EVE Search - Tempest needs changing.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tempest needs changing.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 42 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.09.05 10:59:00 - [931] Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. otimal woudl make them simply copy of rails. They need to get a LARGE alpha strike boost. And track computers get a boost into falloff. That would keep FLAVOR in game. The arties would still be inferior at very long ranges but would be superior at around 150 km, and USABLE at 175km. Also increase clip size by around 40% THen we have a long range weapon different from beams and rails... but useful.
Crackpipe2000	Posted - 2009.09.05 13:46:00 - [932] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. otimal woudl make them simply copy of rails. They need to get a LARGE alpha strike boost. And track computers get a boost into falloff. That would keep FLAVOR in game. The arties would still be inferior at very long ranges but would be superior at around 150 km, and USABLE at 175km. Also increase clip size by around 40% THen we have a long range weapon different from beams and rails... but useful. 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.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.09.05 13:59:00 - [933] Originally by: Crackpipe2000 Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. otimal woudl make them simply copy of rails. They need to get a LARGE alpha strike boost. And track computers get a boost into falloff. That would keep FLAVOR in game. The arties would still be inferior at very long ranges but would be superior at around 150 km, and USABLE at 175km. Also increase clip size by around 40% THen we have a long range weapon different from beams and rails... but useful. 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. and wich blaster boats have enough mids and lows to spare for extra falloff? Not really an issue. This will have effect basically only on sniepr ships that fit 3 range modules. Resulting in a net 40% extra falloff. That is almost nothing for beams, something for rails and significant for arties....
Crackpipe2000	Posted - 2009.09.05 14:10:00 - [934] Originally by: Seishi Maru Which? Its not like they have 2 mids each, is it? But you're right, this would probably effect LR ships only. But previous was just a note anyway.
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.09.05 16:04:00 - [935] And I quote from here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1172933&page=8#214 Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Tempest Navy Issue: We are aware of the current issues this ship has, mainly due to problems with the standard Tempest in the first place. We will discuss this further based on the feedback expressed here. We can't say much more than that unfortunately, since the core problem remains extremely delicate to tackle (and yes we are also aware of the various player threads and discussions that are on-going about the Tempest and projectiles in general). Too bad I can't really afford to let myself become optimistic they'll fix it. Not after they suggested raping the fleet pest. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.05 16:07:00 - [936] Recognition is a good step I suppose. This part bothers me, though. Quote: We are aware of the current issues this ship has, mainly due to problems with the standard Tempest in the first place. We will discuss this further based on the feedback expressed here. As if projectiles are fine and dandy and it's just the tempest that sucks. I was afraid of this, and one of the main reasons why I always say "projectiles first, tempest after".
Schmell	Posted - 2009.09.05 16:52:00 - [937] Originally by: Liang Nuren And I quote from here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1172933&page=8#214 Originally by: CCP Ytterbium Tempest Navy Issue: We are aware of the current issues this ship has, mainly due to problems with the standard Tempest in the first place. We will discuss this further based on the feedback expressed here. We can't say much more than that unfortunately, since the core problem remains extremely delicate to tackle (and yes we are also aware of the various player threads and discussions that are on-going about the Tempest and projectiles in general). Too bad I can't really afford to let myself become optimistic they'll fix it. Not after they suggested raping the fleet pest. -Liang Lol, you must be careful about what you wish for! They FIXED fleetpest, now they will FIX tempest.
Kismo	Posted - 2009.09.05 17:20:00 - [938] Originally by: Schmel They FIXED fleetpest, now they will FIX tempest. I see what you did there. I got my cat FIXED last year too. No claws and no balls!
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.09.06 00:16:00 - [939] A simple and shameless bump just because we NEED to reach the 1 thousand replies on this!
Chestrano Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.06 00:54:00 - [940] Originally by: Seishi Maru A simple and shameless bump just because we NEED to reach the 1 thousand replies on this! CCP already noticed this thread. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1165197&page=2

Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.09.06 01:19:00 - [941] Its not a matter of noticing.. its a matter of noticign how SERIOUS we are bout this! THe APOC only got boosted exaclty because of a thread exactly like this.
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.09.06 01:43:00 - [942] Originally by: Seishi Maru Its not a matter of noticing.. its a matter of noticign how SERIOUS we are bout this! THe APOC only got boosted exaclty because of a thread exactly like this. This is hardly the first "monster" projectile/tempest thread. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
kessah Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.06 02:28:00 - [943] Originally by: Seishi Maru Its not a matter of noticing.. its a matter of noticign how SERIOUS we are bout this! THe APOC only got boosted exaclty because of a thread exactly like this. I think i started that one too Wanted a range bonus and more cpu and i was quite taken back that it happened Ive only a idea for what i think the pest should be like, damage orientated, as for the how, thats for CCP.
Ecky X	Posted - 2009.09.06 02:40:00 - [944] Originally by: kessah Originally by: Seishi Maru Its not a matter of noticing.. its a matter of noticign how SERIOUS we are bout this! THe APOC only got boosted exaclty because of a thread exactly like this. I think i started that one too Wanted a range bonus and more cpu and i was quite taken back that it happened Ive only a idea for what i think the pest should be like, damage orientated, as for the how, thats for CCP. That would about do it for the Tempest too.
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.06 02:46:00 - [945] 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
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.09.06 02:52:00 - [946] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Seishi Maru Its not a matter of noticing.. its a matter of noticign how SERIOUS we are bout this! THe APOC only got boosted exaclty because of a thread exactly like this. This is hardly the first "monster" projectile/tempest thread. -Liang So let's make it the LAST one!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.09.06 11:13:00 - [947] Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 06/09/2009 11:15:37 Yesterday night i had another small idea of role and differentiation for tempest. Now that we know CCP is reading. I will present it here, and obviously want opinions of fellow thread members. Other people that defended tempest said that they liked it because it did not depended much on drones, so good for piracy, where sentries like to eat your drones. That led me to the idea, would be easier to give it more meaningful boosts and tunning into a role if we nerf other things. WAIT!!!! do not run! Read it first.... My proposal.. nerf drone bandwidth to 25MB. Yes 25 MB. Change the DAMAGE bonus to 10% per level and keep rof bonus as it is now. This is a slight boost to its dps about 40 dps with 1 gyro (because of the combined more gun dps but less drone dps). But this configuration would be EXCELENT to pirates that do not want to expose drones to sentries.. and at same time would be good for sniping. That would make tempest the TOP dps sniper... but only at the short range and short clip size of arties. So far from unbalanced, but would give food for FC toughs on wich range to engage. AND more important.. would be DIFFERENT than typhoon and maelstrom! Of course all this still to be applied together to the Projectile fixes of your choice :) Just wanted to continue pointing that there are infinite ways to imrpove the ships without making it overpowered and makeing ti different from typhoon and maelstrom. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.06 12:48:00 - [948] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 06/09/2009 11:15:37 Yesterday night i had another small idea of role and differentiation for tempest. Now that we know CCP is reading. I will present it here, and obviously want opinions of fellow thread members. Other people that defended tempest said that they liked it because it did not depended much on drones, so good for piracy, where sentries like to eat your drones. That led me to the idea, would be easier to give it more meaningful boosts and tunning into a role if we nerf other things. WAIT!!!! do not run! Read it first.... My proposal.. nerf drone bandwidth to 25MB. Yes 25 MB. Change the DAMAGE bonus to 10% per level and keep rof bonus as it is now. This is a slight boost to its dps about 40 dps with 1 gyro (because of the combined more gun dps but less drone dps). But this configuration would be EXCELENT to pirates that do not want to expose drones to sentries.. and at same time would be good for sniping. That would make tempest the TOP dps sniper... but only at the short range and short clip size of arties. So far from unbalanced, but would give food for FC toughs on wich range to engage. AND more important.. would be DIFFERENT than typhoon and maelstrom! Of course all this still to be applied together to the Projectile fixes of your choice :) Just wanted to continue pointing that there are infinite ways to imrpove the ships without making it overpowered and makeing ti different from typhoon and maelstrom. In a gang it is not a big issue, since the sentrys cylce a lot. In a small gang or solo you need a ship that tanks good or deals lots of damage(with turrets or missles) to get the job done before the Sentrys tear you appart. Both of this can¦t be archived with the Tempest, not even with technical 3 damage bonuses(a 3-4 gyro Mealstorm would still be the choice since it can fit tank and gank in the same fitting). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.06 16:27:00 - [949] Originally by: Allen Ramses Originally by: Orakkus All autocannons: +35% falloff. No. AC falloff is already twice as much as blasters and pulses. A 20% increase to DPS is probably needed, though. 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. Quote: Quote: Ammo: No. CCP must have been on drugs when they created the ammo for minmatar ammo. Mixing it with this will only make it worse. Instead, CCP need to re-create Minmatar ammo from scratch. I don't know how this would make it worse, it's pretty much a straight upgrade. I haven't seen anyone disagree with the ammo changes (personally it's my favorite), so I really don't know what you're on about. Quote: Quote: Artillery: Increase the base damage modifier by 50%. Compensate by decreasing the rate of fire by 33% as well. Fixed, and yes. As for the rest, I disagree. That's like a... 20 something % boost to arty DPS, and will not fly. Quote: Quote: The Tempest: Are you high? I don't even know where to begin with this one. The 66% DPS bonus already makes this ship a beast. And you want to make it better than a tier 3 battleship?? The tempest is clearly the worst battleship in game, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. It has 10 effective turrets, which is less than the maelstrom. It has a crap slot layout among other issues that just make it terrible. Even CCP noted that it's crap. Quote: Quote: The Typhoon: The phoon is arguably the best tier 1 vessel in the game for the sake of versatility. It doesn't need any changes IMO. The domi is much more versatile, but I've dropped my phoon changes thanks to half of them already being fixed.
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.06 16:32:00 - [950] Astro, I think you replied in the wrong thread man. I've been guilty of opening multiple reply tabs too... Still, hooray that CCP is at least acknowledging the existence of these threads.

AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.06 16:37:00 - [951] Originally by: Seriously Bored Astro, I think you replied in the wrong thread man. I've been guilty of opening multiple reply tabs too... Still, hooray that CCP is at least acknowledging the existence of these threads. No, I asked him to move the discussion to this thread and provided a link the assembly hall thread. I doubt he'll show up though, he doesnt seem to have any knowledge/experience on minnie stuff based on his replies.
Ecky X	Posted - 2009.09.06 22:09:00 - [952] Shameless bump.
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.06 22:28:00 - [953] 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
SharpMango 14th Legion	Posted - 2009.09.06 23:12:00 - [954] I fell in love with matari ship design and switched from caldari to matari battleships over a year ago... someone told me that flying matari battleships was 'eve on hard'... in fact i think another analogy would be more appropriate... it's like living in sub saharan africa, you proudly show off your 40 year old jeep to other tribesmen who can only afford camels.. you truly feel like a king, but deep down you know that there are much better cars out there, more reliable, faster, and with more horsepower... that's what its like to fly the tempest... the phoon..or even the maelstrom.. they do look gorgeous...but u know something..i want the ships to be more than just that, i want them to be feared... i want that ****-my-pants feel one gets when one sees an abaddon...
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.06 23:12:00 - [955] Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. I'm waiting for CCPs response. I'm sure they'll say "NO MOAR ALPHA" at which point we can look at tracking etc. But really I think it's a bit pointless until we have something from CCP to work on.
Allen Ramses Caldari Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.06 23:33:00 - [956] 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. Quote: I don't know how this would make it worse, it's pretty much a straight upgrade. I haven't seen anyone disagree with the ammo changes (personally it's my favorite), so I really don't know what you're on about. My biggest gripe with it is that it doesn't address the fact that Minmatar is the explosive race. Currently, projectile ammunition is aimlessly distributed across explosive, thermal, and EM. Also, projectile ammo does away with the -60% damage to +50% damage scale, and instead uses a hodgepodge of facepalm proportions. That's why projectile ammo needs to be re-done. Quote: That's like a... 20 something % boost to arty DPS, and will not fly. Wrong. 1 * 1.5 (increased alpha) * 0.66 (reduced ROF) = 1. As to the idea of adding more optimal, I don't see why they shouldn't get 25% more falloff instead. Quote: The tempest is clearly the worst battleship in game, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. It has 10 effective turrets, which is less than the maelstrom. It has a crap slot layout among other issues that just make it terrible. Even CCP noted that it's crap. So you think a 10% bonus to damage is justified for a single bonus, just because the higher tiered battleship has 6.5% more effective turrets? Last time I checked, the Mael didn't have two launcher/utility slots when it used all 8 turrets. As for the slot layout, I personally think it's perfect. It gives you several different choices to do whatever you want in an effective manner. Quote: The domi is much more versatile, but I've dropped my phoon changes thanks to half of them already being fixed. I never knew you could speed/sig tank a domi. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006.
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.06 23:52:00 - [957] Originally by: Allen Ramses 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. Currently missiles and pulse lasers excel in mid range. Autocannons do not. Increasing falloff allows them to compete in midrange, because the falloff penalty is quite large. Quote: My biggest gripe with it is that it doesn't address the fact that Minmatar is the explosive race. Currently, projectile ammunition is aimlessly distributed across explosive, thermal, and EM. Also, projectile ammo does away with the -60% damage to +50% damage scale, and instead uses a hodgepodge of facepalm proportions. That's why projectile ammo needs to be re-done. Well my changes pretty much address that. Minmatar was never "the explosive" race, they always had weird mixes. I changed the high damage ammo to be prominently explosive so that it would be another option where currently barrage does everything better. A complete overhaul is pretty drastic, I think the ammo isn't that bad. Quote: Wrong. 1 * 1.5 (increased alpha) * 0.66 (reduced ROF) = 1. As to the idea of adding more optimal, I don't see why they shouldn't get 25% more falloff instead. Okay, no. That's not how you calculate DPS. It's Damage OVER time. 10 damage over 10 seconds is 1 DPS. So an increase of 50% damage is 15 damage, and an increase of 50% ROF is 15 seconds. 15/15 is still 1 DPS. Falloff is a poor range mechanic and optimal is superior (about 3x superior to be mathematical). Quote: So you think a 10% bonus to damage is justified for a single bonus, just because the higher tiered battleship has 6.5% more effective turrets? Last time I checked, the Mael didn't have two launcher/utility slots when it used all 8 turrets. As for the slot layout, I personally think it's perfect. It gives you several different choices to do whatever you want in an effective manner. No, it gives you several different choices to do whatever you want in an ineffective manner. Whatever you do with it, it's going to suck, and be worse than even the other two minmatar counterparts, which says something. Yes, 10% is justified because it only affects 6 turrets. Maybe you don't realize this, but a 12.5% damage bonus is the same as 7.5% ROF. Which may I remind you, is currently present on another ship (nag). Quote: I never knew you could speed/sig tank a domi. EDIT: And just be glad you don't have the Scorpion as your tier 1 BS. You can't speed/sig tank a typhoon. I'd gladly take the scorpion, it's very valuable in any fleet or gang. I can't say the same for a phoon.
Spaztick Terminal Impact	Posted - 2009.09.06 23:59:00 - [958] But it's capless!
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.07 00:17:00 - [959] Originally by: Spaztick But it's capless! The tempest is clearly the best battleshipÖ.
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.07 01:52:00 - [960] 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



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 42 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.