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)
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.23 19:56:00 - [1] Originally by: Chssmius Originally by: Egorik O <<In our first iteration of these changes we've increased the damage modifier by 50%, along with the rate of fire. The DPS stays in place, but the volley damage is increased significantly.>> Wow! Just to please few whining criples you gonna screw up all your loyal carebears. Artis become almost useless for PVE due severe overkill small and med NPC. One nerf at the time. We already got tax. << projectile ammo is reduced in size. We don't like this, so we're looking at changing it to a tracking bonus.>> Is it possible to trade tracking bonus for "alfa" bonus for long range ammo? So rof and damage mod for EMP remains same. But nuclears get bonused with big damage mode and big rof. Your PvE concerns are valid. Arties, especially large arties, kind of suck for it right now with a handful of exceptions. But I think adding an extra fitting tier to all artillery and differentiating the fitting tiers with different alpha/rof ratios, along with ammo that allows ACTUAL damage choice, would largely mollify your concerns. Those times I mission in highsec, 1200s have seemed to work the best while still having good range. Like the earlier proposal for scaling autos by greater size/more falloff, the alpha/ROF change maybe should be scaled down for 1200s, making mission runners less effected by the changes. Just a thought. I am a very happy minny atm!! Thank you for finally working on minmater duct-tape and half-assery! I've stuck with it, refused to give ground, and never held my nose to train amarr, and perhaps now it will pay off :)
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.24 01:06:00 - [2] Edited by: Roland Thorne on 24/09/2009 01:11:35 Originally by: Forge Lag Edited by: Forge Lag on 23/09/2009 23:31:54 Edit: You can make high tier ACs fire much slower. Alpha is less prone to abuse on ACs than artillery. That way high tier ACs have some merit and the aplha preachers have their high alpha high magazine weapon, even one relevant in ganking. I'm not really clear why you think this is true. I've heard before that projectiles have always been popular as a cap-less weapon to put on other racial ships - is this what you mean by abuse? If so, then I don't see any reason why autos could not be abused any more then arties could. Also, could higher minmatar ship bonuses to counter-act perhaps a purposeful nerf (and no, I don't mean any more then they are now lol) to projectiles fix this from happening? I don't know for sure since I cannot read minds, but this seems to be an issue with ccp, and I might be wrong, but logic says it might be part of the reason we have not seen a boost to projectiles before now. So here it is broken down: rebalance ammo like it should be and increase tracking across the board, BUT, instead of giving the percentage dps boost to the ammo, give it to the ship bonuses instead so minmatar only can enjoy the capless weapons at full strength. This will keep the weapon systems from being abused. Edit: adding alpha to 200mm autos, 425mm, and 800mms would not be an unwelcome addition to me, just as long as its not too severe in regards to ROF.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.24 14:58:00 - [3] Edited by: Roland Thorne on 24/09/2009 15:02:41 Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Originally by: Seriously Bored Let us use the first law of thermodynamics to defeat your argument then. You can't get more energy out of a system than you put into it. Think of hybrid cars. They reclaim energy from their braking systems, but that energy was first created with gasoline. Your suggestion would be like driving a 100 miles in a Prius and ending up with more gas than you started. Technicaly, the energy used to fire a projectile weapon comes from the propellent in the shell casing. Real-world guns and auto-cannons use the energy of the propellent to cycle the weapon and load another round. There is no reason you couldn't make a gun that generated electrical power as it was fired, it just wouldn't be of much use. Still, I think making projectiles give cap when they are fired is a bad idea. Yes, a very bad idea. Its worse enough having to read alts of galentte and amarr write about stupid ideas like this, or complain that projectiles are "double-buffed". I am specced completely minmatar and I throw up a little bit into my mouth every time this happens! Yes projectiles are capless (yada yada), but my BS are still almost completely useless in pvp for dealing damage, and I smell a fix so don't all you greedy alts get in my medieval way of getting it!!! LOL Edit: And no Seriously Bored, I'm talking about the guy that first brought this up.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.24 16:11:00 - [4] Originally by: Blazde Edited by: Blazde on 24/09/2009 16:03:42 Originally by: Lubomir Penev If you did so you may discover the a Maelstron with megapulse is better than one with 800mm AC, which is a definite proof of projectiles issue... Megapulse Maelstrom has less dps over (almost) all it's range profile, less tracking, and is cap unstable while using more CPU and PG, what are you referring to? [Damnit this thread is suddenly making me feel like such a nerd. The Vulcans are definetely better than the Romulans because of non-linear hyperdrive recoil energy capture and sequestration!] Don't look back, you know you are sold :)
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.24 16:53:00 - [5] Originally by: Vertical Axis Edited by: Vertical Axis on 24/09/2009 16:32:46 Nozh, the issue in all turrets is range vs damage. All of them. As a severely over-simplified chart which is completely unscientific but gets the point across, this is what we have now as far as top damage vs range regarding turrets: 3km and less: Gallente 3-10km: Minmatar 10+: Amarr Which obviously gives amarr a tremendous advantage, especially when you consider the vast disparity in damage as range increases. Gallente goes down to nothing by 10-15km, minmatar goes to half by 15-20 and non-existent by 30-40, but amarr and its optimals keeps full damage for almost its entire range. Fix that and you'll fix turrets. Ignore that and we'll have a half-assed fix which still leaves us a useless minmtar race. Originally by: Nozh You'll quickly notice what players have already been pointing out here on the forums. The high damage / close range projectile ammo is subpar when compared to the other ammo types, but when you look at the bigger picture, you'll also see there are some compensations. The original balance of projectile ammo seems to be skewed towards long range variations. Adjusting the projectile ammo to match its counterparts gives Phased Plasma ammo a 10% damage increase and EMP ammo a ~9.1% damage increase, while reducing the damage of the long range variations. The change will give auto-cannons a good performance boost, and make long range munitions easier to balance through the damage modifier. Nowhere in here do I see a concession to projectile dps remaining in falloff like it has been. Originally by: Nozh Other things we might be looking at: ò Auto-cannon tracking adjustments ò Auto-cannon tier balancing By this, I see an increase of tracking for large autos, but I am still at a loss what this means in regards to minny balance because our BS would need to be faster and more agile to take advantage of a tracking boost, and our ships are clearly not designed that way.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.24 17:03:00 - [6] Originally by: xOmGx Edited by: xOmGx on 24/09/2009 16:53:18 Edited by: xOmGx on 24/09/2009 16:52:54 Edited by: xOmGx on 24/09/2009 16:52:27 Fallof yes fallof - it is actualy an advantage of minmatar race you able to hit somesing at oprimal + fallof + fallof that give you an big range where you can deliver some dps Some matar pilots are telling me that vagabond/tempes almost didn't miss at their optimal + fallof and just getting slight DPS reduction. i'll test this eventyaly one day you just won's see that minmatar can deliver MORE dps than amarr you need to look @ optimal + fallof = effective range. Update DPS yes you right using faction ammo minmatar ship's deliver less turret dps than amarr one, but with launcher hardpoint's used they still deliver more dps. ______________________ The fit you used is fail and already proven to not be practical, and you keep saying things are so because you "heard them". Well, this minny pilot is telling you this from first hand experience that I popped a SB at 30 km before with 220 autos with two volleys for a total of <68> damage. 68 damage. Theres a bit of rocken dps for you.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.26 02:05:00 - [7] Edited by: Roland Thorne on 26/09/2009 02:06:51 Personally, I don't have a problem seeing lasers stay at their range as long as amarr are not best tracking. Edit: correction, lets say it this way... blasters, autos, should all have better tracking then amarr pulses.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.26 23:09:00 - [8] Originally by: Proxyyyy i was refering to arguments made suggesting that emp is somehow bad compared to fusion, not directly to the planned changes been considered by ccp. i pvp alot in null/low sec mostly solo, ive never encountered many of these imaginary omni tanking ships some are referring to even i omni tank certain ships but not many and not often. I say that because only someone resisting both shields and armour would account for statments like " Actually, you mean equally sucky at taking down armor and shields - because if you're shooting armor, about half your damage is wasted EM. Shooting shields, similar for explosive. Switching them would not be a nerf" REALY? half your damage from shooting unresisted "bar dc" shields on an amour tanking ship takes away half your damage? Your client must be bugged = / Emp is the most effective and arguably the best ammo in game. it out preforms both blasters and lasers overall. When damaging shields its dramaticaly faster than blasters but slower than laser. When damaging armour its dramactly faster than lasers and better than blasters. So why would you want to change this? These things are often considered and floated about by people who think they know how to pvp. Sitting around listening to some random fc telling them what button to press thinking they can pvp, and whining about what they think is broken just because they dont know how to fly there ships effectively. Again take the focus off the damage types, and even a damage increase because that would just make projectiles over-powered. Small/med/large auto canons are fine the problem is artillery. Btw if you do make fusion top dealer which would be a nerf. My hope are you keep Plasma as second cause that is what will be loaded in my guns "Plasma" and barrage/emp in my cargobay = ) No, when you hit armor the emp half of the damage will be decreased by your enemies resists, just as the other damage types are being resisted. So, part of the total damage will be lost as expected especially the em on the armor, but certainly not "half" the damage of the round. In this case most of any explosive damage would be more likely to get through, hence the fusion ammo. I'll let someone else do the numbers if they want. Also, theres a reason why people generally put speed-patch nerfed torps/cruises on phoon's instead of projectiles, and its not just because they don't rely on tracking.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.27 16:17:00 - [9] I agree 1400s are already limited to mael, or to PDS/RCU fitted tempest, so they should really remain tier 3. If anything, we should get a D920 artillery only after all ammo and ships have been properly balanced. Currently, 1200 already fills the roll of sucky low tier weapon just fine :)
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.28 16:29:00 - [10] Originally by: Kalia Masaer Really the only way for a fair comparison is with items fitted in ships with the same equivelant bonuses or no bonuses. As really when you consider it if you balance AC's in a Hurricane compared to a Myrmidon well that is just going to end badly because it would be so hard to see the line. Now comparing the turrets on an Abaddon and a Maelstrom well you may was well compare turrets without bothering with a ship bonus. All weapon systems need to be viable on an unbonused ship unless the intended race for those ships receives an additional bonus or you simply create more imbalance. Yes. This is why minmatar don't fit laser, and amarr don't fit projectiles, yet its not that uncommon for the gallente myrmidon to fit autos. Bear in mind, all of you, after this patch, that projectiles might be blurring the line again with other weapons with a dps boost, which has in the past led to oddly effective ships breaking the game by ganking people with multiracial hardware, which previously resulted in a severe nerf to minmatar projectiles. Projectiles are not like missiles where their weapons have no competition and there is no reason to care - projectiles compete with two other weapons systems that each use cap, and if the balance between these weapons is too similar, then what reason is there to keep the racial standard? With a possible increase in falloff with autos, and artie increasing alpha, we may very well see a reason for cpp to nerf minmatar again after this buff :(
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.28 19:02:00 - [11] Originally by: Verone You've really bloody done it now guys... honestly. All was lovely and quiet on our corporation's internal forums... now there's a damn riot. Hundreds of Minmatar pilots, all screaming "Khumaaaaaaaaaaaaaak!" and "BROADSIDDDEEEE!", and posting images of the following nature : Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C You will not be able to wipe the smile off my face :) Now, if if there was spent powder really flying around that would be even cooler
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.28 21:05:00 - [12] Sure, its not a heavy overall dps boost, but 75% extra damage per broadside (yippy! used it in a sentence) could be used productively in a small gang, no doubt about that. It is appreciable that a several of you are expecting better, and that is good. However, alpha numbers are not a small change by any stretch of the imagination, and prioritizing ammo is going to better use the damage that comes out. Even better, improving reloading speeds would further increase alpha effectiveness, making it possible to alpha shields and switch ammo back to exp. Its a thought.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.28 23:05:00 - [13] Originally by: Kaito Haakkainen Originally by: Isaac Starstriker Yes because I want a 25 typhoons insta-shotting 25 Apocs..... No thank you. --Isaac Ka-Booom! - Amarr BS Down Pew pew pew - Matar BS Down Pew pew pew - Matar BS Down Ka-Boom! - Amarr BS almost down, warp out Pew pew pew - Matar BS Down Pew pew pew - Matar BS Down Boom! - Amarr BS took some damage, warp out Pew pew pew - Matar BS Down Amarr BS returns Pew pew pew - Matar BS Down hehe, /sarc ftw And now to be a jerk... phoon?! Are you kidding?
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.28 23:48:00 - [14] Thats quite all right Isaac. Your meaning was clear regardless :)
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.29 19:31:00 - [15] Originally by: Isabelle Sparks Tracking means nothing if shooting a stationary target, while range will take your damage to ~0 in all cases. Maybe if they allowed you to use tractor beams on ships, then it would be balanced. Since you have webs to alter speed, should we not have a module to alter range? I get the idea you are talking about a Star Trek, or Starwars tractor beam. This term means something different in eve, for a different purpose. It would be cool, but it doesn't directly fix ammo.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.29 21:25:00 - [16] Its not just comparisons using barrage, its all this talk about emp. No one bothers to mention it has a -50% range bonus, which is a major reason why I use PP, which is a tank hole, and ranges at a lesser -37.5%
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.30 04:53:00 - [17] Originally by: Yon Krum Dear CCP Nozh, These artillery changes look very good as a start to fixing the issues with these guns in EVE, however I believe you are overlooking another, critical issue with projectiles. Namely, the size of the muzzle flash is simply far, FAR too small to be even remotely appropriate to the scale of the guns. Think: 16" cannons produce a frequently-pictured flash (see previous links) roughly (scientific eyeball mk. 1) half the length of the ship, or about 100m. EVE provides a visual reference when firing projectiles (all the same animation) of a tiny little flash, despite the fact that, say, 1400mm cannons are 3.45 times the diameter of a 16" guns. Even assuming massively more effective propellant charges and rocket-assisted rounds, the scaled-up cannons should have muzzle flashes roughly the size of the ship! In conclusion, please talk to the art guys and ask them to scale up the muzzle flash to an appropriate size. That should take them 15 minutes, and then they can get a cup of coffee or whatnot. Sincerely, --Krum PS. BROAAAAADSIIIIIIDDDEEEEE!!!! (Holds hand up) I second this proposition.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.09.30 06:04:00 - [18] Originally by: Seriously Bored Originally by: Yon Krum Think: 16" cannons produce a frequently-pictured flash (see previous links) roughly (scientific eyeball mk. 1) half the length of the ship, or about 100m. ...stuff... PS. BROAAAAADSIIIIIIDDDEEEEE!!!! I agree wholeheartedly. 1400mm shells are 4.6 feet wide. That's like shooting a VW bug out of a gun. The new alpha changes recreate the feeling of being struck with a car launched at a significant portion of the speed of light, now all we need is the effect (And a gun model that's sized that large...) Eve isn't that obvious how big the ships are are, so it will be hard to tell how big the guns should be, but make me blink for each salvo and I will be very happy for a long time.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.01 19:13:00 - [19] Originally by: Isabelle Sparks ...Also, before where it might have taken 6 BS's to one shot something, now it will only takes 6-7. So no matter what, you cannot say that the alpha is a nerf. It is better, period. It still fails in larger and longer engagements. But in small gang work, removing one of your foes instantly is pretty useful. This will be the final nail in the falcon coffin, I would say. Since now they will be even more susceptible to getting removed from the battlefield before they have a chance to make an impact. Accidental buff to the scorp?
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.02 08:07:00 - [20] Originally by: Dinamita Tona what i want to say if all guns shoot at same time at same target at same position then they should have same effect so 1 miss all miss, 1 hits wrecking all hits wrecking Ehhhh, no. That only adds to the problem.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.02 08:29:00 - [21] Originally by: Dinamita Tona Edited by: Dinamita Tona on 02/10/2009 08:19:45 Originally by: Roland Thorne Ehhhh, no. That only adds to the problem. explain please IMO case of optimal conditions, all guns should hit same or almost same same for non optimal conditions i remember that 1 time i killed wt that was mwding out my optimal and fallof range was in armor, 5 guns missed at falloff edge, 6th gun inflicted full wrecking damage like wt were in optimal and poped wt I laughed at that, and was good for me, but that is not way it should be it is more random effect than skills effect Still takes care to land the shot, and since it is chance based you can still miss, wasting every round you just fired :( Or, on the other side, if you land a wreaking shot then we are talking about multiplying it by the guns you have, which by my really horrible math could be as high as 16,000 hp
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.02 09:10:00 - [22] Originally by: Uncle Smokey It is natural for any kind of battery to hit the exact same spot. For one to miss, while the rest of the battery hits is absurd. But considering the impossibly short ranges of weapons, it is obvious that EvE never meant to have anything to do with real mechanics. Even in present technology we have weapon systems that will not miss when proper time has been put into them. For example, did you know that patriot defense missiles are slower then the missiles they are designed to shoot down? Its a miracle they can hit anything, but they do and it is because properly prepared math can compensate for those factors. The only reason things are the way they are in eve is because it is an Role Playing Game at heart and the pilot has to have rewards for their efforts.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.02 17:22:00 - [23] Originally by: Ath Amon for ACs and faloff thats is problem... faloff to be worth have to be almost as good as optimal for a weapon with low dps... it had been different if AC had good dps then was easier to balance with faloff for current state of AC optimall/dps boost will be a waay easier way to balance things out... atm we have dps: Blasters >> Lasers > ACs range: Lasers >>>>> ACs > blasters it will be way more balanced to have dps: Blasters > ACs > Lasers range: Lasers >>> ACs (with optimal range boost) > Blasters with maybe a bit more range for blasters (faloff) and eventually tracking to balance cap sage ACs get a boost in dps and optimal, of course dont use cap but use a lot of cargo so less space for cap boosters, minnie ships are also low on cargo so things kinda balance out laser stay the same Not a fan of increased optimal for projectiles, but maybe you have a point. That might be the only way to compete with the balance ccp has been sticking to.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.02 19:53:00 - [24] Race: Minmatar:1 Caldari: Amarr: Gallente: Large Artillery damage modifier change: Like:1 Dislike: Large Artillery duration change: Like: Dislike:1 Large Projectile clip size changes: Like:1 Dislike: Medium Artillery damage modifier change: Like:1 Dislike: Medium Artillery duration change: Like: Dislike:1 Large ammunition damage changes (feel free to add specific type likes/dislikes): Like:1 Dislike: Large ammunition tracking change: Like:1 Dislike: I second these wishes for, 1.Improved falloff for ACs (35%) 2.Changes to make high damage T2 ammunition useful (reduce the respective range/tracking/velocity penalties as no other races suffer as much here) 3.Introduction of a skill to reduce duration on ALL projectile weapons, scaling up from 0 for small to 50% for large. 4.Speed and agility improvements on ALL minnie ships scaling from 5% for small to 15% for BS (Minmatar are supposed to be able to at least partly speed tank, due to poor slot layout, pg and capacity). P.S. This duration change for artillery is nice, and I'm looking forward to it, but don't make it so severe ie 50% for large and down from there, etc. Also, I understand there are dps increases in ammo, and that is good. We also need a clear definition of whether ccp is going to follow through and make it clear what their plan with projectiles is going to be. Are we still going to be expected to fight in falloff or is there another plan in the works for projectiles? If we still are expected to fight in falloff then all matari ships need to return to their balance of speed-tanking with AB or mwd, and we need speed increases across the board to make this happen. Also, however its done, increases need to be made in falloff so the margins are not so short in comparison with other turret systems.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.02 20:19:00 - [25] No worse racist then an amarr fanboy trolling a matari board telling them how to fit and use their own ships, and what kind of changes they would like. Amarr got their boost, and they are already the best race in eve so give it a rest.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.02 20:53:00 - [26] Originally by: Seriously Bored 3) This idea would simply be overpowered. -% RoF is a powerful stat, and implementing this would make Tachyons pale in comparison to Artillery. Not supported. I agreed with this point thinking that he meant +50 duration instead of +75%. Otherwise, this is an unreasonable buff.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.06 07:44:00 - [27] This last graph... this is what has been said over and over again. Projectile weapons are not lasers; not blasters, and for pities sake not rails so everyone please stop saying they should be so. 'Make arties fire faster/more dps' <<<< Rails. 'Arties need more optimal' <<<< lasers. 'Arties need to have aoe damage like missiles' (wth is this) I say this again like many people have said before. Projectiles need way more falloff and slightly more dps, and the ships that use them need more base speed so they can tank with the slots they have, especially the battleships. That is the minmatar way, hard and fast on a wing and a prayer
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.07 06:49:00 - [28] We'll see how pve goes. Missions are already all about kiting and delaying anyway with 1400s on a mael so I'm honestly not too worried about putting mine into retirement. Got a feeling that the mission cruisers will be handled with one 4 gun barrage followed up by drones, with priority put on BS. \o
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.08 00:57:00 - [29] Originally by: Nuts Nougat CCP: if cap usage gives a +70% tracking bonus, please make artillery use cap. Thanks in advance. Damn it if I throw a wheel-nut every time some yahoo mentions adding cap use to projectiles, and in the same sentence as a ridiculously heavy tracking bonus too. No ones asking for "70%" tracking bonus. Take my extra dps if you want, but don't screw with the cap use!
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.08 01:04:00 - [30] Edited by: Roland Thorne on 08/10/2009 01:04:21 Well, he made his point to me, but I'm not ccp lol Edit: spelling
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.08 12:57:00 - [31] Originally by: Bomberlocks Originally by: Xing Fey ... ... this would break the game .... I'm increasingly of the opinion that this would be a good thing. Eve is a mess because of the various nerfs,buffs,new toys,heaps of shit added on over the years. You know what is needed: a complete redesign, except that that would prolly chase many players away, but also that would possibly be a very good thing. The speed nerf was very comprehensive, and not even that is up to the scale you are talking about. That is part of the reason minmatar BS got so meh, is because that was how they were treated. However, we don't want ccp redesigning the 'speadsheet eve' without a plan to how it should be redesigned, or we will just be seeing the same confusion we have now, ie tachs, the minmatar anti-race tier 3 mael, etc ad infinitum. I still don't know if I should be assuming my projectiles will be fighting in falloff
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.13 15:25:00 - [32] Originally by: Isabelle Sparks Originally by: dalman My AC's do comparable damage to Neutrons and Pulses? Maybe at 6 km as compared to pulses, while maintaining a decent BS transverse velocity, and maybe at 24km compared to Neutrons. So you are correct, I match up with both weapons pretty well when they are not in their optimal range. Neutron blaster cannon II: 4.2x damagemod, 7.88s ROF = 0.533 DPS 800mm II: 3.234x damagemod, 7.88s ROF = 0.410 DPS. Modified by tempest ROF bonus = 0.547 DPS, as in HIGHER THAN A NEUTRON BLASTER ON A GALLENTE SHIP. Taking TQ stats non-T2 ammo damage penalty it's 0.502 DPS, but obviously this is getting changed already. ^^ this also illustrates how huge the tempest bonus is and why it completely ruins balancing and should be re-worked completely as per my previous posts. On a Domi Praetor II Heavy drones will do 342 DPS with all level 5 skills. On a Megathron Ogre II Heavy Drones will do 317 DPS, with all level 5 skills. Clearly you can see that Praetor's do more damage. This illustrates how huge the Domi's bonus is and how it totally ruins the balance between the drones, and everything in this game needs to be reworked, because some ships have bonuses that are different from other ones, and make the ships not be equal in the same ways. SO please take away the drone bonus from the Domi, and give it a tracking bonus and an extra gun. Megatron should lose one gun and get a Drone bonus, and be a shield tank, with more launcher hard points, like the Raven. /sarc - its so beautiful! ownage
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.13 20:55:00 - [33] Originally by: dalman Edited for brevity I could not tell you what you were talking about with the dual damage bonus on the tempest, and that is a problem. I simply do not understand what you are getting at. Presently, the tempest has less dps with 6 turrets then the mael with 8 turrets, even though the tempest has two damage bonuses to the mael's one. All this proves is that the extra bonus does not override the dps of two extra weapons. Both ships have issues managing currently underperforming projectiles, but that has already been well discussed many times. The problem is the weapons, not the ships.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.13 21:54:00 - [34] Originally by: dalman Ok, I'll try to make this as clear as possible. Bottom line is that I agree with you that the Tempest is under-performing in many very common situations in the game (situations where the Maelstrom/Typhoon aren't good substitutes). However, this can not be addressed by simply boosting projectiles, because: There are other situations/tactics (not so common to average Joe) where such a boosted tempest would be very overpowered. Such a boost would also be applied to the Maelstrom, which is absolutely nuts as the Maelstrom is already a beast (as well as all other ships in the game where minmatar are at the top). Therefore, to address the problems which many rightfully complain about, underlying ship design has to be changed first, otherwise the "fix" only creates other problems instead. The mael cannot break 1k dps like the 'phoon can. The only reason the mael is a beast is because, depending on the fit, it can outtank and outlast other ships which themselves output more dps then it does. What you are talking about is a tanking issue, not a dps one.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.14 07:26:00 - [35] Yeah, and that is a good reason for a nerf, but I never want to actually ask for a nerf! What goes around, comes around, you know. I'd rather ask for things that would help balance things out in as fair a way as possible, and I think doing that with blasters is a good start regardless if most pilots continue training amarr instead. I'm starting to think that leaving the tempest bonuses as they are will be best, as long as we get an autocannon tier falloff adjustment and a racial across-the-board agility and speed improvement. DPS will still be negligible, and minmatar will still lack a BS fleet sniper, but it will be easier to place dps on target in small gangs and then get out if any amarr start taking over the fight lol.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.14 07:41:00 - [36] Originally by: HankMurphy I let people say that the Vargur just isn't supposed to have artillery fit to it. That has been talked about before, and I understand that there is a bad pg issue preventing the Vargur from fitting 1400s. I don't have the isk to experiment for myself, so I can't say from experience. Thats just what I've heard. Originally by: HankMurphy I'm telling you, from experience, the tempest was a great sniper for years (long long long ago). The tier 3 bs's were NOT SUPPOSED TO REPLACE the tier 2. I DO know that was stated clearly by ccp. The sniping game has changed drastically from the early years due in large part to the distances permitted the tier 3 bs. I think the tempest should be brought up to speed in the targeting range area to help it compete again. I hope a dev is looking at this, because it would be a simple change to adjust base targeting range on the tempest. That could free up a mid, which should open things up considerably. Would not be desirable, but it would help. (shrug)
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.14 18:12:00 - [37] Originally by: Elaron Edited by: Elaron on 14/10/2009 17:42:25 Originally by: Etho Demerzel That is the only flaw of the Maelstrom, and the perverse way the devs found to screw the minnies once more It's even more frustrating considering Tuxford himself considered it a poor bonus when the Tier 3 battleships were in initial testing. Edit: Then again, Oveur is on record as saying that the hitpoint boosts were specifically to degrade the value of alpha strike in engagements, so I can't really be surprised at CCP contradicting themselves on occasion. This was eerie... Originally by: Menelak Faf Originally by: Oveur I believe you just proved the whole point of this exercise. Which was to nerf alpha-strike damage of Minmatar, and make everyone train Amarr?
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.15 22:38:00 - [38] Originally by: Seriously Bored Nozh, if you've stomached this thread thus far, we'd like to hear something meaty on the subject. If he hasn't been keeping track, it might take him a week to catch up! I'll be happy to hear of any adjustments to what he said they were working on.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.16 16:33:00 - [39] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: RedSplat 1KM FALLOFF IS NOT EQUAL IN USEFULNESS TO 1KM OPTIMAL And this, some guys need to drop the fall off tinted glasses already. Minmatar has always been about the falloff. CCP starts balancing optimal and a I guarantee you that instead of blasters, projectiles and lasers, we will have 3 versions of the same thing.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.17 02:21:00 - [40] Originally by: Elaron Originally by: Roland Thorne Minmatar has always been about the falloff. CCP starts balancing optimal and a I guarantee you that instead of blasters, projectiles and lasers, we will have 3 versions of the same thing. Minmatar was always about having the lightest, nimblest, fastest ships as well. That concept was swept aside during the speed revamp. Minmatar did not have the fastest ships even before the speed nerf. We're talking some old balance problems here. Originally by: Elaron There'd be nothing wrong with admitting that something (ie, falloff) is a crap mechanic to rely on. Especially when the negative impact it has is worse than a superficial look implies it is. I like falloff. It is not a crap mechanic. I like being able to hit SB at 30 km with mid autos. I like being able to choose whether or not I feel like getting into optimal, or just pelting them from afar for less damage. I think it a very valuable game mechanic to have, and it would be a pity for autos to merely be a tier above blasters in range, etc. Its boring! idk... if ccp decides its better to just make it that way, then fine. I'm not emo-quiting, but I don't think you understand how useful falloff is.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.17 04:57:00 - [41] Originally by: Deltaprimus [u][u][b][b]Its got to the point where im thinking of packing this in. I refuse to spend more money on a char that is bei Give it to me, seriously. I could use a good pve char.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.18 06:06:00 - [42] Edited by: Roland Thorne on 18/10/2009 06:10:15 Originally by: Elaron Referring to perhaps trying to kill a stealth bomber before it deploys bombs? A situation in which a Vagabond will do around 100DPS, hitting only 37% of the time, taking an average of 10 seconds to kill one, while a Zealot will do four times your DPS as it's firing at optimal? Yeah, falloff feels like it's a great boon to Minmatar in such a circumstance. If one is flying a vagabond with autos, sure it will be good. Otherwise, if someone has the skills to fly a zealot, they will fly one. That is exactly what is happening now with matar pilots changing to amarr. Edit: Clarification
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.18 20:13:00 - [43] Originally by: Elaron Originally by: Roland Thorne If one is flying a vagabond with autos, sure it will be good. Otherwise, if someone has the skills to fly a zealot, they will fly one. That is exactly what is happening now with matar pilots changing to amarr. So ... on the one hand, you're saying that falloff is great, and on the other hand you're saying that Matari pilots are swapping to Amarr because they're weapons are better. No. I'm saying indirectly that guys who are trained for blasters would loooove to be able to use falloff on someone who is out of optimal. Projectiles already do that.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.18 20:41:00 - [44] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 18/10/2009 20:31:02 Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 18/10/2009 20:21:54 Originally by: Roland Thorne Originally by: Elaron Originally by: Roland Thorne If one is flying a vagabond with autos, sure it will be good. Otherwise, if someone has the skills to fly a zealot, they will fly one. That is exactly what is happening now with matar pilots changing to amarr. So ... on the one hand, you're saying that falloff is great, and on the other hand you're saying that Matari pilots are swapping to Amarr because they're weapons are better. No. I'm saying indirectly that guys who are trained for blasters would loooove to be able to use falloff on someone who is out of optimal. Projectiles already do that. Nope, blaster pilots are quite happy with 11km optimal (Neutrons + Null) vs 6km Optimal (800mm's with barrage), outdamaging minmatar battleships out to warp distruptor range (lol fall off). The knowledge that within optimal range, your probably out damaging everyone else makes up for the lack of fall off or optimal. With Autocannons, not so much. As your playing hopscotch depending on whatevers shooting at you, (a game thats pretty hard to do at Battleship level), you might as well just train lasers and know exactly where you stand. Dude, an optimistic blaster user. Glad to hear it lol
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.18 22:45:00 - [45] Originally by: Elaron Originally by: Roland Thorne No. I'm saying indirectly that guys who are trained for blasters would loooove to be able to use falloff on someone who is out of optimal. Projectiles already do that. There is nothing at all that says that blasters have to be used within optimal. And, as Pattern has said, range is not what blaster users are complaining about. Suppose its a case by case basis by pilot's preference, however you can't deny that blasters do spec in close-range damage, yet the utility of greater falloff would be useful even if the dps is ****ty. Projectiles do not have the spec of close range damage, even though they do perform greater damage in optimal. Closing to that range is inadvisable in some cases though (staying out of web range/scram) especially with the slots most minmatar ships have. The only options I have then to still deliver dps is to use drones and falloff, and I'd rather keep the flexibility of falloff then trade it for a concrete hit/miss chance given with a defined optimal. To answer your recommendation to fly amarr, maybe that works with other peeps, but not me. I'd rather work to have ccp correct the problems with minmatar.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.20 19:07:00 - [46] Originally by: Marsaac Auto cannon tier balancing is a great idea imo. At the moment you have about 8000 spare powergrid with t2 800mm autocannons on the maelstrom so remaking the tiers would be a exellent addition. Not sure what you are getting at with your observation with PG. Mael is a shield tanked ship, and it has the greatest PG pool of all minny BS. Increasing PG needs of auto tiers would only nerf armor tanked pests and 'phoons.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.21 08:37:00 - [47] Originally by: Washell Olivaw 4. None of us added anything new after the first 5 pages, but added 2 cents anyway. Agreed. Rehashing things was probably productive anyway since its unlikely everyone interested could follow the entire thread.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori	Posted - 2009.10.27 19:30:00 - [48] Originally by: Seriously Bored Originally by: Theodore Kaczynski I like the new changes to the ammo types. However, to make the full use of it, please let us swap projectile (or at least autocannon) ammo more quickly (I like the idea of 2 seconds, like old Amarr). At this point, there's almost no reason to ever swap ammo, because waiting 10 seconds to fire is a huge disadvantage, much larger than the advantage of being able to have a somewhat better damage type. Also, DPS will never be artillery's strong point. Alpha is. 1200's also need the very high alpha. I disagree about shortening the reload time. Missiles have the same issue: true damage type selection, but the issue is that you need intel or an understanding of common fits to put it to good use. With the latest revision, EMP would be the best to shoot at shields, Fusion the best at armor, and Phased Plasma the all-round safest bet (the way people use EMP now). Having true damage selection and the ability to change types quickly would be borderline OP in my eyes. Like hell would I ask for a Drake to be able to do that. The difference between 1200 and 1400 is fine for me. If you're concerned about Alpha, you're using the biggest guns anyway. But this offers a big difference in tactics between the two weapons. I'd never turn that down. Yes, agreed.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Blade.	Posted - 2009.12.12 10:01:00 - [49] Like it or not, the tempest is the ship to use in a fleet if the pilot prefers projectiles, and they are obviously trained matari. Pattern Clark and many others have done their best to give options to improve it... but there you go. What else can be said? As things lie, ccp has not changed it this last patch, but has thankfully adjusted our ammo for the better; as long as we only go for close damage :)
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Blade.	Posted - 2009.12.16 19:53:00 - [50] Fitting my new tempest last night made me grin :P We'll see how long the carnage will last til the fun gets nerfed lol
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Blade.	Posted - 2009.12.17 08:24:00 - [51] Originally by: Nuts Nougat Originally by: Roland Thorne Edited by: Roland Thorne on 17/12/2009 04:40:46 Edited by: Roland Thorne on 17/12/2009 04:29:04 Fitting my new tempest last night made me grin :P We'll see how long the carnage will last til the fun gets nerfed lol Edit: grrr Not quite there yet eh? Not sure what you mean? I was just raging at forum stuff when I shoulda been drinking my coffee. No matter
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Blade.	Posted - 2009.12.17 18:45:00 - [52] Edited by: Roland Thorne on 17/12/2009 18:45:50 The mael is not so bad either, in missions. 17 secs is a long time to wait, but being able to instantly pop many NPC BC with 4 guns on them still means a projectile specced char can still wipe the field pretty fast. Many times, I would get bounties for them when I was already in the next mission :) edit: yes, I was doing lvl 4s, quality +18 I think.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Blade.	Posted - 2009.12.24 05:47:00 - [53] Auto tiers were adjusted for the better, ammo is sorted much nicer now, and has bonuses for close range, and arties have more alpha. Now with the bad... Tempest was ignored, Nag is useless again, and the only long-range ammo worth shooting is the t2 Tremor, and it shouldn't be that way. Seriously, I'd also like to see minmatar have more of a racial speed difference, but that is about likely to happen as hell freezing over or amarr being nerfed. That don't matter much now though, cause for better or for worse, Minmatar is now, by design, a close-combat race.
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Blade.	Posted - 2009.12.24 11:11:00 - [54] Yeah, the word useless probably is overused. Tempest has been improved by the ammo and mod changes, but otherwise unchanged. Lately however, I've been using a lot of shield fits, and I have to agree with others that it really shines with shield tanks. Its great being able to play with dps mods! Its been my dirty little secret, but the phoon changes have not made me very happy, and I was eager to see something good with the tempest because its better with gunnery. Never have had very good results with missiles, and never cared for them anyways. Originally by: Seishi Maru The only useless ship minmatar had recently was the naglfar on the Nohz short aged concept. /signed They had good timing to make the final changes to that ship when I was deciding which skillbook to get, but not everyone's luck held up :(
Roland Thorne Dark Sun Collective Blade.	Posted - 2009.12.24 19:25:00 - [55] Originally by: Seishi Maru Edited by: Seishi Maru on 24/12/2009 12:21:52On my way to see it. We already have a gunboat shield tanker on mesltrom. Issue is.. active bonus is horribly inferior to resists, and the shield tanker ship is a slugish whale. The armor tanker gunboat is the agile one.. a little bit wtf on that. Typhoon is a completely different ship. Is a ship focused on the concept that I can fit as many weapons that I don t even need dumb damage mods!!!) And has a different usage then gunboats. Its excelent on what it does altough. Pattern's proposal addresses these issues very well I think, even if he did not make it fully palatable :) The tempest fills the hole between the slugger 'phoon, and the (wth?) confused mael which is still not sure if it truly wants to be used in a fleet or not! Originally by: Seishi Maru Slow shield tanker and agile armor tankers does not match very well. The proposition to make tempest 7/6/6 could work well , but must be made with carefull considerations. Because by itself the layout change does not make the tempest better than maelstrom at any role. It makes it worse at armor tank RR gangs, while ship still not agile enough to be on the gangs that prefer shields ..the smaller roaming ones.... The proposition to increase its damage bonus and remove missile launchers is nice.. but I think ccp will not accept it. Not because its overpowered, but because they are adverse to not be standarized on the 5% values. Tempest and 'canes ARE gunships. I cry a little in my beer (don't tell anyone) when I see a pest or 'cane die with more then two launchers on it. Seems inane to be told by ccp that dps numbers should include launchers... this is wrong because the pest <theoretically> should be able to dish out respectable dps while still packing rr or nuets, etc. The mael is a great solo ship for pve or pvp, but it cannot fill this role as good as the tempest. Tbh, all we need on the tempest is the same flexibility of roles that the 'cane enjoys coupled with great projectile dps, and it will be fixed. No one accuses the cane of being a great tanker obviously, but people still love that ship. Originally by: Seishi Maru the 7/6/6 approach could work IF shield transporters were fully reviewed, if tempest got more agility (no need for more speed. Agility is only useful on BS scale when you are agile enough to warp UNDER 10 seconds. Because 10 secodns is the hard limit that all BS are bound due to MWD trick. Solving the identity issues is not easy. Simply removign tempest from armor tanker position doe snto sovel it.. just change its blurring from typhoon into maelstrom. Some sbutle work is needed on the combination tempest maelstrom is needed to achieve a good result. You are right about shields, and it does bother me to be running shields when most gangs do use armor. However, with agility bumped even slightly, its feasible to run with a slight armor buffer and still fill its role. Its not hard to solve the tempest's blurring with the mael; ccp just has to focus on projectiles and not be distracted by missile dps bumping its numbers up in eft, and thereby confusing us further on its role. Adding mids is a way to solve blurring with the phoon... adding lows WILL blur it. Mids are always useful even with armor tanking, and the possibilities would be limitless. Fitting disruptor and scram would be nice, tracking computer, ECCM/sensor booster, and even mwd + ab fits to close and then orbit larger targets, etc in diff combos.

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.