| 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) |
Schmell
   |
Posted - 2009.09.29 16:14:00 -
[451]
Btw, about tracking. Neutrons on mega heavily outtrack every tier of large autocannons
Did i say it before? Dont remember rly
|
Proxyyyy
Caldari
initial.
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 16:31:00 -
[452]
well flame from obvious trolling :P
Well ill agree that im bored and taking a week off from pvp somtimes it gets boring after awhile, well atleast the roaming part. So i decided to do some forum pvp.
Again not kool, on topic...
"Falloff is a benefit not realy a large downside"
I also fly blaster ships they are fine and are also not broken, if i didnt kill people with them then there would be a problem. What ac's have over blasters is damage at ranges far exceeding blasters bar null, and even when that is used it takes a damage and tracking hit.
Ive stated many times, about the damage calculation for falloff, so its half damage compared to no damage. and if that is the choice ill stick with extended falloff...
i Would also like to correct somthing you stated
same goes for tracking and blasters... if you look around you can find some posts where people complain that blasters have bad tracking and they need a tracking boost and so on...
the real reason about why they get outracked by proj is that they are fitting blasters and get outtracked by proj of smaller tier (eg 650mm if not 425)... if they fitted electrons or ion maybe they will not experience there "tracking issues"
Obviously your unaware that projectiles out track blasters on every tier bar 3rd mind you the diffrence is minimal. Pilots will have issues tracking certain ship classes no matter what tier you are using because large turrents cant track Frigates/Asault Ships bar (Duel Webs) and even with that you cant track them up close and with them orbiting.
The things you will be able to track are cruisers and up, within the context of a frigate orbiting you at close range with large turrents...
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:10:00 -
[453]
alas, the reduction is over 60% at optimal plus falloff, thanks to reduction of hit quality on top of the lower chance to hit at all. so if you're using a tempest at 18-23km, be advised that an 650mm arty cane deals more damage and that's not including tracking, but it does include drones on both sides. yep, arties! and less than half the drone bay!
-
putting the gist back into logistics |
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:11:00 -
[454]
 Originally by: Proxyyyy
"Falloff is a benefit not realy a large downside"
...
Ive stated many times, about the damage calculation for falloff, so its half damage compared to no damage. and if that is the choice ill stick with extended falloff...
Yes, if those were the options. But they aren't. The options are:
- High optimal + High DPS
- High falloff + Low DPS
- Low Optimal/Falloff + High DPS
Which one of these sounds most appealing to you?
i Would also like to correct somthing you stated: it's not half damage. It's closer to 40%. Why don't you go get 5000 rounds of some small ammo of your choice, get a friend in a drake, swap aggressions, and shoot the 5000 rounds at him at optimal + falloff. I did. Hit quality scales with falloff.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:12:00 -
[455]
Originally by: Orakkus
So, has anyone gone on SiSi yet and check to see the new ammo loadouts?
sisi isnt updated atm
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:15:00 -
[456]
Originally by: Proxyyyy
I also fly blaster ships they are fine and are also not broken, if i didnt kill people with them then there would be a problem.
You can eventually kill an interceptor in a dread if it sits immobile at optimal range. That proves nothing. Blasters are broken when comapred to pulses and they must be fixed. Evenso they are slightly better than ACs, because they have a real damage advantage against lasers, albeit in a very small range. ACs have none.
Quote:
What ac's have over blasters is damage at ranges far exceeding blasters bar null, and even when that is used it takes a damage and tracking hit.
ACs can outdamage blasters only at deep falloff. Evenso if ACs and Blasters were the only turret weapon systems in the game I would say they were reasonably balanced. The problem is that Acs can't outdamage lasers at ANY range, EVEN AFTER YOU COMPUTE DAMAGE TYPE SELECTION AND TRACKING.
Quote:
Ive stated many times, about the damage calculation for falloff, so its half damage compared to no damage. and if that is the choice ill stick with extended falloff...
It is 38.6% of damage after you compute hit quality at falloff, against 100% of damage from lasers, because you know, lasers are NOT in falloff at this range...
Quote:
Obviously your unaware that projectiles out track blasters on every tier bar 3rd mind you the diffrence is minimal. Pilots will have issues tracking certain ship classes no matter what tier you are using because large turrents cant track Frigates/Asault Ships bar (Duel Webs) and even with that you cant track them up close and with them orbiting.
YEs, all large weapons have problems tracking close range targets. The problem is that blasters NEED to be close, lasers DO NOT.
Quote:
The things you will be able to track are cruisers and up, within the context of a frigate orbiting you at close range with large turrents...
