EVE Search - Tempest needs changing.

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)
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.09.22 06:04:00 - [1141] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 22/09/2009 06:04:33 Originally by: Spaztick You're right, we should all train for Apocs. goes and queues up Amarr Frigate. Way ahead of you there. Already got T2 small lasers and Amarr Frig 5 finishes in the morning. Originally by:* Astrophobic YESSS! CCP FINALLY FIXED MINNIE BATTLESHIPS, CHECK THE PRELIMINARY PATCH NOTES! I must be missing it... ? -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.09.22 06:15:00 - [1142] Edited by: Nian Banks on 22/09/2009 06:16:41 Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 22/09/2009 06:04:33 Originally by: Spaztick You're right, we should all train for Apocs. goes and queues up Amarr Frigate. Way ahead of you there. Already got T2 small lasers and Amarr Frig 5 finishes in the morning. Originally by:* Astrophobic YESSS! CCP FINALLY FIXED MINNIE BATTLESHIPS, CHECK THE PRELIMINARY PATCH NOTES! I must be missing it... ? -Liang Scroll down patch notes... It says. FIXES Ships ò Complete rebalance of the Minmatar line of ships, all ships will be changed to their corresponding Amarr ship class and tier and renamed accordingly. Skills ò All Minmatar skills will be removed and players credited with the appropriate ammar skills Equipment ò All Minmatar racial equipment and rigs will be removed and replaced with the appropriate ammar equipment. Race ò All minmatar pilot racial descriptions will be changed to state they are Amarr slaves.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.22 06:21:00 - [1143] Originally by: Nian Banks Edited by: Nian Banks on 22/09/2009 06:16:41 Scroll down patch notes... It says. FIXES Ships ò Complete rebalance of the Minmatar line of ships, all ships will be changed to their corresponding Amarr ship class and tier and renamed accordingly. Skills ò All Minmatar skills will be removed and players credited with the appropriate ammar skills Equipment ò All Minmatar racial equipment and rigs will be removed and replaced with the appropriate ammar equipment. Race ò All minmatar pilot racial descriptions will be changed to state they are Amarr slaves. LOL Gotta laugh at that
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.22 06:28:00 - [1144] Since ccp favors amarr, reskilling would make things easier for everyone!
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.22 13:04:00 - [1145] Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: Tyler Lowe I wanted to laugh. This would be funny if it wasn't quite so close to my expectations. Mind you they're just preliminary, no guarantees on any grammar fixes for the descriptions of minnie battleships. I'm going to take a wild guess at what the edits are going to be... "The Tempest is one of the Republic Fleet's worst vessels; a versatile gunship incompetent at long-range bombardment and capable of dishing out specialized types of damage with incredibly tepid results. A well-rounded squadron of Tempests has been proven time and time again to get owned in a fleet battle, one which opponents should ignore." [/sarcasm] Ah well. The Phoon armor/shield value flip was in the notes, right? That should count for something.
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.22 14:54:00 - [1146] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Astrophobic YESSS! CCP FINALLY FIXED MINNIE BATTLESHIPS, CHECK THE PRELIMINARY PATCH NOTES! I must be missing it... ? -Liang http://www.eveonline.com/updates/intesting.asp Quote: Fixes Ships * Warping with an Afterburner or MWD active will no longer result in reduced agility when you come out of warp. * The description of the Minmatar Tech I battleships has had its grammar and spelling fixed. * Covert Ops ships have had their attributes fixed so that they now correctly reduce the flight time of survey probes by 10% per covert ops skill level. The description of covert ops ships has also been updated to reflect this. * Trying to assemble a Tech III ship in space now displays a proper error message instead of failing silently.
