EVE Search - Projectile Weapons

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Projectile Weapons - Balancing

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.09.30 08:35:00 - [1] Originally by: CCP Nozh Other things we might be looking at: ò Auto-cannon tracking adjustments ò Auto-cannon tier balancing Any chance of this happening? We need both IMO. Also, arty need a bit more optimal, and a hell-of-a-lot more falloff, or I won't ever see why I should bring a tempest to a sniperfleet over a mega. Just adding falloff to TC/TE won't do, even if it helps AC's a bit. Second, make Trajectory Analysis 7,5% - that would also help minnie guns and maybe make it worthwhile to train the last level. And I wonder about: how does 1400mm tracking compare to tachs, rails? Do it need a boost there as well?
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.09.30 09:31:00 - [2] Originally by: Naomi Knight Edited by: Naomi Knight on 30/09/2009 08:47:49 I am a amarr troll Miss leading text from someone who desperately want to derail this balancing thread, like you did in the past, Lyria Skydancer. Now, I will wait for someone who actually back up his claims with facts and are not a biased amarr troll. In the meantime my question remain: How do 1400mm tracking compare to tachs, rails..? And to Alex Cap less guns are not that of a big advantage because minmatar need to use its cap for tank while amarr have passive tanks and can use all their cap for their weapons. Fake edit: FFS fix the forum, I had to log in 3 times now.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.09.30 10:26:00 - [3] Originally by: Theron Gyrow Edited by: Theron Gyrow on 30/09/2009 09:39:24 Originally by: Cornette In the meantime my question remain: How do 1400mm tracking compare to tachs, rails..? Base values: 1400mm arty: 0.009 425mm rail: 0.00962 (+6.8%) Mega beam: 0.01531 (+70.1%) Tachyon beam: 0.01392 (+54.7%) So, they are about equal with rails. Both of them are utter crap compared to lasers. So both need a tracking boost. Or lasers need a nerf. I hope CCP Nozh see this and make needed adjustments. Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: Cornette Cap less guns are not that of a big advantage because minmatar need to use its cap for tank while amarr have passive tanks and can use all their cap for their weapons. Umm what? Every single Minmatar bs I've seen (for pvp) has been passively tanked. And if you claim that capless guns aren't a big deal: so you'd be ok if artillery was made to use as much cap as rails do? If the dps+tracking+range was made equivalent? I suspect you would not be happy with the result. Deal, as long as I get same base resistance and hitpoints as amarr currently have and same ammount of cap. And seven lowslots too ofc. Then next time my Maelstrom won't die in 15 seconds like my last when a curse neuted the cap and deactivated the tank and his gang killed me. And no one injector can't keep it up against a proper setup curse.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.10.07 10:38:00 - [4] So one week has past since Nozh last update, Will we get autocannon tiers, with damage and falloff differences... Will we get Artillery with lots more falloff to actually matter in fleets... Will we get a skill to reduce artillery duration timer to at least 25% at max... Will we get artillery (and rails) tracking boosted so they don't suck to lasers... Will we get trajectory analysis skill increased to 10% per level... Will we have santa claus visiting us at christmas... First, I'm happy over the new phoon. Finally I got a tier 1 bs that I can gankfit proper without training Amarr. And that without a single Autocannon on it, no it will be torps, neuts and drones. Yarrr! Second, my fleet tempest will now be a nice bait magnet, with the right setup and implants, damage will still be a secondary thing but with seven lows It can have a decent tank. To bad you screwed over those people that like to shieldtank it but you can't please everyone, and if you one of them who got the shaft don't cry, you can get a navy domi instead (it will have six mids) Now what about ordinary tempest and fleets... get a mega, or even better, train amarr. Its just stupid sentimentality that people still try to use a ship for situations where it will be primary first and still hit for nothing at long ranges. But hey, meatshield is also a profession, right? What about RR-bs gangs then? I was in 2 lately brawling with other hostile bs gang and how many tempest did I see... thats right, I saw one, on our side, and it also was among the first to explode. Well boohoo. There is one area where the tempest still shine though and will be even better at after dominion hits, and that is shooting big, stationary objects. Thats right, I talk about pos-shootings! Its also the only thing I ever use mine for. And with increased duration and double clips loaded I get plenty of time to do other things then just bore myself to death watching the screen, like household work... So 10/10 for that.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.10.27 21:28:00 - [5] /me kisses Nozh on his bald head. I thought you forgot us and I'm happy its not so. Now over to some input to what other people posted regarding the Tempest: I always seen the tier 3 battleships as mainly tankers. So I would never bring a Maelstrom to a fleet bs fight, it is to big, to slow, not that agile and the tank bonus will not make that much of a difference if I get primary by 20+ hostile snipers and are stuck in a bubble dropped by a dictor. With six med slots I either fit it for sniping with 1400's or for tanking, but it is impossible to do both effectively. It also cost more to lose a Maelstrom then a tempest so its not something I think makes sense to bring. The Tempest was the first BS I trained to level 5 long time ago and used as a sniper in fleets. With no more tank then a DCU I fitted 2 gyros and 2 TE in the low (and one rcu II to fit the mwd+guns) to be able to hit targets as far as the other races bs could do and with effective damage. I had to give up the tempest when the titan craziness and frequent use of DD become commonplace and go over to a mega instead. And because enemy FC's often primary a tempest first for a reason With my mega I can fit a good tank with 40k armor hitpoints, my damage is mediocre, but I usually live longer then those who still insist on using the Tempest, and I often survive to return back to base. And the same thing is it regarding RR bs fleets. I see only one sensible use for the tempest, other then pos-shootings when nothing shoots on you back: as a solo or very small gang bs with AC's and neuts. I would love to see the ship be a effective sniper but for that the falloff for artillery would have to be increased considerably so it at least can hit to same range as a mega with 250's. Note that I say falloff, not optimal. We don't need it to be a copy of rails. Artillery also need tracking improved, a lot. Why do tachyons have the best tracking when they have the longest range? The 1400's needs increased tracking so they at least can hit a barn 100 meters away. Fix these 2 things and I be a happy camper, lol.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.10.31 09:32:00 - [6] I live in a area of space where a big alliance just recently decided to make their playground, and I've seen their Hac gangs: With numbers of up to 20+ and more they usually consist of up to 50% of Zealots, why is that so, for all the reasons other players already mentioned, its very good. And its no different when fielding bs instead. Its the golden fleet. And you whiners think that minmatar will become the new FOTM in gangs taking the top spot on the list of best group-ship if projectiles at last gets its deserved boost? Forgetting (ignoring?) how fallof works.. Then your out of your frikking mind. And some of you should seriusly stop posting. You no longer do it out of thinking of balance, its become a obvious show of ego. I say if we get the boost we get closer to balance of the weapon systems of EVE and keeping the flavours of each intact. Then its just blasters that need fixing, but thats for another thread.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.10.31 10:33:00 - [7] So your idea of balance is to keep status quo when its obvious EVE is tilted towards Amarr? Interesting... If I wanted optimal range and superior firepower I would have trained for Amarr long time ago, instead I keept on using minnie/gallente for its my choice of play style. You saying it should be the blobber ship is no law of nature. Amarr only become the blobbery ship of choice when EM resistance got nerfed and because optimal is king in gangs where you want massive damage projected from a relative safe distance. Everything in EVE can and will change when the DEVS decide to change ships, game-mechanics, weapons etc. Its called 'learn to adapt'. But I could live with a compromise.. projectiles get no big boost.. instead lasers get one big nerf to optimal and tracking. Thats ok with you?
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.11.03 17:43:00 - [8] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Originally by: To mare Edited by: To mare on 03/11/2009 15:49:34 seriously CCP 10% per tier is nothing. and considering its to falloff this boost its pretty laughable. edit numbers 30km to 33km on dual 650 with barrage 30km to 36km on 800mm with barrage this is not a boost this is just random crap to make minamtar people stfu for a while. Add that to the TE/TC falloff boost and it becomes a bit better. Everything is in degrees. Seriously - I was worried when everyone was "this is perfect." and noone was screaming for more. Now that more people think it isn't enough - balance is restored to the force. Yeah, and how many competent minmatar fits can actually make them fit? First you need to sacrifice your setup to get a ridiculous range increase, then you have to throw away slots to make it less ridiculous. Yay. I'm seriously questioning the capability of the balance team, if they have to nerf artilleries even more and can't come up with a decent tiering. I say; Keep the 50% falloff tiers and Half the optimal and falloff bonus on TE's. This will give us tiers, tracking computers and reasonable falloff gains at the same time. That above with 10% is a textbook example of a cowards way of balancing: when to afraid it will be OP just give it a symbolic change that fixes nothing but look like one for everyone not using projectiles. It will also guarante that Lasers will remain King of the Hill with their optimal and leave everything else far behind. A serious question Nozh, have you taken balancing lessons from ccp Tuxford? He also liked to do stuff like that.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.11.05 10:13:00 - [9] Comparing the artillery sisi stats with the old tq I notice that there is no differences to base falloff, both 1400mm and 1200mm have the same of 35km. And same thing with low- and mid-tiers artillery. So how would it be if we gave artillery a falloff boost of something like 15-30% ? Then new base falloff for 1400mm would be 45500km and 1200mm would have 40250km. And: a 30% falloff boost with a TE looks like its either overpowering the range of weapons that doesn't need it, lasers, while gimping minmatar setups making it obligatory to fit a TE or you can stay home. Originally by: Dibsi Dei Bring back the actual falloff bonus for autocannon tiers but reduce tracking enhancer falloff bonus back to 15%.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.11.05 12:54:00 - [10] After overcomming my initial knee-jerk reaction to Nozh new falloff numbers for AC, I checked the stats throughly and run my calculator a lot. Low- and Mid-tier AC falloff boost seems ok, but High tier needs more to be really worth Using, like 0/15/30%. Then we have the problem with ammo, so these suggestions Arsania made seem to be the better ones. Originally by: Asania Dre 1Make the damage on the short / mid / long range ammos 11/8/6. 12/8/5 penalizes arty too much and boosts small and med ac too much, esp with the better damage selection. 2Change the range modifiers from 0.5/1/1.6 to 0.7/1/1.6. A boost to arty using short-range ammo - means they don't lose their Fusion. 3Boost large AC dps by 9%. Makes up for reverting back to 11/8/6 damage on ammo. 4Change AC falloff tiers to 0/10/20% for small and mid and 0/15/30% for large. There's not much wrong with the range of mid AC atm, it's large AC that need the biggest boost. No need to paint them all with the same brush. Couple that with a Artillery falloff boost of maybe 15-30% and keep TE with 15% as said earlier and projectile fixes should be ALMOST complete! Then we only need 2 more tweaks to help projectiles and that is: Lower training multiplier on Trajectory Analysis from 5x to 4x, so its worth training it to level 5. Increase ambits bonus to 20% for T1 and 30% for T2 to put them in line.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.11.10 12:13:00 - [11] And don't forget to lower the skill training multiplier for Trajectory Analysis from 5x to 4x so its sensible to train the last level. And don't forget to add falloff to Artillery, 20/40 for large guns would do nicely to help tempest compete in fleets. And I wouldn't mind a small boost to tracking for artillery either, or a nerf to tracking for beam lasers. Its insane that Tachyons with longest range also have best tracking off all long range guns. But I dunno how far Nozh is prepared to go to fix projectiles. It would be nice if he got it done till Dominion, so we don't get a SOONTM and we still ask for it 2 years later. ---
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.11.15 17:01:00 - [12] Quote: -0% / +20% / +40% IMO that would be optimal boost for both AC and Artillery. However until Nozh return to the thread we may not see any further changes until after Dominion first patch, if at all. ---
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.11.20 21:46:00 - [13] Did we ask him to "fix" the Naglfar? I'm pretty sure we did not. He just went and did it himself. "Impossible" is just a set of mind. If you think anything is impossible then your the wrong person at the wrong place setup for failure before you even start and should be replaced with someone who love challenges, someone that is open-minded. Even better such a person shouldn't had got that position in the first place if he seriously believe balancing is impossible. ---
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.12.02 12:17:00 - [14] I think the best boost they gave the tempest was the removal of the Doomsday device and the doubling of loaded ammo clips. Now if only they had added falloff to artillery like they did to AC and fixed the trajectory analysis skill so it doesn't take 21 days to get level five, I would had been quite happy. And, here is a idea: to fit a full rack of 1400mm's II and a microwarpdrive for 0.0 fleets, you currently need a RCU II, leaving you with only 5 lows for damage, tank.. What if they added enough grid on the Tempest so it would be the only sniper that don't have to use a fitting mod to work like one? And one more minor idea: give tempest/fleet tempest 125m3 of dronebay and 100m3 of drone control, so you can choose among 4 hvy drones + 5 lights... ---

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.