| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
   |
Posted - 2009.07.05 22:16:00 -
[1]
While I'm aware of the importance of preventing projectiles from being overly powerful on other races' ships, it looks odd that every Minnie BS needs at least a 50% bonus to make them even worth fitting. Take into account how important having the skill at V becomes, if you're going to give very large ship bonuses. I'm more in favor of several parallel boosts - slight base damage increase, slight ammo boost, falloff boost, tiered weapons, ect, rather than giving ships a 12.5%+ damage bonus.
|
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 00:45:00 -
[2]
I still propose more of a boost be given to the guns. Torps do a base of 53% more dps than 800mm AC II's (in optimal), so unless you have BS V, torps will be the preferable close-range weapon on any Minnie BS with these huge bonuses. I already skip ACs on 9 out of 10 Phoon fits, 5 turret hardpoints will not change this.
|
Ecky X
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 01:50:00 -
[3]
IMO, a hardpoint layout like 7/4 would work well with the phoon. Giving it more torp hardpoints would make it insane, while adding any less than 2-3 turret slots will not change anyone's fits. 7 turrent hardpoints would give it a nice middleground fitting between tank and gank (2 gyros + 5 slot buffer), but would not change the full-gank and full-tank fits currently used, as 4 torps + 4 guns will still be far superior without damage mods.
Thoughts?
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.10 01:50:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Sol ExAstris
Changing projectiles and the ships at the same time is dangerous stuff.
Large projectiles need the most help, get them some positive changes first, then watch, learn, and tweak the ships as needed.
While I agree, we'd probably get the first buff and then "you're fine" and that'll be the last we hear of it for 3 years.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.11 01:19:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Ecky X on 11/07/2009 01:20:33
And what is wrong with the Tempest having 58km of falloff?
Current tempest, 3x Gyros + 6x 800mm guns, barrage, vs Geddon w/7x mega pulse + 3x HS, scorch, drones included.
http://yfrog.com/07tempestvsgeddonj
At 6km, it's 998dps vs 846dps.
At 20km, it's 998dps vs 756dps.
At 45km, it's 998dps vs 393dps.
The ships break even at 65km, where both do <50 dps.
The Tempest has marginally better tracking, an extra utility high, and a terrible slot layout for tanking. Increase the falloff to almost 60km, and they break even at 50km- according to EFT, but it does not take hit quality into account, which is reduced by falloff.
Realistically, no amount of extra falloff will make the Tempest more powerful than the Geddon in even overheated recon point range.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.12 04:43:00 -
[6]
Problem with a sig tank is, with the worst tracking (arty), a Minmatar BS will be reducing its own damage more than an enemy's. Phoon can get away with this <20km with drones and torps, but you're very close to scram and web range.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 01:14:00 -
[7]
If you've got a 40 second rate of fire on a Tempest, you're only going to be getting a shot off at one in eight ships. 
With your proposed changes, how much damage will the Pest alpha with Quake?
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 13:29:00 -
[8]
Just a thought, but, shouldn't the Tempest be the ship with 8 guns, and the Maelstrom the one with 6?
It would be much easier to balance if you gave the Mael 6-7 guns and a massive ROF bonus (keeping the current shield boost bonus), and the Tempest 8 guns with something like a 5-7.5% damage bonus, and a 10% falloff bonus.
As a sniper, the Tempest has no business with utility highslots. If you are going to make it a dedicated sniper ship, give it 8 guns and let it use drones to remote repair.
Y/N?
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 13:35:00 -
[9]
Also, I don't remember who mentioned it (too lazy to read back), but I like the idea of having just 2 ranges of minmatar ammo. 3-4 short range and 3-4 long range ammos with the same damage amount and variable type would be balanced with a more falloff-dependant combat style.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 16:41:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Galan Undris
Read the post maybe?
The point is, the upper bound on align time is a little more than 10s for any subcapital, even if trimarked and plated to kazoo, because thats it's cycle time of the mwd. Reducing the alignment time from 12 to 11 does squat for it's ability to land on grid and warp out again, because you're already in warp by that time anyway.
Yes but the difference is, one ship has a sig radius of 2500, and the other, 300, when aligning to warp.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 15:15:00 -
[11]
The Tempest needs more than just artillery to not suck anymore.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 12:35:00 -
[12]
Here's an original thought. How about we balance rigs around each race's weapons?
A rig that gives -25% optimal for +50% falloff would be interesting for projectiles, and perhap one that's -50% falloff for +25% optimal for lasers.
Or perhaps flat-out improve optimal and/or falloff rigs for projectiles? There are several ways you could help balance via these.
|
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.23 15:34:00 -
[13]
Bump for Bibbleibble, first post was updated with summary so far. |
Ecky X
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:23:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Karl Luckner
I think just giving projectile ammo a slight damage boost + adding falloff bonus to tracking enhancers/computers + falloff script would be a good start.
Another interesting idea would be to have all Minmatar ammo give the same optimal range, but add or subtract falloff.
Might work?
|
| |
|