Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 90 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 01:17:00 -
[301]
Edited by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt on 27/09/2009 01:32:19
"Omni tanking" generally means hardening against all damage types.
Tanking armor and shield simultaneously is normally called "dual tanking" and is hardly ever done on non-terrible fits because of how hardeners and other tanking modules complement each other.
Also, adding falloff to tracking computers is a nice addition, but it REALLY needs to be at least partially added to the ammunition if artillery is going to retain this kind of optimal/falloff balance.
Locus rigs are another sticking point. Beam lasers and railguns benefit greatly from them because so much of their range is optimal. Artillery is going to be stuck being forced to use module slots to accomplish the same thing, unless Ambit and Locus rigs are merged or something.
Quote: The thing is, when you resist all four damage types equally, ammo behaves in the same way as if the ship wasn't tanked at all, and just had a ton more HP on a single layer.
Omni tanking is used when the damage types being used against you are varied or unpredictable. Damage Controls eliminate a lot of the advantages of playing with damage types.
|
Kalia Masaer
Rosa Castellum
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 03:42:00 -
[302]
My current concern with the damage changes to projectile ranged ammo is that they already suffer hugely in damage at range due to the projectile weapons tending to already be far out into fall-off losing at least 25% of their damage if not more.
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 08:39:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Kalia Masaer My current concern with the damage changes to projectile ranged ammo is that they already suffer hugely in damage at range due to the projectile weapons tending to already be far out into fall-off losing at least 25% of their damage if not more.
use tremor for sniping they arent changing it
|
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 09:25:00 -
[304]
Edited by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt on 27/09/2009 09:33:32
Tremor doesn't fix the issue that a Tempest needs 3 range mods to get the same optimal as a Tachyon Apocalypse gets with zero.
Tremor needs a falloff bonus. Preferably a large one. Either that, bonus one of the ships for optimal, or redo the optimal/falloff balance on large artillery completely.
|
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 10:54:00 -
[305]
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 27/09/2009 10:55:22 1650mm Siege Cannon II. ò 1650mm Base stats (vs1400mm) ò Damage mod: 9.05625 (7.245) ò ROF: 27.169 (23.625 ò Tracking: 0.0090000 (Same as old 1400mm II) ò Optimal: 52800 (48000) ò Falloff: 35000 (35000) ò Powergrid: 4155 (3575) ò CPU: 50 (47)
Although a feasible 1650mm Tempest fit can be achieved with rigs, it will be the Maelstrom that would gleam the biggest benefit from this new tier of turrets. 10% more DPS, 10% Optimal range, the same clip size and tracking as current 1400mm's and a respectable 25% increase to alpha, the 1650mm Maelstrom becomes the main battle, minmatar sniper battleship.
1650mm Maelstrom in Yellow, current Tempest in green.
Also, bare in mind that a Hyperion would be dealing compatible damage at greater ranges.
To see more visit the link below... ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
To mare
Amarr Advanced Technology
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 11:16:00 -
[306]
Originally by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt Edited by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt on 27/09/2009 09:33:32
Tremor doesn't fix the issue that a Tempest needs 3 range mods to get the same optimal as a Tachyon Apocalypse gets with zero.
Tremor needs a falloff bonus. Preferably a large one. Either that, bonus one of the ships for optimal, or redo the optimal/falloff balance on large artillery completely.
as i said before falloff scaling with tier of gun, TE/TC affecting falloff, and a trajectory analysis fix would do great things for the standard tempest sniper, not the best but not even so bad like now. the only reason you wont se a falloff bonus to tremor its becouse if ccp give that to projectiles they have to give the same bonus to all the other T2 sniping ammo.
and no thanks to 1650mm artillery the 1400 ones are already hard to fit, just fix the 1400 and there is no need to add new junk.
|
Culissa
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 11:23:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 27/09/2009 10:55:22 1650mm Siege Cannon II. ò 1650mm Base stats (vs1400mm) ò Damage mod: 9.05625 (7.245) ò ROF: 27.169 (23.625 ò Tracking: 0.0090000 (Same as old 1400mm II) ò Optimal: 52800 (48000) ò Falloff: 35000 (35000) ò Powergrid: 4155 (3575) ò CPU: 50 (47)
Although a feasible 1650mm Tempest fit can be achieved with rigs, it will be the Maelstrom that would gleam the biggest benefit from this new tier of turrets. 10% more DPS, 10% Optimal range, the same clip size and tracking as current 1400mm's and a respectable 25% increase to alpha, the 1650mm Maelstrom becomes the main battle, minmatar sniper battleship.
1650mm Maelstrom in Yellow, current Tempest in green.
Also, bare in mind that a Hyperion would be dealing compatible damage at greater ranges.
"BIG IMAGE"
To see more visit the link below...
tachyon are amarr stuff ther is no need to add them for minmatar too or the next wine on forums will be gallente and caldari players for their oversized gun. fix the current 1400 give them more falloff as someone have suggested.
and stop with the big images
|
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 11:44:00 -
[308]
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 27/09/2009 11:44:48 Main complaints... Not enough damage... Not enough range... Not enough tracking... Hit quality decreases as well as hit chance at fall off (which means your alpha means less)
So we have a gun less than all the major races, lets fix most of the problems with the new gun, 1400mm becomes the mid tier, mid range turret (which to be honest, it always was comparable with 350mm - apart from tracking) where as we separate the niches of the Tempest and the Maelstrom with a new gun.
Or... feel free to gimp yourselves by clinging onto lolracialtrait's that clearly don't work at battleship level. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 11:51:00 -
[309]
Originally by: To mare as i said before falloff scaling with tier of gun, TE/TC affecting falloff, and a trajectory analysis fix would do great things for the standard tempest sniper, not the best but not even so bad like now. the only reason you wont se a falloff bonus to tremor its becouse if ccp give that to projectiles they have to give the same bonus to all the other T2 sniping ammo.
The problem is that it's hard to really balance the weapon across ALL ammo types when the range modifier only affects optimal. Long range sniping ammo provides an 80% bonus to optimal.
425mm Rails for example have a base range of 57.6+24 1400mm Artillery has a base range of 48+35
On paper, this isn't really terrible, artillery winds up in falloff sooner but degrades more slowly. However, once you load Spike or Tremor, it turns into 103.68+24 vs 86.4+35, and artillery is effectively worse at all ranges. This actually HELPS it with close range ammo, but really any changes to falloff behavior really need to include the ammo as part of the solution.
|
Rayokashi
Order of Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 14:14:00 -
[310]
Large projectiles (both autocannons and artillery) are in need of optimal and damage boost. Modifying ammo with tracking capabilities is not enough.
|
|
To mare
Amarr Advanced Technology
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 15:25:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Rayokashi Large projectiles (both autocannons and artillery) are in need of optimal and damage boost. Modifying ammo with tracking capabilities is not enough.
i can live with the actual system of crappy optimal and large falloff on AC if they boos falloff with tier of gun but a dps boost is needed
|
Kalia Masaer
Rosa Castellum
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 16:11:00 -
[312]
Has anyone noted that the 800mm Repeating Artillery II actually has less tracking .0432 than the Neutron Blaster Cannon II with .0433. This plainly does not fit the pattern between AC's and Blasters, to fit the pattern all 800mm AC's need their tracking increased to 0.0451 from 0.0432.
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 16:17:00 -
[313]
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 :)
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 20:36:00 -
[314]
Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 27/09/2009 20:46:11
Originally by: WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt
The problem is that it's hard to really balance the weapon across ALL ammo types when the range modifier only affects optimal. Long range sniping ammo provides an 80% bonus to optimal.
425mm Rails for example have a base range of 57.6+24 1400mm Artillery has a base range of 48+35
On paper, this isn't really terrible, artillery winds up in falloff sooner but degrades more slowly. However, once you load Spike or Tremor, it turns into 103.68+24 vs 86.4+35, and artillery is effectively worse at all ranges. This actually HELPS it with close range ammo, but really any changes to falloff behavior really need to include the ammo as part of the solution.
You definitely outlined the range problem well, not sure about your solution or assumption that balance would have to include ammo/falloff.
One of the false equality lies in that CCP think that falloff and optimal balance out at 1:1. Meaning Optimal+falloff should equal Optimal+falloff roughly. This is not true in the slightest. For every km of Optimal another ship gets over a projectile, the projectile should get 2 km of falloff, to at least achieve 86% damage at similar ranges.
So will the new tracking computers have 7.5% or 15% falloff bonus unscripted. My money is on 7.5% to make it "equal", which will really give you a whopping 3.75% extra operating range @ 86% damage. I would argue that the equal value to optimal for falloff in a tracking computer would be 15% unscripted, giving a 7.5% increase in operating (86% damage) range.
Anyway, I like the way CCP is approaching this, and I hope this is the first of a series of buffs to projectiles. Maybe they are going to proceed cautiously this time, instead of instating one of these catch all type changes. Buff too little, and rebuff if needed. It is much more sensible then the pendulum of over buffing and over-nerfing everything, which seems to be their style historically.
But sigh, to be honest I have mostly given up on AC's all together. Their range is terrible and their damage is poor. Compared to pulses, there is just no contest at all, I believe they are even more screwed up then artillery. You get owned by pulses from 90 km to 8 km, and even under 8 km's, you would be lucky to be doing an extra 10% capless damage. The extra cap will make sure you have an extra large explosion when your structure fails... quite an advantage to be sure.
AC's make me sad actually. I think there is hope for artillery, with the changes presented plus maybe an extra base falloff buff. But yea, AC's make me sad.
And while we are here, buff the Tempests power grid so it can fit 1400's without an RCU, and thus compete with the other BS for EHP.
PS: My fix for short range guns would be to nerf Pulse laser damage, buff AC's range and damage, and buff Blasters damage and tracking. That is all.
|
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 23:29:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
One of the false equality lies in that CCP think that falloff and optimal balance out at 1:1. Meaning Optimal+falloff should equal Optimal+falloff roughly. This is not true in the slightest. For every km of Optimal another ship gets over a projectile, the projectile should get 2 km of falloff, to at least achieve 86% damage at similar ranges.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
|
Shade IX
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 01:13:00 -
[316]
Originally by: CCP Nozh Other things we might be looking at: ò Auto-cannon tracking adjustments ò Auto-cannon tier balancing Please leave feedback in this thread. The changes will be made available for public testing next Wednesday on Singularity.
there is no point in having the fastest ships in the game and not being able to track anything. good move here CCP
|
WarDecEvading NPCCorpAlt
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 01:48:00 -
[317]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks And while we are here, buff the Tempests power grid so it can fit 1400's without an RCU, and thus compete with the other BS for EHP.
Grid is certainly an issue, but I think the issue would be better solved by a substantial increase in power on both 1200mm and 1400mm artillery, leaving 1400mm's as a long-range "glass cannon" option like other races already have.
The CLEANEST solution would be to just increase the optimal of both tiers by 30%. With 3 range mods (i.e. locus rig + 2 tracking mods) this would put 1400's at 180km and 1200's at 160km, on par with other races.
|
Yon Krum
The Knights Templar R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 04:28:00 -
[318]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Originally by: Lumy While you're at it, could you reorder ammo a bit? Imho the best order would be: Fusion, Phased plasma, EMP, Titanium sabot, Nuclear, Proton, Depleted uranium, Carbonized lead. The point is to have racial damage ammunition types as most damaging, best tracking and longest range ones. Than have mixed damage ammo sprinkled in between.
This interests me. We took a look at the over all damage type distribution, and it could do with some tweaking. How do people feel about the damage types the ammo is dishing out now?
Personally I've always thought it odd that the most-damaging type of ammunition was something that did EM/Exp from a Minmatar ship. EMP should, IMO, be a more specialized ammunition placed mid-range and doing a more skewed set of damage toward EM, with very little Exp.
In fact, I'd like to see the damage types of the various ammunitions generally skewed more toward at least a 75/25% distribution, with a no less than 66% damage to the primary type. Pilots just don't select ammunition for its ability to spread out damage over a wide range of effects, nor do the resistances of rats support this (let alone that of other player ships).
The above poster's order for the ammunition types and damages otherwise looks very good, and sensible.
--Krum --Krum |
Manu Hermanus
FaDoyToy
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 04:45:00 -
[319]
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
omg, it is beautiful *tear* You're posting again!? Has it really been 5 mins?
|
rubico1337
Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 05:35:00 -
[320]
Edited by: rubico1337 on 28/09/2009 05:44:54 projectile balancing is meaningless without taking into account the fallof hit-chance equation. as it stands now t2 pulses with scorch will ALWAYS out damage t2 ACs with barrage out to obscenely long distances
green is scorch red is barrage
this was done at all lvl 5 with largest t2 guns with barrage/scorch. no ship bonuses where applied the penalty of cap use simply does not matter in the face of superior damage and superior range, blus the ability to switch out crystals at will. if ACs are supposed to fight in falloff and be effective they need a 50% OR SO FALLOFF BOOST or a complete reworking of the falloff equation.
|
|
Yalezorn
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 10:05:00 -
[321]
Been rollin this around in my head the last few days, seeing a lot of posts talking about how bad projectile weapons are right now. One of the issues I've seen is the small clip size they have, resulting in having to reload often, and an overall drop in DPS.
So, what if projectile ammo was all belt fed? What I mean is basically a combination of hybrid turret and laser mechanics, where basically your clip size is only limited by your cargo hold. You select the type of ammo for your guns to use from your hold, and the guns will fire continuously as long as you have ammo in your cargo bay. This would eliminate reloading for projectiles, allowing steady damage during a fight.
|
Schmell
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 10:39:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Shade IX
Originally by: CCP Nozh Other things we might be looking at: ò Auto-cannon tracking adjustments ò Auto-cannon tier balancing Please leave feedback in this thread. The changes will be made available for public testing next Wednesday on Singularity.
there is no point in having the fastest ships in the game and not being able to track anything. good move here CCP
"Adjustments" can mean nerf as well.
or my English is so bad?
|
schurem
Silver Snake Enterprise Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 11:10:00 -
[323]
i like the "hapiness is a belt-fed weapon" idea.
|
Schmell
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 11:16:00 -
[324]
Originally by: schurem i like the "hapiness is a belt-fed weapon" idea.
Under "Belt fed" you mean ammo taking from cargo directly, without fixed size clip? Belt fed artillery could be AWESOME
|
Uncle Smokey
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 11:41:00 -
[325]
Steady damage on worst dps and range? :(
Though artys have never been clip or belt loaders, I'd like to see a solution that favors burst damage, since matars are supposed to excel in skirmish. |
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 13:01:00 -
[326]
Originally by: rubico1337 Edited by: rubico1337 on 28/09/2009 05:44:54 projectile balancing is meaningless without taking into account the fallof hit-chance equation. as it stands now t2 pulses with scorch will ALWAYS out damage t2 ACs with barrage out to obscenely long distances
green is scorch red is barrage
this was done at all lvl 5 with largest t2 guns with barrage/scorch. no ship bonuses where applied the penalty of cap use simply does not matter in the face of superior damage and superior range, blus the ability to switch out crystals at will. if ACs are supposed to fight in falloff and be effective they need a 50% OR SO FALLOFF BOOST or a complete reworking of the falloff equation.
You CANNOT do that. You cannot compare weapons outside their ships! People must realise that! AC damage is balanced taking into account ROF bonus. Same way Lasers cap consumption is calculated taking into account cap usage bonus on amarr ships.
Want to make a fair compare put Maelstrom vs Abaddon. The abaddon STILL wins, but at least its a fair compare.
|
Proxyyyy
Caldari Exile Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 14:03:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Yalezorn Been rollin this around in my head the last few days, seeing a lot of posts talking about how bad projectile weapons are right now. One of the issues I've seen is the small clip size they have, resulting in having to reload often, and an overall drop in DPS.
So, what if projectile ammo was all belt fed? What I mean is basically a combination of hybrid turret and laser mechanics, where basically your clip size is only limited by your cargo hold. You select the type of ammo for your guns to use from your hold, and the guns will fire continuously as long as you have ammo in your cargo bay. This would eliminate reloading for projectiles, allowing steady damage during a fight.
This^ you are realy thinking outside the box on this one if they did that it would be epic = ) would make alot of sense to, but would that make projectiles over powered?
|
Kalia Masaer
Rosa Castellum
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 15:12:00 -
[328]
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 recieves an additional bonus or you simply create more imbalance.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 15:49:00 -
[329]
The issue isn't ammunition. The issue is weapon balancing at large. Minmatar and gallente are far less viable than Amarr today because of damage vs range.
Also, now taking bets on the next time Nozh will post. 4 months again? longer?
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 16:13:00 -
[330]
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 recieves an additional bonus or you simply create more imbalance.
no no 1k times no!
That is not how the game was designed. Weapons are NOT made to be viable on any ship. Lasers have a built in massive damage advantage.. while they have a massive cap usage that "force "them to be used on ammar ships. Projectiles have easy fittings and no cap usage... but PATHETIC dps that forces them to be used on minmatar ships that have superior bonuses ( 5% rof bonus is VASTLY different from 5% damage bonus).
Comparing AC on a maelstrom vs an abaddon with lasers is completely different from comparing BOTH on a hyperion for example!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 90 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |