|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
   |
Posted - 2009.09.02 09:36:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/09/2009 09:40:31
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/09/2009 09:39:09
 Originally by: Tyler Lowe
the way falloff on autocannon is set up now, is the skill effecting it. There is currently zero reason to train Trajectory Analysis past rank 4
Oh yes there is.
AC falloff on mid-ranged ships is low enough to make everything which extends it worthwhile. You suffer from a very significant DPS reduction fighting in heavy falloff (remember that your vaga without ambit rigs is going to do 39% of its paper Barrage M DPS at edges of point range) - anything which alleviates this by even a few % is worth training.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.04 22:10:00 -
[2]
Originally by: NightmareX
Artilleries on the other hand is not good as they are now. They need a boost in some ways. And atm i don't have an idea on how to fix them though.
Optimal or tracking. Currently they track rather horribly while being a comparatively short range gun.
Alternatively, TEs / optimal scripted TCs giving a falloff bonus in addition to optimal.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.06 02:46:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Crackpipe2000
I think TC falloff or falloff scripts would boost blaster boats more than projectiles. Atleast I myself fly minmatar on gank setups with shields most of the time. But projectiles do need more falloff one way or another.
It is silly that you need lazorz/rails to get much out of TEs/TCs. Particularly now that TDs disrupt your falloff as well.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.06 22:28:00 -
[4]
TBH, how to fix artillery to be a good weapon system:
(a) Double the clip. Or at the very least 50% more.
(b) 25% more tracking. Reason? It's got equal optimal as beams (not counting tachs, looking at, eg. medium guns), and lower then rails, while tracking much worse then beams and somewhat worse then rails. Given it is suboptimal to use a gun at anything over optimal+1/2 falloff (because of the rather significant DPS losses in falloff), it's range falls somewhere in between rails and beams; it's tracking at said range is much worse then any other gun in its usable range (given the angular velocity increases due to range). If artillery range lies between beams and rails, its tracking needs to be somewhere between these two and definitely not worse then railgun tracking.
(c) Make TEs/optimal scripted TCs give falloff bonuses. In the age of falloff disrupting TDs there is absolutely no reason for them not to, and optimal bonuses only slants the field of long range gunnery to high optimal to falloff guns even more then it is now which is absurd (given how superior optimal is to begin with).
DPS boost will not fly, and I really doubt more alpha will either. Arty alpha is passable as is anyway.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.07 01:52:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Edited by: Allen Ramses on 06/09/2009 23:39:17
Originally by: AstroPhobic
I don't know what you're talking about here. Autocannons aren't meant to be blasters. They need to excel in mid range, and increasing falloff does that. Increasing damage straight up pushes them into short range.
ACs already excel in mid range. Because of the optimal/falloff balance, you can use the highest damage ammo without any effective range loss. And you want to push this further? OK, but you have to promise that nobody will cry about the considerably lower raw DPS ACs get in comparison to blasters, pulses, and torps.
ACs excel in mid-range?
This is nonsense. Fact of the matter is this: eg. medium ACs in order to be effective out of webrange must have 3x falloff rigs (2x minimum). Even then, a artycane WILL outdamage a triple-falloff rigged AC Hurricane out of some 15-16km, and arty DPS is rather meh.
For firing at range, ACs have only one ammo; this is Barrage. There is no damage type versatility or such when firing at range.
Consider that optimal+falloff shooting yields ~38-39% of paper EFT DPS. So that means that at, eg. 16-17km range with a falloff unrigged ship you're doing very little to none - for firing at this range effectively you simply must spend 3 rig slots.
Also, it's pulses which really excel in mid-range by virtue of always firing in their optimal. The only place where ACs are somewhat superior (depending on ships, anyway, talking sub-BS really) is up close, near AC optimal.
Projectile ammo is fine, even with RF EMP doing less then its counterparts. It's a trade-off for being able to somewhat switch damage types.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.09.09 12:50:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 09/09/2009 12:50:52
Originally by: Omu Negru
Don't change the Minmatars. They pawn in those ships. I saw it.
I've nearly soloed a Raven in a Wolf once (then Falcon and Mega showed up to bail him out). This obviously means the Wolf is a superior ship to the Raven, and therefore deserves a hefty nerf.
My logic is also bullet-proof.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 08:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Originally by: Roland Thorne
There was a lot of talk replacing emp with fusion as top ammo, but I'm a little concerned that will interfere with t2 ammos... ccp may not go for that. PP would be a better choice which would be unlikely lol
well would just make it same as hybrids and lasers where t2 short range ammo is crap and frequently ignored.
Fusion SHOULD be top damage with EMP with 80% EM component should be second.
That is ok.
I like the current (rather, SISI) RF EMP, but I'm ok with a lower paper DPS version with a higher EM component and Fusion being top. I dislike any idea of switching them, because EM damage is very damn useful once you get out of the 'shooting T1 armour tanks' scenario.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
| |
|