|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
   |
Posted - 2009.08.12 00:32:00 -
[1]
Here's a comparison using the official tracking guide. Max skills without any bonuses from ships etc. Just plain hit chance with short range ammo.
----------------------
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2009.08.14 08:57:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Aranis Nax
redone base armor graph, all tier 2 and 3 gunships(I forgot the Rokh, cba to add it)
Same graph with 2 eanm + DCU
Graphs look exactly the same, the only difference is the y-scale. As long as each resist gets equal treatment the relative difference between weapons stays the same. It's the same way with shield resists.
I know this is a Tempest thread(that is mostly about boosting autocannons), but can one really just look at the Tempest and not look at the other gunships?
Amarr T1 have 20% base exp and only 25% kin on armor. They constitute 37.5% of armor tanking battleships. Could we have that graph aswell?
----------------------
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2009.08.15 00:04:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Aranis Nax
Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: Aranis Nax
...
Amarr T1 have 20% base exp and only 25% kin on armor. They constitute 37.5% of armor tanking battleships. Could we have that graph aswell?
base amarr armor graph, same as those linked in your quote for the rest.
And a bonus, why should I do all the number of permutations if someone can do it himself with the tools given 
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/ReatuKrentor/TrackingSheet.zip
It's not as complex as naughtyboys(not even close) but I had issues with that graph, it was really really slow on Openoffice(and I'm too cheap to get MS Office). Someday I might finish it(like add drone and missile calcs) but it's not that likely, interest in eve has waned.
Thanks. Maelstrom looks alright but Tempest is pretty horrible. :/
----------------------
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 11:28:00 -
[4]
I think we should give up the idea of coping with just falloff. Add some optimal range to the ammos so that AC's can actually do better damage at some range. For BS sizes I would imagine something like 0-5km = blaster dominion, 5-15km = ac dominion and 15-25(+) = laser dominion. Something like 10km opt 20km falloff with Barrage (7.5 + 10 with EMP?) would probably do the trick here. Though lasers will still probably be better at 10-15 (and Null would be equalish?) but at least AC's could compete.
No matter what the numbers, falloff is just too inferior to work so imo we need optimal. The alternative is flat out increasing damage output but that would risk stepping onto blasters' toes.
Btw, the idea of reducing reload time to 5 secs is interesting, too. As it is, 10 seconds makes it unviable to switch ammo in most situations (so it is only used before engaging based on intel). This could be one way of improving projectile damage aswell (not sure exactly how much that would translate to, though).
----------------------
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 12:18:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lucifien
Rework the falloff forumula, make it exponential, not that neverending tail and steep middle-ground it is now:
Falloff ratio (r) = min(0, (range - optimal) / falloff)
Chance to hit = 1 + (1 - (sqrt(2) ^ r) )
* Almost unchanged from 0-0.5x falloff
* Higher hit chance from 0.5-1.5x falloff. You will now be able to move into about 1.2x before getting below 50%. This is no longer the steepest bit of the function, moving past 1x is not as detrimental as it used to be.
* Lower hit chance from about 1.5x, dropping to 0% @ 2.0x. Allows increasing falloff slightly without overtaking lasers at any point, making autos the medium range turret.
Won't be enough on its own, but it will be about 20% more dps around 1x falloff, without increasing dps in "blaster range"
I proposed a similar idea a year ago. But campaigning for more simple solutions is more likely to succeed.
----------------------
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 14:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Aranis Nax
Oh on your 10km optimal/20km falloff suggestion, Jin. How would it change current situation, considering that ammo like EMP has -50% optimal penalty, that 10km would just be a 2-3 km difference(5 km optimal) from current(3 km optimal) with EMP. Few people would sacrifice damage for more range as it is.
Those ranges were with ammunition, so with whatever changes to ammo range penalties that would be neccessary to achieve the outcome.
----------------------
|
Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 08:12:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Aranis Nax
Anyway if that's with range bonuses applied, you're asking for weapons that have 20km falloff and 20km optimal? I don't think CCP would go along with that, unfortunately.
I assume you mean as a base weapon range. While base range without ammo has no relevance, it's not actually even neccessary to change the base stats: you could just increase the optimal modifier on ammo like Barrage. Or perhaps you just misread me again since I said 10km optimal + 20km falloff with Barrage? 
P.S. Doesn't it strike you as odd how 20 + 20 intuitively sounds too much to us when we think of autocannons -- yet the 45 + 10 of lasers is just fine -- they are lasers, afterall!
P.S.S. Before anyone jumps in, I don't want lasers nerfed.
----------------------
|
|
|
| |
|