest overall tanks should be pretty well balanced. tempest with double damage bonus will gain a +25% dps in number a standard tempest fit will recive a boost in gun dps from 650 to 800/850 dps + plus drones i thin a double damage bonused ship deserve to do some damage and even with this change it still be outdamaged by others BS at optimal range (go figure when you count falloff). arties sadly need a deeper rework cause even with this boost they will be still unable to perform what they supposed to do, so boost the the damage mod by a great % and tweak rof to reduce dps (you can even reduce the of unbonused arty since it will be boosted by improved bonus on ships but give minmatar a respectable volley damage).
Dart Sirius	Posted - 2009.05.15 09:38:00 - [81] I always have to laugh when matars cry for more dps and tank.. have you ever tried to fit a shield extender or invu with matar T2 resists? tank is done with 1-2 module fitted lol... I agree with the large arty problem its low on tracking, range and maybe need some more dps but whats wrong with the 5200 alpha?? apoc fitted with tachyons do like 4500 and you dont want to know how sucks to fit it.. So i say give some love for large arty but leave the others its almost every decent pvper fly matar ships already.
Khornne	Posted - 2009.05.15 09:55:00 - [82] Originally by: Dart Sirius I always have to laugh when matars cry for more dps and tank.. have you ever tried to fit a shield extender or invu with matar T2 resists? tank is done with 1-2 module fitted lol... I agree with the large arty problem its low on tracking, range and maybe need some more dps but whats wrong with the 5200 alpha?? apoc fitted with tachyons do like 4500 and you dont want to know how sucks to fit it.. So i say give some love for large arty but leave the others its almost every decent pvper fly matar ships already. Ever compared how often an Apoc has to reload and how often someone with 1400s has? ... -- Khornne's Teamspeak Server Service
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.15 10:02:00 - [83] Originally by: Dart Sirius I always have to laugh when matars cry for more dps and tank.. have you ever tried to fit a shield extender or invu with matar T2 resists? tank is done with 1-2 module fitted lol... I agree with the large arty problem its low on tracking, range and maybe need some more dps but whats wrong with the 5200 alpha?? apoc fitted with tachyons do like 4500 and you dont want to know how sucks to fit it.. So i say give some love for large arty but leave the others its almost every decent pvper fly matar ships already. vagabond isnt the only minmatar ship. and if you want to do a alpha comparison use the abadon and then come back
Dart Sirius	Posted - 2009.05.15 11:22:00 - [84] I often use abaddon and yes amarr BS are good its true. But saying in general that all projectile weapons are crap lets boost them thats not true at all. Matar ships are the best in most of the classes like Command ships, Logistics, HACs, AFs, Dictors, Heavy Dictors, what if they not have the best BS and Capitals? Theres a balance in game even if most of the players cant see it. BTW i still agree that large atry need some LOVE
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.15 12:18:00 - [85] Originally by: Stretchmeat Crotchquake Change the Maelstrom booster bonus to a resist bonus, and/or give it +7.5% optimal per level, and the battleship artillery issue will be essentially fixed. First off why on earth would you give the mael a 7.5% optimal bonus, when every other battleship that has an optimal bonus gets 10%/level? Second, giving the mael a 10% optimal bonus and reducing it's dps by 25% would be an extreme nerf. That's the problem with projectiles - their dps is so nerfed, that a ship needs a 5% rof/level boost to bring them somewhat equal to other weapons. So Matari battleships lose one bonus since they have to get the ROF bonus or their guns would do pitiful damage. That's why I suggest rolling the ROF bonus into the guns and removing it from the ships, it allows the ships to have a more useful bonus.
Cheekie Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.15 19:38:00 - [86] Edited by: Cheekie on 15/05/2009 19:39:43 I am starting to see that I need to be very specific here. I don't intend to point this thread in a direction of auto's that is my fault for not be more specific. Yes I know the auto's are less than great, but still not as bad as artillery. I kind of thought that most people would be on the ball and figure this is about artillery in the range of bs and capitals, With a possible look and autos. This is not a whine about the ships, with a proper artillery fit I believe that most of the ships would fall back on par with others. Quote: So i say give some love for large arty but leave the others (its almost every decent pvper fly matar ships already). Although I agree with you on the other stuff you said. You my friend need to go search through endless fleet battles and on major alliance killboard sites, not some back water band of circle**rks. Find me 10 ,100+ man battles where minnie is top of the fleet list. should be easy as hell right? or maybe not. To make the figures with a conclusion we will need how many you had to go through to get those 10. If you want to just put your faith in me, I am telling you it is going to take you awhile and you are going to find few. Better yet don't trust either of us, go find out for yourselves how many fleet battles minnie are #1 in.
Dart Sirius FREE GATES Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.05.16 00:05:00 - [87] They almost #1 in everything why they have to be #1 in fleet battles too?
Forge Lag	Posted - 2009.05.16 01:50:00 - [88] Originally by: RabbitofDoom Increase rof a lot on projectile weapons while keeping a low clip sizes. Make a projectile damage mod +optimal/falloff +damage. Projectiles would turn in to burst weapons of eve. Delivering devastanting barrage of projectiles but in same time you would hear click click before you could say dakadakadaka. Pretty much but I cannot see it happening. People already cry for alpha and curse at their reload. Projectiles need this - DPS edge till first reload and sharply losing DPS afterwards. Alpha won't happen, it is not fun for the victim, this approach would work. The falloff even as generous as it seems is not enough on slow BSs made even slower post nanonerf - full falloff is not what you should aim for. The fact that there is ewar with no counter makes it only worse. TEs (not TCs) affecting falloff would have a side effect of softly promoting more shield tankers - and since TEs barely affect tracking it would not overpower AC fits (TCs could). Also what most miss is that projectiles are heavily pre-nerfed. The ROF bonus is there to unnerf them, that is all it does. Also, the damage type choice is mixed blessing - it is not really freedom to chose damage type, rather necessity to load correct ammo to unnerf your damage, with one of the intentions beging forcing artillery into certain fixed range, reducing the mobility advantage if you fit arties (inflexible optimal and low tracking).
Cheekie Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.16 04:12:00 - [89] Edited by: Cheekie on 16/05/2009 04:13:06 Quote: They almost #1 in everything why they have to be #1 in fleet battles too? I am afraid you most elaborate. #1 in what, If you say Vaga I am going to have my wife throw rocks at you. Vegeta blows, and so does your unsupported statement. You are the mythical Vegeta/troll/forum warrior with his tropical fruit hat. Make like (insert possible race here) 4 skin and remove yourself.
Dart Sirius FREE GATES Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.05.16 10:45:00 - [90] and i still agree that large arty needs LOOOOVVVEEE
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]

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.