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)
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.09.23 19:35:00 - [1] Ouch where to begin... Firstly, reducing the damage of the long range ammunition is a bad thing, as it is, taking into account the optimal range of both artillery and autocannons, they are the worst for optimal range of turret systems and so the range bonus is a inadequate, thats why the extra damage is a must, they may be tech1 but that's the whole point. Cheap introductory ammunition for early play. Its no secret that the damage mutipliers of projectile weapons are far less than lasers and hybrids, so don't compound the problem with reduced damage, increase the close range sure but don't decrease long range. Another issue is that both blasters and pulse lasers get a far greater benefit from +optimal ammunition than autocannons. There needs to be a +falloff ammunition for tech1. I always suggest Depleted Uranium, the description for depleted uranium states "Very commonly used by Minmatar pilots", lets make that a reality, give is a falloff bonus for the tech1 autocannons or those pilots who want a little flavour in their tech2 ac's. Reordering the ammunition to put fusion as the greatest damage type in theory sounds good, but if you considder the tech2 ammunition, then we are really only reducing our high damage options to pure Explosive + Kinetic. The concept is logical for fusion to be the top dog of t1 but its not wise to do. Tracking Computers, Enhancers, Links need a falloff bonus. Keeping the same damage for Artillery but reducing the rof by such a huge ammount and increasing the damage multiplier to compensate to me is a BAD BAD BAD bloody BAD thing. It doesn't solve anything, if anything it will make things worse, now if you get a bad shot, you will wait that so much longer. Not only that but in fleet fights you will probably only get to shoot at every second or third primary. Increasing the capacity for ammunition is ok but give us chain linking. Its only logical, Minmatar would have developed a continuous firing mechanism when fighting the Amarr. They would not have accepted a reload while still taking hits from their enemy. A tracking bonus to the mid damage ammo is a nice idea, Still perhaps lacking something, not too sure what but its still a good thing. I will remind you that the deficiencies of projectile weapons only lye partially to do with the ammunition and more needs to be done. Fighting in falloff is not optimal (pun intended).
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.09.24 11:09:00 - [2] I have an odd idea that would be an interesting bonus to projectile weapons. What if you got cap every time you fired a projectile weapon? I mean firing these massive cannons produce allot of energy, it's not unthinkable that the minmatar would use that energy and store it in the capacitor. This would benefit minmatar active tanking ships, RR, running mwd longer... Could be a nice feature right?
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.09.24 12:32:00 - [3] Originally by: Intigo Originally by: Nian Banks I have an odd idea that would be an interesting bonus to projectile weapons. What if you got cap every time you fired a projectile weapon? No way. I read your post and I found it lacking. Amarr get a passive tanking bonus and fly like bricks, they can also perma run with correct fittings their lasers. Minmatar need to keep moving, their tank is active and is cap intensive and yet proven to be inferior to all but small gang pvp where is at best is 2% superior to resist bonuses. Minmatar also have the worst cap and that is intentional (yet flawed) to balance the no cap use of projectiles. So I stand and restate, a cap bonus from projectile weapons would be interesting and useful.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.09.24 16:14:00 - [4] You know, active tanking is the most cap intensive tank and yet it's a ehp tank and rr tank world so what's wrong with boosting the minmatar tank ships that need love? Besides all other races say our capless weapons are op, let's give them something to complain about :)
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.04 17:51:00 - [5] After reading And pondering the proposed changes on sisi, I have come to the conclusion that these changes smack of lazy and that it looks like ccp don't have the heart to fix projectile weapons properly. These changes are too much of a bandaid job for my liking and don't adress the real issues.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.06 11:41:00 - [6] CCP, I use nuclear and carbonized lead, artillery is already low on dps, please oh please don't lower my t1 and RF ammo even further you bastards. Also please for ffs, give us a T1 ammo with a falloff bonus, my preference is on the Depleted Uranium +20% as right now there is little reason to use Depleted Uranium and unlike blasters and pulse lasers, the long range ammo has minimal effect on t1 autocannons. Give T1 users a little love, don't nerf it even more
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.06 18:27:00 - [7] Edited by: Nian Banks on 06/10/2009 18:28:36 To all those who say that normalizing minmatar ammo will mean that it will be easier to balance turrets in the future, Are you stupid? There will be NO tweaks or reevaluations of projectile turrets after this so called fix. Once these changes are done, were stuck with them for years, without change ever. Basically if you hope that ccp will boost the projectile weapon damage modifiers in the future, think again as it ain't happening. If you think I should just use t2 ammo in pve or pvp, WTF guys? For pve I don't like usin such expensive ammo with such high drawbacks. I want a t1 ammo with a falloff bonus, it's hardly game breaking but it will help. For arties, they are bad enough in damage, I hardly think our ranged t1 ammo needs a further nerf.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.06 19:53:00 - [8] Originally by: Seriously Bored Probably true...but hoping they buff Projectiles again and nerf lasers slightly are different things. What a tragic thing that is, for its like murdering santa clause and yet still looking forward to presents at christmas. Quote: You should only use T2 ammo for PVE if you like making more isk/hour than you currently do using just T1 ammo. (Barrage L is about a million isk for 2000 rounds...that's chump change considering the rewards for L4 missions or ratting, and how much faster you'll be completing either.) You should only use T2 ammo and RF ammo for PVP if you don't like losing your ships because you gimped your damage. If T1 ammo stats should follow onto faction ammo. 2000 rounds don't last that long with AC's either but meh whatever. A reminder BTW that Depleted Uranium has a different damage spread than barrage and if it had a falloff bonus, then its RF version could be quite useful. Quote: Yes, the nerf to LR ammo damage sucks...but we can't have it both ways. All you have to do is look at the sales volume of EMP L and Nuclear L to see what the most efficient choice is. Ofcourse we can have it both ways, I have never heard that its some universal rule that you can't. What do you think would happen? World Explode? Universe Collapse upon itself? Bah! Beside which how about Amarr and Lasers? They have it four ways of goodness, No reloading or real ammo consumption, high tracking, high optimal and the best damage. All they complain about it cap use, but wow no need to buy ammo all the time and with massive passive armor tanks. Gee maybe if were going to throw around the 'having both ways is bad, philosophy' then its about time we started hitting amarr with a NERF WRECKING BALL.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.08 06:40:00 - [9] Edited by: Nian Banks on 08/10/2009 06:41:35 One of the biggest issues with minmatar ships and tracking is that CCP have a terrible formula for calculating tracking v's transversal speed. If your orbiting something, your guns don't have to move. Yet in EvE your speed adds to the transversal/tracking formula to increase the difficulty of hitting that target. If a gun is always pointing at the target because your orbiting it, then your ships speed should have minimal effect on your tracking. CCP, Oh please, for FFS fix your crap damned formula and get with the program you lazy drunken bastards.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.08 08:15:00 - [10] Edited by: Nian Banks on 08/10/2009 08:18:48 Originally by: Nuts Nougat Originally by: Nian Banks Edited by: Nian Banks on 08/10/2009 06:41:35 One of the biggest issues with minmatar ships and tracking is that CCP have a terrible formula for calculating tracking v's transversal speed. If your orbiting something, your guns don't have to move. Yet in EvE your speed adds to the transversal/tracking formula to increase the difficulty of hitting that target. If a gun is always pointing at the target because your orbiting it, then your ships speed should have minimal effect on your tracking. CCP, Oh please, for FFS fix your crap damned formula and get with the program you lazy drunken bastards. If this was true anyone could just click orbit at current range and suddenly get perfect tracking on you and **** your ass unless you're in a frig orbiting a bs at 500. IMO, that's a bad thing. :P Erm, do you know how real world tracking works? Watch an old WWII docco on battleships v's some fighter plane or bomber. This at the very least would give reason for CCP to give turret/missile bonuses to the larger hull ships to use the lesser sized weapons well. E.g. Minmatar Battleship: +5% per level of rate of fire to small, medium and large projectile weapons. Make battleships, battlecruisers, cruisers... need to have a mix of small, medium and large weapons. If you want to specialize, then you need support of a decent anti frig/cruiser fit, e.g. neuts. Webbers, targetpainters... Please understand that just because your orbiting doesn't guarantee a hit, the target can still move around to evade your fire.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.08 12:43:00 - [11] Originally by: Xing Fey We're all fully aware how real world tracking works. But this would break the game becasue any tosser in a BC could just clck "approach" on an orbiting frigate and get a near 100% hit rate as his ship spins around to continualy face the target. Erm ya what? No thats not how it works, you see the whole thing about agility is that the big ships can't turn fast enough to track the smaller ships.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.08 16:09:00 - [12] Originally by: Techno Dog Edited by: Techno Dog on 08/10/2009 16:06:09 Originally by: Nian Banks If your orbiting something, your guns don't have to move. Yet in EvE your speed adds to the transversal/tracking formula to increase the difficulty of hitting that target. If a gun is always pointing at the target because your orbiting it, then your ships speed should have minimal effect on your tracking. First, you are speaking it about your ship is orbiting perfectly. That's a little trick you know, when you wanna use Newton/Kepler physics. Second, in this case, why are not argueing about why our ships can't use all their guns they had (remember, all ships had twice the number your fitting, because the guns has firing arcs, each gun/turret about half sphere around the ship)? Tricky for the irregular orbits but not so high end that it shouldn't be done. As for guns and line of sight, well I agree. It would make the game a little interesting :)
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.10.08 17:06:00 - [13] Originally by: Seriously Bored Hopefully the common opinion of Artillery's suckage will change once its live for a couple months. I wouldn't count on that, Artillery will blow still and if anything, probably will get a little worse. There are good ways to change something and there are bad ways. Going by history, CCP seems to be a consistent 'bad ways' company.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.01 15:37:00 - [14] Originally by: CCP Nozh Thanks for all the feedback, sorry for not being active in the thread, there is tons of other work to do besides posting on the forums (and projectile balancing for that matter). You'll be able to test the second iteration of the projectile changes on Singularity tomorrow. Ammo Changes - Base Values: Long Range (1.6 range modifier - 5 damage - 5% tracking bonus): Carbonized Lead - 4 kinetic / 1 explosive Nuclear - 4 explosive / 1 kinetic Proton - 3 em / 2 kinetic Medium Range (1.0 range modifier - 8 damage - 20% tracking bonus): Depleted Uranium - 3 explosive / 3 thermal / 2 kinetic Titanium Sabot - 6 kinetic / 2 explosive Short Range (0.5 range modifier - 12 damage): EMP - 9 em / 2 explosive / 1 kinetic Phased Plasma - 10 thermal / 2 kinetic Fusion - 10 explosive / 2 kinetic Tracking Computer / Enhancer changes: Tracking Computer falloff bonus fixed. Bonus doubled Stacking nerfed Tracking links also have a falloff modifier Autocannons / Repeating Artillery Falloff increases by tier. I'm still not too happy with these, will be worked on more next iteration. Artillery Instead of increasing alpha on both weapon tiers of each size class, you now have a choice. 1200's low alpha, fast rate of fire. 1400's high alpha, slow rate of fire. Oh my, early Christmas present? Are you sure this gift isn't a booby trap from some Ammariam slavers? :) Seriously this works well, one question however, how about giving depleted uranium a small falloff bonus or a small falloff bonus to the long range ammo?
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.02 17:28:00 - [15] In regards to autocannons and the changes that give increased falloff for the higher tiers, I will personally say that the is a better option to give different autocannon tiers a use and I will tell you what that is. Give the lowest tier the greatest falloff and reduce significantly down to tier3 ac's. Then give a significant damage increase to the higher tiers. In this way, the highest tier ac will be a point blank weapon similar to blasters with a respectable amount of damage, but will also only be effective against it's own ship size or higher because of it's poor tracking compared to the lower tier ac's
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.02 18:50:00 - [16] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Originally by: Nian Banks In regards to autocannons and the changes that give increased falloff for the higher tiers, I will personally say that the is a better option to give different autocannon tiers a use and I will tell you what that is. Give the lowest tier the greatest falloff and reduce significantly down to tier3 ac's. Then give a significant damage increase to the higher tiers. In this way, the highest tier ac will be a point blank weapon similar to blasters with a respectable amount of damage, but will also only be effective against it's own ship size or higher because of it's poor tracking compared to the lower tier ac's Sorry but that is a horrible idea. Less range AND less tracking? What did we say was wrong with artillery? Oh now I remember! Just. No. You didn't read it did you? Oh I'm sure you looked at the works, but the comprehension wasn't there. I approve all the new changes to artillery, ammo and tracking mods. I just done believe the ac's would benefit enough from just increasing the falloff for higher tiers, and the debs don't like it either. My suggestion did not include a reduction to tracking for the higher tiers, just more falloff the lesser the tier. I want to see the lowest tier having the best falloff and tracking but worst dps, then the highest tier having the best dps but worst falloff and tracking, lastly having the mid tier as an all rounder. I want a significant dps boost to the highest tier. Oh and keeping the tracking as it was, no change. Hence highest tier is the worst at tracking.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.02 20:05:00 - [17] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Oh I understood it alright. Looks like I didn't get my point across well enough though. What is the problem with artillery (apart from it's rather horrid dps)? Yes that's right. It's the lowest range coupled with the lowest tracking. With dominion the horrid dps part is getting fixed afaik to the point that it will be even higher than rails. But do you think rail users will train for artillery then? I don't think so, the range+tracking combo makes rails still superior for pure sniper work. 425/800mm autocannons are already so bad noone fits them, unless they by some kind of magic have too much grid (mael/sleip, that's about it). If you give a falloff bonus to 180mm noone will fit them unless you also give them a 50% damage boost or some other silly boost like that. And even then I'd probably rather fit 180mm and probably still do more damage, because I can start doing damage sooner and I will track the enemy better. No. As you go up in tier, you should get a more useful weapon for the much higher grid requirements they have, not a weapon that might be better in about 1% situations you happen to find yourself in. Plus 180mm tracking and higher falloff would be completely imbalanced against smaller ships, as you could easily track and kill them with stabbers/vagabonds/vargurs before they could even hope to close the distance. Fake edit: Now that i think about it... why don't you just fit blasters? It seems like this is what you want. And what will you do about the blaster whine that ensues? Cause if you bump autocannon damage "significantly" while not reducing tracking they're just plain better than blasters are, with all the "damage type versatility" thing going on. Just. No. No sorry, I do believe you could do with a new mind, ask god next time he talks to you in your quiet padded room. For the other people who may read this AC's need more range, AC's need more tracking. Not ALL AC's need more range and more tracking, because if you do that, why use the lower tiers? AC's in truth need variation, not just having higher tiers meaning better stats. Oh sure, the lowest tier has the best tracking, and lowest fittings, but it has the worst range and dps. Still how much tracking do you need now that we will get ammunition with a tracking bonus, and for falloff we have a plethora of modules to increase it. Hence my mentally deficient friend (in case hes still reading and not listening to the voices in his head) I suggested something interesting. If you want a deep falloff with good tracking, you have a lower dps weapon, the shorter your range and worst the tracking, the greater your dps gets, the dps not been a small increase but a hefty one. To the point that you are going from a semi automatic rifle (D180mm) to a semi automatic shot gun (425mm). It gives you options, more options means more possibility. More flexibility. There for, More Minmatar Restating for you once more... Low tier = high tracking high falloff low dps, mid tier = balanced between low and high, same as now (maybe a slight falloff increase), top tier = low tracking low falloff very high dps.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.02 20:15:00 - [18] Edited by: Nian Banks on 02/11/2009 20:15:15 Originally by: Nuts Nougat Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 02/11/2009 20:09:47 Originally by: Succubine Originally by: Cpt Branko Being competitive with lasers all the way until the end of Scorch optimal is broken by default. I mean, SURE, if you intend to make them consume cap (which is a massive thing on sub BS ships tbh), get locked into racial only damage types and so on and so forth. Then we'd have balance. And two equal, carbon-copied weapon systems. Screw that. Projectiles will become competitive when Tyhpoons fit AC more than Torps and when a fleet of RR Tempests with naturally high EM resist don't get laughed into oblivion by another fleet of RR Armageddons. Just a little fear would be nice. This. You, sir, win this thread. This is the truth, an undeniable fact, they may as well remove the projectile bonus on the typhoon and add a drone damage bonus, as who the hell would fit the typhoon as a projectile using ship now with the 5 missile hardpoints?
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.03 07:43:00 - [19] Originally by: Nuts Nougat So let me get this straight finally. Are you going to nerf 180mm and 220mm dps, so that people will want to fit 425mm? Or are you going to nerf 425mm tracking? You will need to nerf something, because if you boost the dps on 425mm they become blasters, but with any damage type, thus making blasters utterly obsolete. If you then nerf tracking to fix that they again become completly useless, because they can't track anything at their intended "shotgun" range. On the other hand, if you nerf 180mm dps to the point that they can't kill frigates thanks to their now high falloff and already superior tracking (they are already very good at this when fitted on vagabonds or sleipnirs, mind you), what exactly are you supposed to do with them? I thought guns were supposed to do damage? Or are you going to lower the tracking on these too, to fix this? I'm sorry but I really don't see where you're going with this. Either make useless guns or make them blasters mk2. Or maybe you just haven't thought this out thoroughly. You seem to have a problem with understanding simple concepts. Wether this is deliberate or not, your making yourself look ignorant. [/i] We players do not do the balance, we give feedback on changes and suggest concepts and tweaks, CCP then reads what we say and do what they think is right, all stats tweaking and balance is done by CCP not us. Remember that CCL is unhappy with the blanket falloff increase for higher tier autocannons and are looking for something more fulfilling for them.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.03 09:44:00 - [20] For the high dps short range shotgun like ac, to balance it on minmatar ships, we could increase the pg&cpu useage. So that your tank will suffer a bit.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.03 19:22:00 - [21] Liang, I know these graphs are a pain to do but can you please make one that compares all sizes of Small, Medium and Large projectiles, with no damage or tracking mods With the current versions v's the new ones? Perhaps three different graphs, with the close range, med range and long range. Just curious about the dps curve now with the modified ammo and turrets. Please oh pretty please :)
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.04 07:28:00 - [22] I like the ammo changes, although they need to give one tech1 ammo a falloff bonus. As for the weapons themselves. Noone seems to like my suggestion, but I thought it was a good solution to give ships the utility they need. I just don't like the way weapons tier, there isn't enough difference between the guns.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.04 17:01:00 - [23] Originally by: Asania Dre Here are my suggestions: 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. 5Everything else as current suggestions - eg, 30% TE / TC, etc. This is exactly what needs to be done, if these changes go through, then with the already done changes, CCP will have completed with flying colours the projectile mk2 task.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.07 02:43:00 - [24] Originally by: Schmell Edited by: Schmell on 06/11/2009 21:55:56 Just who the hell are using long range t1 ammo? (NOT counting munins) Why so many whine about it? DO NOT dare touch ammo boost plz I cried when they reduced the long range ammo damage. I do hope they swap a point from the close range and give it to the long range, as it is, they killed t1 long range ammo.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.07 16:11:00 - [25] Despite all the bickering, we are almost where we should be for a complete fix to projectiles. The only issues now are that the falloff increase to AC's is not quite enough and that the ammo needs a slight change to boost artillery by way of reducing the range penalty of the close range by 10-20% and reducing the close range ammos damage by a point and increasing the long range ammo by a point. Honestly the extra falloff and tracking ac's get is quite good.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.09 04:47:00 - [26] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf To be fair the falloff per tier went from ridiculously OP to minuscule. Guess what, thats CCP down pat, they have no subtly, I imagine their idea of a board meeting is getting several kegs of nasty ass beer and drinking till they drop, whoever is the last one conscious gets to make the final decisions.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.09 17:03:00 - [27] On the topic of tracking enhancers been fitted, I would like to make a point that on my mission Claymore, I have found that with 720mm arties, a TE is superior to a gyro. In most respects, as although the gyro does increase my max potential damage, the greater rof causes me to reload more, using more ammo in the process, and with the TE's boost to range and tracking, I hit more often and at greater ranges. I have since then invested in a RF TE.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.13 02:46:00 - [28] Forget trying to bribe CCP, I offered to send them a few slabs of Tasmanian beer once, they didn't bite. Shame really.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.18 06:34:00 - [29] Surly CCP must understand that tech1 and faction projectile ammo needs a falloff bonus somewhere, give the long range ammo a 15% falloff bonus ffs.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.19 07:53:00 - [30] Originally by: Valharu Edited by: Valharu on 19/11/2009 03:06:42 So how it all ends up, that basicly anything that boosts Mini guns is not built into the guns or ammo themselves but mods that any race can use? So we are actually forced to use up slots to make our guns effective? Its just another example as to the fact that CCP hates Minmatar.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.21 05:40:00 - [31] Yes I fail to see how CCP can think that making artillery worse, is a fix. Unless they are truyl beyond hope and have now hired a nurse to wipe their ****** chins.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.26 19:21:00 - [32] Originally by: Bomberlocks Originally by: Ravcharas I couldn't find any mention of these changes in the patch notes. Am I blind? Are they no longer considered for deployment? Still going through? CCP didn't publish them because they didn't think it was important enough. And that alone speaks volumes about where we as Minnies stand in CCP's eyes. Its disgusting tbh, if only we could email them with our disgust at how they have lumped a minmatar overhaul in with all these massive changes, almost in a deliberate f_u_c_k you to everyone who likes minmatar.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.28 05:26:00 - [33] Its time to work hard guys, we have two days to make CCP regret their actions and give us a proper minmatar patch. Start your campaign, I know I have.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.28 06:41:00 - [34] Originally by: Seriously Bored Nothing against you Nian, but I still have a real issue with people complaining about these changes so much. TBQFH, the changes are for the most part great. For them to be perfect, we'd need the LR ammo changed to 6 damage 40% optimal, and AC tiers to be 0%/15%/30% falloff. I still really want these two things to happen, if not now, in Dominion 1.5. But seriously...do those two things necessitate all the tears and rage that have been spewed on the last two pages of this thread? These changes are great compared to the original post, and leaps and bounds better compared to what is on TQ. This about as far as we can go with fixing the guns. The rest of the problem is with ships. First the Nag (and it's ridiculous that this is even a problem), second the Tempest, third the Muninn. The issue is that the majority of the players had issues with artillery been just plain crap, autocannons only needed more falloff but look at what we get. Everything changed but artillery still as bad as where we started from.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2009.11.29 05:23:00 - [35] Anyone else come to the conclusion that this is a clear case of CCP staff saying "you lot biatch and moan because we suck at balance, but we own this game and just to show you who the F is boss, we will do what ever the hell we want and screw all of you, oh and give us moar cash hoes." Btw, yes I am bitter, my opinion is, if some bastard won't listen to reason and continue to act arrogant in the face of their own ignorance, one resorts to violence to teach them one bloody good lesson. Sadly I ain't in iceland to kick their worthless asses.

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.