Large Blasters can't track close range cruisers anymore after the web nerf.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:34:00 -
[457]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
My T2 ammo proposal:
HAIL: -50% falloff, no optimal penalty. no tracking penalty
VOID: -25% falloff and -25% optimal. no tracking penalty
CONFLAG: -50% optimal no falloff penalty (just like it is right now) and 75% thermal / 25% EM damage. no tracking penalty
RAGE: -50% flight time, T1 base explosion raidus/velocity
This is T2 ammo that's intended to be used against the same targets as T1 ammo, but at closer range. I don't like that intended role. It would be too common - the T2 ammo would be the "default" choice too often.
The current intended role is "to be used against ships larger than yours" - hence the penalties to tracking, explosion velocity etc. I like that - it keeps ship DPS okay against its peers, but gives options against larger ships. The problem is in the implementation - Rage/Fury are fine (~11% more damage than faction), but Void barely offers any extra DPS over faction. Similarly Conflag, I believe. And this intended role has no requirement or justification for the addiction cap/sig penalties etc. - surely the tracking etc. penalties are enough?
|
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:37:00 -
[458]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Proxyyyy
"Falloff is a benefit not realy a large downside"
...
Ive stated many times, about the damage calculation for falloff, so its half damage compared to no damage. and if that is the choice ill stick with extended falloff...
Yes, if those were the options. But they aren't. The options are:
- High optimal + High DPS
- High falloff + Low DPS
- Low Optimal/Falloff + High DPS
Which one of these sounds most appealing to you?
-Liang
Exactly. And I think a big part of the problem is that the Devs are relying on 25% less tracking to assure that pulse lasers won't hit at close range. It is not effective, there are too many factors involved, whereas the falloff curve and range are absolute.
As I said in another thread to balance things, they should have a falloff curve leading back towards 0 range from your optimal, then things would be fair.
eg Ignoring hit quality. A 40km optimal with a 10km falloff would do 50% damage at both 30km and 50km. Then Amarrians would be dealing with the same sort of problems the rest of the turret users are dealing with....
|
NightmareX
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:38:00 -
[459]
Edited by: NightmareX on 29/09/2009 17:42:23
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Blasters are broken when comapred to pulses and they must be fixed. Evenso they are slightly better than ACs, because they have a real damage advantage against lasers, albeit in a very small range. ACs have none
No. Lasers need to be fixed so it can be balanced to the 3 other weapon systems.
Now when Projectiles gets boosted, then everything will be fine if they also balance the Lasers to be inline with the 3 other weapon types.
When i say balance the Lasers, then i mean the tracking need to be nerfed by at least 15% on Lasers. Lasers needs the range it have with Scorch. But it's just really ******ed when you can get that much DPS, that much range and on top of that, really good tracking at med range.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Ath Amon
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:43:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Proxyyyy
well flame from obvious trolling :P
Well ill agree that im bored and taking a week off from pvp somtimes it gets boring after awhile, well atleast the roaming part. So i decided to do some forum pvp.
Again not kool, on topic...
"Falloff is a benefit not realy a large downside"
I also fly blaster ships they are fine and are also not broken, if i didnt kill people with them then there would be a problem. What ac's have over blasters is damage at ranges far exceeding blasters bar null, and even when that is used it takes a damage and tracking hit.
Ive stated many times, about the damage calculation for falloff, so its half damage compared to no damage. and if that is the choice ill stick with extended falloff...
i Would also like to correct somthing you stated
same goes for tracking and blasters... if you look around you can find some posts where people complain that blasters have bad tracking and they need a tracking boost and so on...
the real reason about why they get outracked by proj is that they are fitting blasters and get outtracked by proj of smaller tier (eg 650mm if not 425)... if they fitted electrons or ion maybe they will not experience there "tracking issues"
Obviously your unaware that projectiles out track blasters on every tier bar 3rd mind you the diffrence is minimal. Pilots will have issues tracking certain ship classes no matter what tier you are using because large turrents cant track Frigates/Asault Ships bar (Duel Webs) and even with that you cant track them up close and with them orbiting.