Orakkus Minmatar m3 Corp	Posted - 2009.09.22 15:20:00 - [1147] Yep.. they're right. Time to start skilling up Amarr.. I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.22 17:02:00 - [1148] Originally by: Seriously Bored Ah well. The Phoon armor/shield value flip was in the notes, right? That should count for something. (shrug) should result in a little extra ehp on my 'phoon after trimarks. Still gotta get in kissing distance before I can kill anything, but I take what I can get.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.22 17:09:00 - [1149] Hell with it! CCP oughta call autos what they are, and that is a knife. We just got different sizes thats all cause falloff means little at this point to kill something fast. D425 = Shiv. I stab you faster so that gives more damage /sarc D650 = Pocket knife. Can't reach you? No problem! I throw at you for falloff! 800 = Bastard sword. Can't hit anything with it, but it sure makes people **** their pants.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.22 19:12:00 - [1150] Simply speaking, large autos, for one, don't have enough falloff to be competitive and make it worthwhile to play with it more then we can. Right now, large autos are no more then blasters with not enough dps. I have no idea why I even bothered speccing large guns since the dps never improved like the mids did finally. Looking at gang killmails with BS fleets is downright depressing the way it is now, and minny pilots are much better off flying smaller ships to get support or dps where it should be.
Spaztick Terminal Impact Kairakau	Posted - 2009.09.23 03:31:00 - [1151] Edited by: Spaztick on 23/09/2009 03:32:22 So would you get more damage at 10km with Carbonized Lead in 800s or EMP? Does the falloff amount negate the DPS advantage? Actually I just did a quick EFT test, and there is no reason at all to ever use the 4 long-range ammo types in autocannons for minmatar.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.23 05:12:00 - [1152] Originally by: Spaztick Edited by: Spaztick on 23/09/2009 03:32:22 Does the falloff amount negate the DPS advantage? Falloff should allow the ship with projectiles to orbit or keep-at-range just outside the optimal of a ship with greater firepower, given that the minmatar ship is faster. Supposedly this is what minmatar do best to control an engagement, but its very difficult to do over BC class with the current heavily nerfed balance since optimals and falloffs are so similar with blasters, and downright insignificant 'gainst amarr. Look above to see data on this. Presently, in BS class the only way to compete is by fitting EW or tanking heavier then the other ship , or in a fleet hope that you will not be primaried, which will happen in a lols tempest :P A faster tempest with greater falloff will give it a better chance to control any engagement and stay out of range while landing dps. Sure, dps will still piddle out like normal in falloff, and you will still have to speedtank rails etc, but the chance of surviving is better. Like I said before, others smarter then I have already gone over all this in this discussion.
Seriously Bored Minmatar	Posted - 2009.09.23 05:30:00 - [1153] Originally by: Spaztick Edited by: Spaztick on 23/09/2009 03:32:22 So would you get more damage at 10km with Carbonized Lead in 800s or EMP? Does the falloff amount negate the DPS advantage? Actually I just did a quick EFT test, and there is no reason at all to ever use the 4 long-range ammo types in autocannons for minmatar. Which makes the 10% nerf to close-range projectile ammo hurt all the more. The only reason there is to use the LR ammo seems to have gone out the window once they introduced Tremor.
Azirapheal Amarr Armored Core Inc. Quantum Star Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.23 06:21:00 - [1154] Originally by: Seishi Maru not necessrily. A boost to arties is needed for both maels and tempest. A bosot to AC as well (check how laser maesltrom > AC maesltrom). please for the love of god, stop there. look at the damn fitting requirements and cap usage, then stop your stealth laserwhine Originally by: Azirapheal i never ever thought id live to see the day.... that titans were nerfed for being FOTM HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA Originally by: CCP Zymurgist SoonÖ
Ath Amon	Posted - 2009.09.23 07:14:00 - [1155] Originally by: Azirapheal Originally by: Seishi Maru not necessrily. A boost to arties is needed for both maels and tempest. A bosot to AC as well (check how laser maesltrom > AC maesltrom). please for the love of god, stop there. look at the damn fitting requirements and cap usage, then stop your stealth laserwhine is not a whine about lasers, just to show the sad situation of proj... the mael have actually good pg/cpu so it have no problems at all fitting megapulse, if you are going to passive tank it all the cap you use is for weapons and mwd. AC of course dont use cap to fire but will need to mwd more than laser to get into optimal fast, laser will mostly fight in its optimal so not much reason to mwd around the field, also consider that AC use tons of ammos so with a laser build you will be able to fit more boosters. of course it will not go well in a situation where you expect to fight for 30min, but for some gate camps or non rr gangs it can be a viable choice... and we are speaking on a ship with a bonus to proj dmg. this again not to complain about lasers, but to say the proj need some good love Originally by: Diana Merris Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.09.23 13:52:00 - [1156] Originally by: Azirapheal Originally by: Seishi Maru not necessrily. A boost to arties is needed for both maels and tempest. A bosot to AC as well (check how laser maesltrom > AC maesltrom). please for the love of god, stop there. look at the damn fitting requirements and cap usage, then stop your stealth laserwhine look at the fittigns of maesltrom before sayign that.. it was made to fit 1400mm that are worse than lasers to fit. Also check on the ammount of cap boosters I can carry extra due to no ammo usage. I used maelstroms with pulse lasers adn it does outperform a rpojectile one in 8/10 situations. As other said.. that is not an issue with lasers.. but with patheticness of AC.
Spaztick Terminal Impact Kairakau	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:29:00 - [1157] Edited by: Spaztick on 23/09/2009 14:29:53 TLDR: As effective as Matari methods are of negating incoming damage on paper, they are impractical and much more difficult to do with mixed fleets having to optimize themselves to a homogeneous setup. It's not that ACs are so pathetic that they suck, it's that the way of fighting in EVE today makes Minmatar tactics obsolete. Why bother trying to keep at the proper range to reduce your enemy's DPS lower than yours when you can just tank your boat to hell and outgun/outlast him? It requires less pilot input and is much more manageable as the fleet sizes go up, and anything over small gangs of 5-10 people make it very difficult to try and "kite" your opponents. It's PvP on autopilot. I like the way Minmatar tactics work, but they fall apart at bigger fleets and at battleship level, where Minmatar have to try and outtank or out DPS your opponent, something you won't be doing at long ranges without some very clever fleet setup and maneuvering (adding further to the logistical nightmare of dealing with 100+ people around in a battle). ACs seem to be "fine" for skirmish fighting on paper, as do artillery (high alpha in large enough fleets to pop a ship and run, repeat; using low signature radius with a Ragnarok/Claymore booster, tracking links, target painters etc to boost artillery tracking and reducing enemy tracking through signature radius), but in practice it's impractical, even assuming your entire fleet consists of Minmatar pilots. Players dedicated to trying to nano a fleet of Tempests around or set up a gang properly have done so successfully, but came to the conclusion that it was way too much work compared to tanking up your ship and throwing a few remote reps on it. Also laser tracking is too good, nerf laser tracking please.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:37:00 - [1158] And that is why I continuously use a 'phoon for fleets even though the dps is horrible and hard to put on target. You tank against anything, use drones, can fit nuets to your hearts desire, and there is no problem using rr. I like the mael and it has good damage, but its way to expensive for fleets and it needs all highs / you gotta gimp it for rr and shield tank it when using dps, and no self respecting fleet uses shields. Everyone needs minny support though (recins, logi), and that is a good fall-to when things are tight.
kyrv	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:20:00 - [1159] Minmatar pilots are antique dealers but with a catch they make new things look like used things, its obvious they sell Tempests like a rusty bike from the back garden as new now how would you argue with a 8ft Minmatar Brutor antique dealer if he likes his sold ships to look antique? couldn't argue with that now could you.
CatCan The Scope	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:14:00 - [1160] Projectiles balancing in Dominion: -Ammo based tracking bonus -Possible AC tracking increase -Correcting the trends of ammo damage -Increasing the alpha 50% across the board -Doubling artillery clip size -Ignoring Artillery Tracking and Range inadequacies Predicting Muninn price rise.... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184365
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:01:00 - [1161] Originally by: CatCan Projectiles balancing in Dominion: -Ammo based tracking bonus -Possible AC tracking increase -Correcting the trends of ammo damage -Increasing the alpha 50% across the board -Doubling artillery clip size -Ignoring Artillery Tracking and Range inadequacies Predicting Muninn price rise.... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184365 Now if they do a little bit of ammo adjusting (EMP dealing EM, Fusion being top damage), and add a little bit of falloff, it will be perfect! And then they can start on the tempest.
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:30:00 - [1162] Color me very, very surprised. I think they're going an interesting direction with the mid-range ammo advantages. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Spaztick Terminal Impact Kairakau	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:34:00 - [1163] Originally by: Liang Nuren Color me very, very surprised. I think they're going an interesting direction with the mid-range ammo advantages. -Liang Yeppers, I'm wondering how the tracking advantage will work. Think they'll go through with mid-ranged tracking increase, or will it be on the long range ones? I'm not sure which I'd want, as you can have a great tracking advantage at close range with autocannons or the long range at artillery. Perhaps the tracking advantage in the mid is to encourage mid-range sniper fights or give incentive to use them.
Ath Amon	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:37:00 - [1164] Originally by: CatCan Projectiles balancing in Dominion: -Ammo based tracking bonus -Possible AC tracking increase -Correcting the trends of ammo damage -Increasing the alpha 50% across the board -Doubling artillery clip size -Ignoring Artillery Tracking and Range inadequacies Predicting Muninn price rise.... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184365 imo will be not change anything as it will not address the dps/range problem of proj, ac will still fight in high falloff reducing their alredy meh dmg, arty will be as crappy as now as alpha is not a balancing factor in eve Originally by: Diana Merris Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
NightmareX D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.09.23 19:11:00 - [1165] Originally by: Ath Amon Originally by: CatCan Projectiles balancing in Dominion: -Ammo based tracking bonus -Possible AC tracking increase -Correcting the trends of ammo damage -Increasing the alpha 50% across the board -Doubling artillery clip size -Ignoring Artillery Tracking and Range inadequacies Predicting Muninn price rise.... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184365 imo will be not change anything as it will not address the dps/range problem of proj, ac will still fight in high falloff reducing their alredy meh dmg, arty will be as crappy as now as alpha is not a balancing factor in eve ROFL, you must be out of your mind if you think that wont change anything. And 2nd. By you logic that it wont address the DPS and range thing, then you also want Projectiles to be Railguns?. Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise
Ath Amon	Posted - 2009.09.23 19:28:00 - [1166] Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: Ath Amon Originally by: CatCan Projectiles balancing in Dominion: -Ammo based tracking bonus -Possible AC tracking increase -Correcting the trends of ammo damage -Increasing the alpha 50% across the board -Doubling artillery clip size -Ignoring Artillery Tracking and Range inadequacies Predicting Muninn price rise.... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184365 imo will be not change anything as it will not address the dps/range problem of proj, ac will still fight in high falloff reducing their alredy meh dmg, arty will be as crappy as now as alpha is not a balancing factor in eve ROFL, you must be out of your mind if you think that wont change anything. And 2nd. By you logic that it wont address the DPS and range thing, then you also want Projectiles to be Railguns?. you will see how much it will change, problem of ACs generally is that they hit for crap dmg at most ranges not that they cant hit... well if they will boost the tracking by an... lets say 30% base maybe it can work but i have the feeling it will be too good vs smaller ships and dont see that happening no i dont want rails, minnie have the lowest sensor range so i will prefer a boost in dmg to be between rails and lasers... in the end arty have wrost range and tracking so why it doesnt get good dmg as blasters for short range? ahhhh yest it have the alpha lmao... Originally by: Diana Merris Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.23 20:07:00 - [1167] You never want to confuse the specialties of each race, or it will ruin eve as a game you want to play. We don't want autos to be blasters, but we do want more dps then we are giving atm, especially with large autos. Believe me, if I wanted to fire blasters I would have started a gallente or caldari character to fire them. Blasters SHOULD rule short range as missiles are good at lobbing warheads without tracking issues, and etc etc with all the other weapons types.
Polinus Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.09.23 20:34:00 - [1168] Originally by: Ath Amon Originally by: NightmareX Originally by: Ath Amon Originally by: CatCan Projectiles balancing in Dominion: -Ammo based tracking bonus -Possible AC tracking increase -Correcting the trends of ammo damage -Increasing the alpha 50% across the board -Doubling artillery clip size -Ignoring Artillery Tracking and Range inadequacies Predicting Muninn price rise.... http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1184365 imo will be not change anything as it will not address the dps/range problem of proj, ac will still fight in high falloff reducing their alredy meh dmg, arty will be as crappy as now as alpha is not a balancing factor in eve ROFL, you must be out of your mind if you think that wont change anything. And 2nd. By you logic that it wont address the DPS and range thing, then you also want Projectiles to be Railguns?. you will see how much it will change, problem of ACs generally is that they hit for crap dmg at most ranges not that they cant hit... well if they will boost the tracking by an... lets say 30% base maybe it can work but i have the feeling it will be too good vs smaller ships and dont see that happening no i dont want rails, minnie have the lowest sensor range so i will prefer a boost in dmg to be between rails and lasers... in the end arty have wrost range and tracking so why it doesnt get good dmg as blasters for short range? ahhhh yest it have the alpha lmao... did you noticed they are getting about 10% DPS increase? That is NOT negligible increase! COntrary to what soem people say.. we didn't needed 30% boost. Specially if they make EMP a 80% EM ammo and fusion an 80% explosive ammo and make fusion top damage. Because that will give us REALISTIC change damage types in fight option.
Ath Amon	Posted - 2009.09.23 20:34:00 - [1169] Edited by: Ath Amon on 23/09/2009 20:40:59 in fact never said that i want acs to be as damaging as blasters, i spoke about dmg/range... the problem here is that ACs have an overall bad curve so imo you can a) raise the curve a bit, so that they will still deal less dmg than blasters but will raise the whole curve making them better in midrange (inside faloff), imo a 10-12% should be ok for that b) boost the range so they do same dmg as now but they are able to fire in optimal (or close to it) even in midrange, that imo could be done boosting optimal range for various reasons as that faloff is more difficult to balance and there are not atm TCs who boost both tracking and faloff (for midrange i mean the distance between blasters and lasers) i bring up blasters as an example to illustrate arty situation blasters are highest dps but also shortest range (and thats ok), arty is lowest dps and kinda lowest range (and lowest tracking too) and here something clearly doesnt work... think if blasters had less dps than acs... they will be useless and this is what happening with arty and note that i dont think that arty should outdps lasers just that it should be closer to it, for sure it should be not lower dps than rails that also greately outtrack and outrange it. edit to not spam :P... no they are not getting 10% dps increase (that will be fine for me) they are gettin 10% increase on emp and pp only... t2 ammos will stay the same that indeed is a step in the right direction but the problems of ACs are not just while using t1 or faction ammos. (arty instead is just broken :P) Originally by: Diana Merris Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.23 20:59:00 - [1170] I agree that arties seem misbalanced. My recruiter was a caldari mission runner who loved rails, and I got the distinct feeling from watching him that they are supposed to be "lighter" then both beams and arties. Rails have greater clips, they fire faster, and they probably should even track better then the other two long range turreted weapons. And since ccp has obviously chosen to make lasers better at dps and range, it would be a nice niche for arties to have alpha advantages. Others have noticed correctly that alpha plays havoc with tanks which need time to recover, and that would include RR gangs with passive tanks. Hopefully, ccp will share some of the tracking bonuses they are working on for autos, with arties.

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.