EVE Search - Projectiles, whats odd, why many whine and why many say they are fine.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Projectiles, whats odd, why many whine and why many say they are fine.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Snow Banshee Amarr	Posted - 2009.05.11 07:05:00 - [1] Edited by: Snow Banshee on 11/05/2009 07:08:38 Well, there are a lot of threads wrote abot this "issue". I think its quite safe to say that most of minnie pilot say that projectiles are quite crap if compared to other weapon systems. On the other side, some say thay they have some advantages that other weapons do not have. So summing all the PRO's and Con's PROS: projectiles dont use cap projectiles can change damage type projectiles have the best "one-volley" potential CONS: projectiles have lesser raw DPS projectiles changing damage type DPS will be even less High damage ammos require more space ( never understood how the hell is that possible ) Another thing to consider, is that weapons are strictly related with the ship they should use them. Looking at the Bs's ( where whining is concentrated) we can see that tier 1 bs have only 4 turret slot, tier 2 have only 6 turret slot, tier 8 have 8 turret slot. Last thing to consider is that projectiles as they are should have less dps for ballancing issues, else we will see those weapons in a lot of non-minnie ships, for example the apocalipse. with its 8x turrets will be good as the tempest without wasting its bonus on weapons. so heres some sugegstion to fix projectiles at least a bit: Everybody that say projectiles are fine claim that because of ability to swith damage tipe. They why just dont remove them? Lets make them explo/kin damage only . Any projectile user use only this anno anyway now that they have "predictable" damage type can projectiles have 5% more damage? high damage ammo should have the same size as the lower damage, like the hybrids ships that use those weapons cant have lesser turret slot than other races, else anytime prokjectiles become good they will be uber on other races. so minnie bs should have those turret layout: typhon: 8 high slots, 6 turrets, 4 launchers (note: not enough fit requirements to fit 8x top-knock weapons) tempest: 8 high slots, 7 turrets, 4 launchers ( like the mega) maelstrom: 8 high slots, 8 turrets, 4 launchers THis way flexibility means "you can use launcher if you wish", not "you must use also launchers in order to not do loldamage" to avoid that amarr ships will just use projectiles those should require a LOT of cpu, in order to make impossible tu fit 8x 1400 in any bs without using at least 2x coproc. Also powercore requirements should be big enough in order to avoid gallente and caldari to be able to fit them easilly ( gallente is not a big problem since they will never give op the damage bonus, but the rock its a problem like ammarian ships) Lets discuss about those suggested changes. Pls even if you dont agree, do not troll. keep it constructive.
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2009.05.11 07:14:00 - [2] I, for one, love my EMP.
Cool Goose	Posted - 2009.05.11 07:17:00 - [3] Originally by: Snow Banshee Edited by: Snow Banshee on 11/05/2009 07:08:38 PROS: projectiles dont use cap -- But we have ****ty capacitor anyway projectiles can change damage type -- Maybe for arties somewhat. For autocannons you'll always use EMP or vs some caldari shield tank Phased Plasma - Who cares about the optimal when you always fight in fallof. projectiles have the best "one-volley" potential -- potential... CONS: projectiles have lesser raw DPS --- and lesser effective dps.. you'll always fight in fallof projectiles changing damage type DPS will be even less High damage ammos require more space ( never understood how the hell is that possible ) typhon: 8 high slots, 6 turrets, 4 launchers (note: not enough fit requirements to fit 8x top-knock weapons) - no tempest: 8 high slots, 7 turrets, 4 launchers ( like the mega) - no maelstrom: 8 high slots, 8 turrets, 4 launchers - no THis way flexibility means "you can use launcher if you wish", not "you must use also launchers in order to not do loldamage"
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.11 07:28:00 - [4] Edited by: Mikal Drey on 11/05/2009 07:28:35 hey hey "best one volley POTENTIAL" thats the issue. they used to have the best alpha but with hp changes it made it redundant. having "potential" isnt a PRO CONS - Reload Times - Fighting in falloff - ****ty Tracking (relativly speaking) TII ammo is a con for all races :/ the multiple turrets stacking the penalties is a serious gimp to any ship. Shattered Crystal - 60 day GTC I like what chronits did with the nag turrets and i would certainly like that change to be across the board for all projectiles.
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.05.11 08:20:00 - [5] About projectiles on other races, this is easily solved by ship bonuses. There's nothing wrong with all minmatar ships having projectile bonuses that are needed in order to get the turrets working how they should (similar to Amarr energy turret cap bonuses). IMO the biggest problems with projectiles are the mediocre alpha and fighting in falloff. These two are related, good luck trying to get a well aimed or excellent hit when you're 20km into falloff. If there's any weapon that needs to make every shot count it's artillery, so why does it get the most inconsistent damage? It doesn't make any sense. Projectile ammo having different sizes is a bit daft, you could fix this and the clip size problem just by giving them a consistent size across the board.
Mish'Kala Minmatar FarSight Location and Recovery Services	Posted - 2009.05.11 08:58:00 - [6] Originally by: Snow Banshee ships that use those weapons cant have lesser turret slot than other races, else anytime prokjectiles become good they will be uber on other races. so minnie bs should have those turret layout: typhon: 8 high slots, 6 turrets, 4 launchers (note: not enough fit requirements to fit 8x top-knock weapons) tempest: 8 high slots, 7 turrets, 4 launchers ( like the mega) maelstrom: 8 high slots, 8 turrets, 4 launchers THis way flexibility means "you can use launcher if you wish", not "you must use also launchers in order to not do loldamage" Would be nice, but CCP has already stated that they cannot simply alter ship models to include more turret points (naglfar thread in Game Design forum)
Delishandra Ptlaemaique	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:20:00 - [7] well the falloff thing can be a pro: I never used hybrid, but with laser you either give +-full damage or no damage at all, whereas proj have more flexibility. You can choose the range according to the opponent and still do some damage, maybe allowing more tactics/interplay with fittings/stuff... ...which is maybe only relevant for 1v1/small scale encounter, but still...
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:20:00 - [8] the ships are fine, the only thing i would change is a PG boost to the tempest to make it fit mwd +1400 arty + plate(s). the weapons need some love. make AC damage scale increasing the size of the guns in a similar way of blaster and laser, increase falloff with the size of the gun. give arty a volley damage boost, 2x dmg mod same dps. make EMP in line with AM/multi.
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:38:00 - [9] Originally by: Mish'Kala Would be nice, but CCP has already stated that they cannot simply alter ship models to include more turret points (naglfar thread in Game Design forum) Well I think that's only with dreads because the turret points are very visible and animated, with other ships all they'd have to do is stick another turret model somewhere on the hull. They've done it many times in the past.
EFT Warrior	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:40:00 - [10] The idea behind Matari ships are skirmish fighters that outmaneuver their opponent and use range to dictate the fight, so in an ideal world that is in no way like EVE, 1v1 a Matari pilot will always come out on top, even if it means not dying when he should. The usual method of fighting involves getting transversal up very high against your opponent and out-track his guns. This works well on small ships because they have the raw speed to do so. As the ships get larger you are unable to outtrack your opponents as well because speed is lower, signature radius gets bigger and let's face it artillery tracking is pants. As the guns get bigger target painters come into play, giving artillery a boost to tracking it desperately needs and letting you outtrack your opponent even further than your guns alone are capable of. However, as the opponents fleet gets bigger, you're "supposed" to rely on the quick strike, a huge burst of damage before your opponent can do the same, because you won't last long in a fair fight and trying to outtrack 30 ships spread out around a 15km area is almost impossible. The high alpha strike from artillery was supposed to accomplish this, and I'm still convinced that a fleet of tempests warping in and out of a battlefield could alpha strike an opponent and get out before enemies have them locked up, or with the initial alpha strike take the advantage with the enemy having one less ship to fight you with (assuming all things are equal, something just as unlike EVE). This tactic isn't necessarily superior to the stand-still-and-shoot-until-everyone-dies method that Amarr and Gallente love to use, but it's silly to try and apply that to Matari ships. It would be like telling Caldari to not use electronic warfare in fleet fights, or telling Gallente to stop using drones. By taking away Minmatar's main advantage (speed) of course it's no surprise when they underperform. This is my take on it, but I will find very few discrepancies between experienced pilots on this.

Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2009.05.11 09:41:00 - [11] Sabbots are the explination for smaller bullets working larger cannons. It would seem the minmatar dont have the sabbots preinstalled like the hybrid rounds do (which is why the hybrids all one size) but probably has some recycable sabbot or some other weird tech that would allow for the sabbot to be installed when its chambered allowing smaller ammo to occupy more space while larger dps ammo may reach the size of the actual barrel. or minmatar are just that lazy and dont sabbot thier rounds at all allowing the rounds to bang the side of the barrel on the way out. other than that never used the guns, im sorta afraid to (with probable cause dont laugh) Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 19Apr09
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.11 11:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Snow Banshee there are a lot of threads wrote abot this "issue". No quotes needed. It's real. Quote: PROS: projectiles dont use cap projectiles can change damage type projectiles have the best "one-volley" potential See the one I underlined? It's false. The Tach Abaddon does. Know what else? In a fleet fight, DPS is measured over the course of the battle, and artillery is vastly overwhelmed in usefulness by the time the first reload hits (and arties reload alot). Quote: CONS: projectiles have lesser raw DPS projectiles changing damage type DPS will be even less High damage ammos require more space ( never understood how the hell is that possible ) Heh, and somehow you managed to miss that hit chance affects hit quality (meaning that projectiles don't do "50% damage" at optimal + falloff, but 37.5% damage at optimal + falloff. And then you somehow missed that EMP is actually two points of raw damage below the other racial high damage ammos. And then you managed to miss that our high damage ammo will hit a high resist. Quote: Last thing to consider is that projectiles as they are should have less dps for ballancing issues, else we will see those weapons in a lot of non-minnie ships, for example the apocalipse. Eeeeehhhhh.... not buying it. The Tempest has 10 effective turrets (1.25 * 1.333), the Apoc would have 8. If you're concerned about capless Apocs, I wouldn't be... cap boosters, the panacea for all cap trouble! [list=1] Everybody that say projectiles are fine claim that because of ability to swith damage tipe. They why just dont remove them? Lets make them explo/kin damage only . Any projectile user use only this anno anyway ... I take it you've never heard of EMP? Quote: typhon: 8 high slots, 6 turrets, 4 launchers (note: not enough fit requirements to fit 8x top-knock weapons) tempest: 8 high slots, 7 turrets, 4 launchers ( like the mega) maelstrom: 8 high slots, 8 turrets, 4 launchers I dunno about that. I don't mind the phoon having 6 turrets, but I in no way think it mandatory. Quote: []to avoid that amarr ships will just use projectiles those should require a LOT of cpu, in order to make impossible tu fit 8x 1400 in any bs without using at least 2x coproc. 1400's already suck. Making them require 3 damage mods and 2 co-procs would just make them suck more. Are you trying to reference Tachs requiring 2 RCU's on an Apoc or something? WTB 1600 Artillery? Quote:* Pls even if you dont agree, do not troll. keep it constructive. You're not allowed to say "don't troll my thread" when in fact your thread is trolling. Yes, I responded anyway. Honestly, if you're not trolling and are legitimately trying to help, I rather strongly suggest you go read up on those "threads" you mentioned and take some tips from people that actually fly the race. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.11 11:17:00 - [13] Originally by: Delishandra Ptlaemaique well the falloff thing can be a pro: I never used hybrid, but with laser you either give +-full damage or no damage at all, whereas proj have more flexibility. You can choose the range according to the opponent and still do some damage, maybe allowing more tactics/interplay with fittings/stuff... ...which is maybe only relevant for 1v1/small scale encounter, but still... Hmmm, consider: 500 DPS @ 30km optimal, 5km falloff 500 DPS @ 5km optimal, 30km falloff Looks pretty even right? Not so much, the optimal based solution has so many advantages: - Tracking computers - Tracking enhancers - Common Ship bonuses - 100% damage out to 30km. Falloff based solutions are doing 200 DPS by the time the optimal solution's optimal runs out, and the optimal base solution will drastically outdamage the falloff solution out to about 37km. Sadly, we don't actually even see this situation. What we see is 500 DPS @ range vs 350 @ close range because our ammo sucks. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Bronson Hughes ADVANCED Combat and Engineering	Posted - 2009.05.11 14:57:00 - [14] Originally by: Liang Nuren Hmmm, consider: 500 DPS @ 30km optimal, 5km falloff 500 DPS @ 5km optimal, 30km falloff Looks pretty even right? Not so much, the optimal based solution has so many advantages: - Tracking computers - Tracking enhancers - Common Ship bonuses - 100% damage out to 30km. Falloff based solutions are doing 200 DPS by the time the optimal solution's optimal runs out, and the optimal base solution will drastically outdamage the falloff solution out to about 37km. Sadly, we don't actually even see this situation. What we see is 500 DPS @ range vs 350 @ close range because our ammo sucks. -Liang The situation you described above would be far more reasonable if: 1. There were as many ways to improve your Falloff as there are to improve your Optimal. 2. Tracking Disruptors only reduced Optimal and not Falloff. 3. The 30km Falloff weapon had a higher base damage than the 30km Optimal weapon. I think any two of those would help the situation with projectiles greatly. Heck, they may even make blasters more useful. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne
Destructor1792 Minmatar snotty nosed little kids with nerf guns	Posted - 2009.05.11 14:59:00 - [15] Now whilst myself & Liang don't see eye to eye on what changes should be introduced for projectiles, we both agree that they require some serious work! I'll look just at close range for the moment - this is "how" they should work (just examples): Hybrids - Amazing tracking, very short optimals & not much falloff (ships get in close, require high tracking for guns to hit the targets, the small falloff helps as they move into position) Lasers - Worst tracking, Longest Optimals & sod all falloff (ships need to sit the furthest out to hit anything - get in close & misses all round!) Projectiles - Best Tracking, Short optimals & very long falloff (ships rely on speed so operate just outside of everyones EWAR, fast tracking to compensate, longer falloff as that's where they're fighting to but reduction in DPS due to falloff) Problem we have is that once you move past the BC class & into the realms of BS's, those 3 statements get (at best) lost. Large sigs with slow moving ships and as most people like to huddle, 2 weapons systems are at a disadvantage straight away! Problem no. 2 is that if you boost the tracking of the Large versions we go back down the route of a few years back when BS guns could track & hit frigs or cruisers at close range whilst they're orbiting you! So that's one route CCP will not go down again That leaves us with a couple of choices: Boost the optimals (but this leads to problems of guns being able to hit smaller ships orbiting @ range) Remove the close range gun range from the BS and install something different but what though?! (and lots of flaming on the forums!) This is the problem - no matter what change is introduced, a whole new range of problems will surface! If CCP would be so kind as to let us know their idea of what each weapon class should (or shouldn't) do, then prehaps we, the community, can come up with ideas based on that. At the moment, we're just stabbing in the dark with what "we" want whilst debating the pros & cons of any ideas put forward. This is from just looking at close range guns - you then have the long range counterparts to look at! Come on CCP - throw us a bone.. help us out here so we can really get the ball rolling ______________________________________ Bringing The Fun Back [gold]I Have No Fear, That's your Problem[/go
Poreuomai Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.05.11 15:31:00 - [16] Originally by: Snow Banshee ... Lets make them explo/kin damage only . Any projectile user use only this anno anyway ... Many people use EMP (S/M/L) ammo for close range combat. *Let My People Go*
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.11 15:45:00 - [17] it would be very cool to have some pen feedback from CCP about both projectiles (both AC and arty) and Blasters.
1600 RT	Posted - 2009.05.11 15:47:00 - [18] Originally by: Poreuomai Originally by: Snow Banshee ... Lets make them explo/kin damage only . Any projectile user use only this anno anyway ... Many people use EMP (S/M/L) ammo for close range combat. yes and EMP alone deal 10% less damage than all the others close range high dmg ammo.
Gabriel Virtus hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.05.11 16:04:00 - [19] Edited by: Gabriel Virtus on 11/05/2009 16:05:39 Fighting in fall-off makes projectiles different and I like that. Keep the fall-off and just increase the base damage a bit to compensate for generally fighting in fall-off. Decrease the tracking so they simply cannot hit anything below the broad side of a barn when in optimal. I think this would be a neat change. The multiple damage types are cool too. Increase clip size, the amount of reloading I have to do in 1 damn fight is ridiculous compared to other weapon systems. This further decreases the DPS of projectile platforms. -GV
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.05.11 16:28:00 - [20] Make projectile ammo completely modular so you can combine any range with any of the current damage combinations. That would actually improve on the versatility of projectiles. -------- Ideas for: Mining

jaws104	Posted - 2009.05.11 16:34:00 - [21] Sigh I had a fleeting semi when i misread 'Agility Changes on Singularity' sticky as 'Artillery changes...'
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.11 16:36:00 - [22] Originally by: jaws104 Sigh I had a fleeting semi when i misread 'Agility Changes on Singularity' sticky as 'Artillery changes...' I've done that a couple of times myself. I keep awaiting the post, but I'm becoming less and less convinced it will happen. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Foot M FM Corp Dead Mans Hand	Posted - 2009.05.11 17:16:00 - [23] give mini less optimal and a lot more falloff, then give ammo falloff bonuses or reductions depending on the ammount of damage. i wouldnt mind having an optimal of 100km on my 1400's if i had falloff out to 250. AC's need some love, raven 1000 dps, mega 1100dps, apoc 900dps, tempest 700 dps -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- This day is called the feast of Crispian: He that outlives this day...
Feilamya Minmatar	Posted - 2009.05.11 17:49:00 - [24] DON'T MESS WITH PROJECTILES! Projectiles have tactical advantages at the cost of DPS. If you prefer DPS over tactics, don't fly Minmatar.
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.11 17:59:00 - [25] to all who say reduce optimal dont you think 3km(emp) 6km(barrage) is already short enough? the already have the lowest optimal of all guns. ACs need a boost on damage its not possible that a 800mm do less paper dps than a dual heavy pulse (also DHP have better range), not to mention reduction for fighting in falloff etc.
Ecky X SniggWaffe	Posted - 2009.05.11 18:32:00 - [26] Edited by: Ecky X on 11/05/2009 18:34:25 I've always seen autocannons as functioning somewhere between where lasers can't tracking and blasters can't hit. This may work in 1v1's, justifying the low damage by being able to avoid damage from all other weapon types, but the moment you have a third ship on the field, lasers and blasters become more attractive.
To mare	Posted - 2009.05.11 18:59:00 - [27] Originally by: Ecky X Edited by: Ecky X on 11/05/2009 18:34:25 I've always seen autocannons as functioning somewhere between where lasers can't tracking and blasters can't hit. This may work in 1v1's, justifying the low damage by being able to avoid damage from all other weapon types, but the moment you have a third ship on the field, lasers and blasters become more attractive. 1st 1v1 with BS happen only on sisi. 2nd neutron blaster with null outdamage AC with barrage up to 24-25km and in that range you are at the limit of warp disruptor 3rd a mega pulse with scorch outdamage AC with barrage all the way up to 60km and for what regard tracking AC have a slight advantage over laser but due to more damage of laser their dps stay pretty much on pair even with high transversal, also laser if fight go in low ranges can switch crystal almost istantly to T1 losing tracking penality and gain even more dps, while projectiles (and hibryd) take 10s to switch ammo.
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.11 21:04:00 - [28] Originally by: Snow Banshee Well, there are a lot of threads wrote abot this "issue". Everybody that say projectiles are fine claim that because of ability to swith damage tipe. They why just dont remove them? Lets make them explo/kin damage only . Any projectile user use only this anno anyway now that they have "predictable" damage type can projectiles have 5% more damage? high damage ammo should have the same size as the lower damage, like the hybrids ships that use those weapons cant have lesser turret slot than other races, else anytime projectiles become good they will be uber on other races. so minnie bs should have those turret layout: typhon: 8 high slots, 6 turrets, 4 launchers (note: not enough fit requirements to fit 8x top-knock weapons) tempest: 8 high slots, 7 turrets, 4 launchers ( like the mega) maelstrom: 8 high slots, 8 turrets, 4 launchers THis way flexibility means "you can use launcher if you wish", not "you must use also launchers in order to not do loldamage" to avoid that amarr ships will just use projectiles those should require a LOT of cpu, in order to make impossible tu fit 8x 1400 in any bs without using at least 2x coproc. Also powercore requirements should be big enough in order to avoid gallente and caldari to be able to fit them easilly ( gallente is not a big problem since they will never give op the damage bonus, but the rock its a problem like ammarian ships) Lets discuss about those suggested changes. Pls even if you dont agree, do not troll. keep it constructive. So your "boosts" are: 1) Remove EM and thermal damage from projectiles 2) Boost DPS by 5% 3) Reduce the size of EMP 4) Add a gun to the Tempest 5) Make it impossible to fit 8x1400's on any battleship (I assume you mean the mael too) without 2 fitting mods. You're kidding right? You can be serious? You really think a 5% DPS boost will fix artillery? Then you make it so the mael needs 2xcopro's just to fit the guns? This is why people who don't use the weapons should not be trying to balance them. Lets look at your PROS: 1) Projectiles don't you cap. With the buffer tanks of today, what do you need cap for? Running your MWD or using neuts? Well guess what, Minmatar ships have the smallest total cap for their class, so this all kind of balances out. Besides, you see many minmatar ships that use neuts, use cap boosters too, besides minmatar ships normally have smaller buffer tanks then other ships of their class (certainly at the battleship class), so our lower DPS guns fire right up until we die - yeah. 2) Projectiles can change damage type. Can't remember the last time I even carried plasma into a fight, and I have argued that fusion should be our highest damage ammo, not EMP. Besides we don't switch damage, like missiles, but rather spread it out, it's an advantage I would easily lose for 20% more damage. 3) Projectiles have the best "one-volley" potential. That actually belongs to the Tach Abaddon (depending on crystals used). However I don't think it makes up for the 32% lower DPS of 1400's. If projectiles had a weapon of equivalent size to Tachs that might be different, but alas the 1600's haven't been made yet. The fact that many people admit there is a problem with projectiles (large projectiles primarily, and specifically Artillery) is promising, but until CCP acknowledges the problem it won't be fixed.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.11 21:22:00 - [29] Originally by: Veryez bruhuhu ... mammy ... bruhuhu Oh matar tears. Dunno why they whine when they have the best ships in eve. projectiles+matar hulls = awesome ships If you want only dps+ehp go learn another race.
Veryez	Posted - 2009.05.11 23:27:00 - [30] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Veryez bruhuhu ... mammy ... bruhuhu projectiles+matar hulls = awesome ships Says the person who doesn't fly them.....And I have learned 2 other races already. Lets See: Amarr BS 5, Large Energy Turret 5, Mimmatar Battleship 5, Large Projectile 5, Caldari BS 5, Torpedo 5, Cruise Missile 5, Large Hybrids 5. Yup got them all, and all specs to at least 4. And you're wrong in the Battleship ranks, DPS+EHP > versatility.

Lindsay Logan	Posted - 2009.05.12 00:35:00 - [31] Medium AC is pretty decent, Medium Arty might need a bit of tweaks. Large Arty could need some capacity enhancements to it, maby a bit higher damage mod. Large AC could need slight damage modifier boost. They should however not have exactly the same damage potential tho as say lasers. There should be penalties associated wiht having cap less wepaon in contrast to cap hungry weapons. Not as severe as it is now, but some. As fot the Phoon, leave it. Currently its an awsome ship, skill intensive, but awsome.
JonnyKay Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.05.12 01:09:00 - [32] I hate when people ask for a buff to projectiles by suggesting to "increase their alpha but lower the dps!"... It's almost ******ed because projectiles already have the lowest DPS of all turrets and I dont think that people realise that alot of fights in eve are won generally by firing more than one shot at the enemy (unless you're in a huge fleet fight ofc) It's kind of pointless if if a rack of 6x large artilleries can do 2000-3000 damage volleys to an enemy BS if their ROF is like 15-20 seconds because that is very easily tankable Buff their alpha, buff their dps. They need both boosted because projects fight in falloff! I'll let the math-head people work this one out.
Liang Nuren No Salvation Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.05.12 01:47:00 - [33] Originally by: JonnyKay I hate when people ask for a buff to projectiles by suggesting to "increase their alpha but lower the dps!"... It's almost *****ed because projectiles already have the lowest DPS of all turrets and I dont think that people realise that alot of fights in eve are won generally by firing more than one shot at the enemy (unless you're in a huge fleet fight ofc) It's kind of pointless if if a rack of 6x large artilleries can do 2000-3000 damage volleys to an enemy BS if their ROF is like 15-20 seconds because that is very easily tankable Buff their alpha, buff their dps. They need both boosted because projects fight in falloff! I'll let the math-head people work this one out. We already have: doubling alpha, halving ROF is exactly* the same DPS as you currently get. However, it has another bonus: it effectively 'doubles' your clip size. It has a drawback: too much damage can be applied to a single target (effectively 'overstriking' them). I'm wholly in favor double alpha, but I humbly suggest .55 rof instead of .5 rof. This, of course, only applies to artillery. With regards to autos, I am pretty sure that simply adding falloff by weapon tier (800s get more falloff than d650s get more falloff than 425 which get exactly what they have now) and unnerfing projectile high damage ammo would go a long ways. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.	Posted - 2009.05.12 02:16:00 - [34] ccp killed artillerys strength of hit and run and don't seem to want to give it back or even admit that they nerfed it. Tbh I think the problem with arty is they lost their role, I've given up on arty till ccp do something about them. I just hope when ccp do decide to give arty something it's something good not something prenerfed to hell like blackops or the vargur. ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Veebora Caldari	Posted - 2009.05.12 03:06:00 - [35] Projectile weapons indeed need some love. It is somewhat too late to me as I've already crosstrained to Gallente, but more people will come without some changes.
Pvt Public7 Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2009.05.12 03:18:00 - [36] Common: Change range bonuses on ammo into falloff bonuses. Make ammo volume consistent across each size. Reduce difference between long and short range ammo range bonuses. Increase difference between damage types ie: EMP = 70% EM, 15% kin, 15% therm carbonized lead = 70% kin, 15% therm, 15% expl Autocannons: Optimal 0m, falloff to 1.5x current optimal+falloff. Set reload time to 2.5 seconds. Reduce weapon capacity. Increase refire delay. Increase damage modifier. Basically, turn them into dial-a-damage blasters. Artillery: Optimal is fine, double falloff. Reduce weapon capacity so that they can only hold 3 rounds at once. Reduce refire delay by 99% or something. Basically, empty the magazine in less than half the time it takes to load it. Aim to increase DPS to be somewhat less than Mega Beams AFTER factoring in reload. Basically, tripple-alpha WTFPWN guns. --- SWA was here IAC is a loser
Zibu 81 Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.12 05:50:00 - [37] Edited by: Zibu 81 on 12/05/2009 05:56:00 Edited by: Zibu 81 on 12/05/2009 05:54:48 Adding falloff modification to ammo would kill autocannon combat all together. Current implementation allows ACs to function like lasers with their instant ammo switch: You load highest damage ammo and the further you go out it reduces damage for range (just like switching a crystal). The problems with this are: - you need range closer that MF optimal to get similar performance - at optimal + falloff you get a performance of radio ammo (about 40% of damage) for the range of standard crystal. This would be fair as you trade better tracking and no cap use for range if it wasn't for scorch, where you get long range and high damage... Another problem with projectiles is their ability to switch damage types comes with a severe damage penalties, so everyone just uses EMP and Barrage So simplest solution would be to move fusion and PP to the range of EMP and give them lost damage back. You can keep EMP and PP with slightly lower damage mod as off-racial ammo, but please make fusion the same as MF and AM. This would make them the autocannon ammos and no one notices the range difference between EMP, PP and fusion in arties even now anyway. Give projectiles a bit more falloff, or at least make the falloff increase as the gun tiers go up. And slightly out of projectile focus - nerf scorch a bit, as it's bonus outweighs those of barrage and null. As for long range ammo - no one would use it in autocannons anyway so leave it as is and buff arties a bit, as they fall behind in every category vs beams and rails (it's ok to be the worst in one or two departments as long as you have an advantage in others). Edit: A mod to increase falloff would also come in handy to bring projectiles back in line.
Mikal Drey Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.12 06:36:00 - [38] Originally by: Liang Nuren WTB 1600 Artillery? -Liang you know that you are almost on to something with that ? i have always secretly desired a 1000mm artillery which would encompass alot of what the arty users want. lower rof and increased clip size with a nice mid range optimal/falloff it would still need low slottage enhancements as usual. a 1600mm would aleviate the other issue and could have the excessive alpha strike but gimped RoF 180/220/425 650/720 425/650/800 1200/1400 I would support an additional flavor of arty either lower tier or bigger bang. modal/anode/electron/ion/neutron is way to complicated for my ickle brain cells but ive always understood that hybrids have much more in the way of options of turret but limited ammo while we are limited turret but get better ammo choice Shattered Crystal - 60 day GTC
Savasta	Posted - 2009.05.12 09:02:00 - [39] Originally by: Mikal Drey Originally by: Liang Nuren WTB 1600 Artillery? -Liang you know that you are almost on to something with that ? i have always secretly desired a 1000mm artillery which would encompass alot of what the arty users want. lower rof and increased clip size with a nice mid range optimal/falloff it would still need low slottage enhancements as usual. a 1600mm would aleviate the other issue and could have the excessive alpha strike but gimped RoF 180/220/425 650/720 425/650/800 1200/1400 I would support an additional flavor of arty either lower tier or bigger bang. modal/anode/electron/ion/neutron is way to complicated for my ickle brain cells but ive always understood that hybrids have much more in the way of options of turret but limited ammo while we are limited turret but get better ammo choice Shattered Crystal - 60 day GTC Modal and Anode are types of named turrets, not turret tiers, for both lasers and blasters.
eliminator2 Gallente Annihilate. Shock Alliance	Posted - 2009.05.12 11:32:00 - [40] pro and cons are simply bang on but the changes are quite disappointing that you have made id rather sick with how they are and not have them changed one bit tbh



Pages: 1 2 :: [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.