The things you will be able to track are cruisers and up, within the context of a frigate orbiting you at close range with large turrents...
if you read again my post i say too that lower tier ACs track a bit better than ion/electron, but the difference is not so high... lower tier AC track a bit better, higher tier neut track a bit better... thats quite different from what you said earlier where AC looked as the obvious king of tracking... (and again not all minnie ships have tracking bonuses... thers not even a minnie bs with it)
faloff is a bonus not a malus... in general i agree about that... but not when faloff is used to replace optimal range... neuts odps acs in high faloff where proj are alredy doing crap dmg
personally i think that faloff is more suited for high dps weapon rather than low dps ones... it makes way more sense than the highest dps turret works on faloff (big dmg at point blank that slowly decrease as range get higher) rather than on a turret that do poor dmg, have no optimal and as range goes up does even less dmg...
or you end in a situation like the one we have now where AC more than to "dictate range" (something kinda problematic in non solo pvp) is going to suffer from less dps at all ranges from lasers and less dps than blasters up to deep faloff where anyway your dmg is so crap to be barely worth
of course i'm not suggesting that AC should be the highest dps weapon, but that dmg should follow range and faloff is not a replacement for optimal range
Originally by: Diana Merris
Unfortunately, rather than address the slot layout/tanking issues for Minmatar the Devs have simple declared that it makes us "versitile".
|
|
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:46:00 -
[461]
Originally by: NightmareX
No. Lasers need to be fixed so it can be balanced to the 3 other weapon systems.
Now when Projectiles gets boosted, then everything will be fine if they also balance the Lasers to be inline with the 3 other weapon types.
When i say balance the Lasers, then i mean the tracking need to be nerfed by at least 15% on Lasers. Lasers needs the range it have with Scorch. But it's just really ******ed when you can get that much DPS, that much range and on top of that, really good tracking at med range.
It is the first time I agree with one of your posts. Well, I guess there is a first time for everything. But yes, either you have to do that or boost projectiles more and blasters too. Any of the solutions is ok, but yours is certainly the shortest path to balance.
And as mentioned multiple times int his thread, at the very least Falloff modifiers for TEs, TCs and TLs should be higher than the optimal modifiers and the base falloff for higher tier Acs and artilleries should also be higher.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Gavin Darklighter
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 18:08:00 -
[462]
Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 29/09/2009 18:11:13
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
My T2 ammo proposal:
HAIL: -50% falloff, no optimal penalty. no tracking penalty
VOID: -25% falloff and -25% optimal. no tracking penalty
CONFLAG: -50% optimal no falloff penalty (just like it is right now) and 75% thermal / 25% EM damage. no tracking penalty
RAGE: -50% flight time, T1 base explosion raidus/velocity
This is T2 ammo that's intended to be used against the same targets as T1 ammo, but at closer range. I don't like that intended role. It would be too common - the T2 ammo would be the "default" choice too often.
The current intended role is "to be used against ships larger than yours" - hence the penalties to tracking, explosion velocity etc. I like that - it keeps ship DPS okay against its peers, but gives options against larger ships. The problem is in the implementation - Rage/Fury are fine (~11% more damage than faction), but Void barely offers any extra DPS over faction. Similarly Conflag, I believe. And this intended role has no requirement or justification for the addiction cap/sig penalties etc. - surely the tracking etc. penalties are enough?
The capaitor and sig radius penalties are enough to make most people use faction ammo instead. Close range T2 ammo as it is currently is of almost no use with the exception of Hail due to the lower damage of projectile T1 ammo (which is about to change) and rage missiles (which I intend to make shorter-ranged).
If the intended role of short-range T2 ammo is to use it on larger ships, then I would expect it to be best for orbiting the target at close range in order to avoid their damage.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 18:18:00 -
[463]
Originally by: Gypsio III
This is T2 ammo that's intended to be used against the same targets as T1 ammo, but at closer range. I don't like that intended role. It would be too common - the T2 ammo would be the "default" choice too often.
The current intended role is "to be used against ships larger than yours" - hence the penalties to tracking, explosion velocity etc. I like that - it keeps ship DPS okay against its peers, but gives options against larger ships. The problem is in the implementation - Rage/Fury are fine (~11% more damage than faction), but Void barely offers any extra DPS over faction. Similarly Conflag, I believe. And this intended role has no requirement or justification for the addiction cap/sig penalties etc. - surely the tracking etc. penalties are enough?
Gypsio, I would take your advice about missiles anytime, but tracking penalties are a bad thing if you intend to hit bigger targets with turrets and not be killed yourself.
I am not sure about missiles, but being very short range is a good penalty for high damage T2 turret ammunition, they can even keep the other penalties, but the tracking penalties must go.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Cur
Minmatar
Dawn of a new Empire
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 18:33:00 -
[464]
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Anyway, OT, I'd really like CCP (Nozh) to address the following:
- The desire for fusion to be the top damaging ammo
- The weakness of falloff as a mechanic and the application of hit quality within falloff
- The comparison of falloff bonuses and optimal bonuses, where they line up 1:1 and should be at least 2:1
I would like answers to these topics as well.
Also, extra falloff on larger auto-cannon tiers might help to further justify the increased fitting cost, loss of tracking and minimal DPS gain.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 18:44:00 -
[465]
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 29/09/2009 17:42:23
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Blasters are broken when comapred to pulses and they must be fixed. Evenso they are slightly better than ACs, because they have a real damage advantage against lasers, albeit in a very small range. ACs have none
No. Lasers need to be fixed so it can be balanced to the 3 other weapon systems.
Now when Projectiles gets boosted, then everything will be fine if they also balance the Lasers to be inline with the 3 other weapon types.
When i say balance the Lasers, then i mean the tracking need to be nerfed by at least 15% on Lasers. Lasers needs the range it have with Scorch. But it's just really ******ed when you can get that much DPS, that much range and on top of that, really good tracking at med range.
I usually don agree with NightmareX, but this tiem he is right. Scorch range MUST remain, because its LASER flavor. What we need is a flavor disadvantage to balance it. And that is a MEANINGFUL tracking disadvantage.
|
Jason TerrorBlade
Minmatar
Romanian Space Explorer
Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 18:48:00 -
[466]
My 2 cents:
Seeing what CCP wrote about the changes of projectile ammo i cant stop wondering that the long range/sniper Tempest will deal less damage, same for the long range Muninn maybe. If this is your idea of "buffing" and "looking into" CCP i dont want it. If you really want to buff minmatar gunnery, work on the tracking,optimal,damage modifier, rate of fire) of autocannons/artillery (especially on rate of fire/damage modifier and tracking) or atleast buff the close range ammo without taking damage from long range ammo.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 18:54:00 -
[467]
Originally by: Jason TerrorBlade
My 2 cents:
Seeing what CCP wrote about the changes of projectile ammo i cant stop wondering that the long range/sniper Tempest will deal less damage, same for the long range Muninn maybe. If this is your idea of "buffing" and "looking into" CCP i dont want it. If you really want to buff minmatar gunnery, work on the tracking,optimal,damage modifier, rate of fire) of autocannons/artillery (especially on rate of fire/damage modifier and tracking) or atleast buff the close range ammo without taking damage from long range ammo.
what?
this is the new tempest performance .... sniper role, 3 damage mods long raneg ammo for all ships.
NEW TEMPEST DISCREETE DAMAGE
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:05:00 -
[468]
Originally by: Seishi Maru
what?
this is the new tempest performance .... sniper role, 3 damage mods long raneg ammo for all ships.
NEW TEMPEST DISCREETE DAMAGE
1) Why the hell did you use megabeams in your Apoc?
2) How did you manage to get so little damage of your Mega? Are you using 350mm?
3) At what range are we talking about?
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:12:00 -
[469]
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 29/09/2009 17:42:23
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Blasters are broken when comapred to pulses and they must be fixed. Evenso they are slightly better than ACs, because they have a real damage advantage against lasers, albeit in a very small range. ACs have none
No. Lasers need to be fixed so it can be balanced to the 3 other weapon systems.
Now when Projectiles gets boosted, then everything will be fine if they also balance the Lasers to be inline with the 3 other weapon types.
When i say balance the Lasers, then i mean the tracking need to be nerfed by at least 15% on Lasers. Lasers needs the range it have with Scorch. But it's just really ******ed when you can get that much DPS, that much range and on top of that, really good tracking at med range.
I usually don agree with NightmareX, but this tiem he is right. Scorch range MUST remain, because its LASER flavor. What we need is a flavor disadvantage to balance it. And that is a MEANINGFUL tracking disadvantage.
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?
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:12:00 -
[470]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 29/09/2009 19:14:18
Originally by: Seishi Maru
this is the new tempest performance .... sniper role, 3 damage mods long raneg ammo for all ships.
NEW TEMPEST DISCREETE DAMAGE
Awesome graph Seishi. That's a metric you don't see too often on these forums.
Looks like the "KABOOM! pew pew, pew pew" argument is true, but not quite as extreme as I originally thought. (At least, in how long it takes to be left behind permanently in terms of DPS.)
New artillery is looking fearsome.  You know, except for the range.
EDIT: Hmm, looking at it again. Geddon with Tachs? I'm not sure how often you find them in the wild. And Apoc with Tachs is more likely. I'm curious about the weapon on the Mega as well.
|
|
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:20:00 -
[471]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Awesome graph Seishi. That's a metric you don't see too often on these forums.
Looks like the "KABOOM! pew pew, pew pew" argument is true, but not quite as extreme as I originally thought. (At least, in how long it takes to be left behind permanently in terms of DPS.)
New artillery is looking fearsome. You know, except for the range.
EDIT: Hmm, looking at it again. Geddon with Tachs? I'm not sure how often you find them in the wild. And Apoc with Tachs is more likely. I'm curious about the weapon on the Mega as well.
The graphs don't consider range, use the wrong weapon tiers and sometimes the wrong ships (as the geddon) for sniping.
The truth is much uglier for artillery, believe me, even AFTER the changes.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:30:00 -
[472]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 29/09/2009 19:32:35
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
The graphs don't consider range, use the wrong weapon tiers and sometimes the wrong ships (as the geddon) for sniping.
The truth is much uglier for artillery, believe me, even AFTER the changes.
Right. I was blinded by squiggly lines for a moment. I'm hoping Seishi makes a more realistic graph for comparison.
In terms of range, Artillery will always look like garbage compared at the same range as an Apoc or Rokh. I wondering how it would stack up with the addition of falloff to TCs when fleeted with Megas though.
Might take a while before we can give anything but biased gut reactions.
EDIT: And because I have to edit every single one of my posts, the Pest in Seishi's original graph didn't look terrible next to a Tach Geddon, which is still insteresting...even though a Tempest with 3x Gyros and a Geddon with Tachs are both seen as often as unicorns.
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective
Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:31:00 -
[473]
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.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:35:00 -
[474]
Over time DPS wins over Alpha. This is common sense and knowledge.
A visualization like that does not however take into account that high Alpha removes enemy ships sooner compared to high DPS thus decreasing incoming fire.
Nor does it take into account the probable EHP of the various ships.
On top of this the graph also needs to include how many weapons you are using on ships other than the Tempest.
An eight Tachyon Apocalypse caps out rather fast in a constant fire scenario, I dread to think how that poor Armageddon will handle the drain 
Still waiting for SiSi data from BS slugging it out, no way of knowing for sure what needs changes without "live" testing.
|
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:41:00 -
[475]
Originally by: Roland Thorne
It would be cool, but it doesn't directly fix ammo.
It certainly would fix a lot of the blaster problems. Imagine a RR Mega Gang that could tractor the other fleet in blaster range in a timely manner.
AC's would still lose because even if they get close to a Pulse laser gang, they are still going to be out DPS'd, out EHP'd and die a horrible death.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:48:00 -
[476]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 29/09/2009 19:50:19
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Might take a while before we can give anything but biased gut reactions.
We don't need to trust our gut when the numbers are easily accessable. The new Maestrom won't be THAT bad for sniping, and I even risk to say it will be OKish if they increase the 1400mm falloff as they should. The Tempest is a subpar sniper ship because it lacks damage, range, fittings and EHP.
Quote:
EDIT: And because I have to edit every single one of my posts, the Pest in Seishi's original graph didn't look terrible next to a Tach Geddon, which is still insteresting...even though a Tempest with 3x Gyros and a Geddon with Tachs are both seen as often as unicorns.
What you should compare are the areas between the lines. The areas clearly show the Geddon advantage. obviouslly you won't be using either a Tempest or a Geddon as a serious sniper, but still the dps difference is brutal, and except for the very beginning, assuming both are in range, the geddon is superior almost all the time, with just small and decreasing windows of superiority for the Tempest.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 19:50:00 -
[477]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
An eight Tachyon Apocalypse caps out rather fast in a constant fire scenario, I dread to think how that poor Armageddon will handle the drain
Then your fits are failsauce
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
|
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente
The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 20:06:00 -
[478]
As a Gallente I fully support my Minmatar brothers and sisters having their weapons systems boosted.
The only question I have is does this mean our Gallente hybrid weapons will be worse than Lasers, Projectiles and Missiles?
Time for Eve on hard mode for me I guess. 
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 20:09:00 -
[479]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 29/09/2009 20:09:34
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
As a Gallente I fully support my Minmatar brothers and sisters having their weapons systems boosted.
The only question I have is does this mean our Gallente hybrid weapons will be worse than Lasers, Projectiles and Missiles?
Time for Eve on hard mode for me I guess.
Blasters should certainly be looked at next. Either that or lasers should be nerfed as said above.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 20:15:00 -
[480]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss
As a Gallente I fully support my Minmatar brothers and sisters having their weapons systems boosted.
The only question I have is does this mean our Gallente hybrid weapons will be worse than Lasers, Projectiles and Missiles?
Time for Eve on hard mode for me I guess.
Rails are fail.
Blasters are still awesome sub BS.
Blasters are still awesome ON THE MEGA- and frankly why would you frankly a Domi or Hyp over a Mega these days...
If you are having trouble getting into range with the scram changes investigate the more unusual fits.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |