EVE Search - Projectile Weapons

Check My IP Information

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 [?]

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)
Wensley Minmatar The Tuskers	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:37:00 - [31] Originally by: Thorvik Agree with this one as well as the damage/utility slot. Make the Trajectory Analysis skill harder to get at or add another training Tier so that it makes it that much more difficult (and rewarding) to get to the bonuses. Trajectory Analysis is already a rank 5 skill compared to Sharpshooter as a rank 2. Making it a 10% boost would justify the fact that it is harder to train. I've got used to EMP being the best damage type but I would love it if Fusion took its rightful place at the top of the damage charts. Read my Piracy Blog
TheLibrarian Minmatar Tides Of War	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:44:00 - [32] Edited by: TheLibrarian on 23/09/2009 16:53:54 Fusion and EMP should be swapped or equal in damage. Would be very nice change for us minmatars. Also thanks for the other changes. Can't wait to test them on sisi Wednesday. Its nice to see CCP doing all these wonderful changes. Making Eve even a better place to spend all your idle time pwning face. Also, what are the direct plans for changing large ACs unique from other small/mediums, or is there no plans?
NightmareX D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:46:00 - [33] Edited by: NightmareX on 23/09/2009 16:49:21 I'm just happy in my pants now. IT WAS ABOUT DAMN TIME THIS HAD TO HAPPEN. And yeah, make Explosive the main damage type for Minmatar and the ammo with highest damage, so make the Fusion ammo to do alot of Explosive damage and some Thermal damage. And ofc fix the other ammos to while your at it. I just think Dominion will be the best expansion ever. Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:57:00 - [34] Im out of words. you guys are actually looking into Minmatar♥ im pretty sure thats tears in my eyes atm♥
Missy Miner85	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:00:00 - [35] Ok my thoughts on this matter: Close range ammo dmg increase good. Artillery alpha increase good. Tracking Computer change good. But there are also some other issues to be looked at imo: Artillery needs an optimal range increase and a bit better tracking Trajectory Analysis being a rank 5 skill is silly. Falloff mechanics need changing.(Mostly an issue for Large Autocannons and ships with no falloff bonuses) Ammo damage type distribution is a bit "interesting". And imo these changes go hand in hand with the ships. So ships like the Tempest, Maelstrom etc need looking at aswell.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:02:00 - [36] Originally by: Rivqua Incorrect. Default T2 tracking is -50%. Barrage has a +50% tracking bonus to that, landing at -25%. What the hell are you talking about? Scorch: -25% tracking Null: -25% tracking Barrage: -25% tracking Hail: -50% tracking Void: -50% tracking Conflag: -50% tracking There is no default. Half the short range T2 ammo types (the high damage ones) have -50%, half (the high range ones) have -25%. If you want to do an average you get 37.5% but it is a meaningless number. Now I don`t know if it would be a good idea to improve barrage tracking, but it certainyl should give MORE falloff than Scorch gives optimum, given the penalities of falloff. Same about Trajectory Analysis and Sharpshooter. Trajectory Analysis not only gives you the same bonuses to a less effective attribute but it is also rank 5 in opposition to Sharpshooter's rank which is 2. ===== "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...
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:03:00 - [37] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 23/09/2009 17:07:37 Originally by: CCP Nozh Mid-range crystals and hybrid charges give a bonus to capacitor consumption, projectile ammo is reduced in size. We don't like this, so we're looking at changing it to a tracking bonus. You mean you are going to let all the "middle" ammo types add tracking? What about giving the generally useless close range T2 ammo that role? Originally by: CCP Nozh After ship hitpoint adjustments, the alpha strike of artilleries isn't nearly as impressive as it was a while back. In our first iteration of these changes we've increased the damage modifier by 50%, along with the rate of fire. I sincerely hope you are not planning on changing small artillery in this fashion. The Thrasher can already one volley 85+% of of all small targets (its primary victims), a 50% increase would allows 3-4 thrashers using just 1-2 volleys to down cruisers. M and L artillery on the other hand can definitely use the love. Otherwise looks good. I do hope you find a solution to the pointless short range T2 ammo though, but it can wait I suppose EDIT: Why on earth is this posted in F&I, will you immediately move it to its proper section (ie. one down).
ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:05:00 - [38] Originally by: CCP Nozh 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? ppl say we can choose our damage types wich up until now really havnt been the truth since we have had worse damage from our ammo then anyone else. changing the ammo in this order Fusion, Phased plasma, EMP would actually let us change damage types, and we would also be turned a bit more into a race that actually does explosive damage.
Trilium Eagle Gallente MegaTech Enterprises Sempiternus	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:17:00 - [39] Is there any chance that through some tweaks we could get a chance at viable Vargur fits with artillery while we are at projectile weapons?
Liisa Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:17:00 - [40] Originally by: ArmyOfMe Originally by: CCP Nozh 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? ppl say we can choose our damage types wich up until now really havnt been the truth since we have had worse damage from our ammo then anyone else. changing the ammo in this order Fusion, Phased plasma, EMP would actually let us change damage types, and we would also be turned a bit more into a race that actually does explosive damage. My problem with this is that it truly relegates Hail to the trash bin. Right now the extra damage and the damage types are what sometimes, very rarely, cause me to load it. If this change goes through I am far better off using RF Fusion and not taking the penalties for the laughable damage difference. Saving grace for Hail would need to be something special, perhaps omni damage?

ArmyOfMe The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:23:00 - [41] Originally by: Liisa Originally by: ArmyOfMe Originally by: CCP Nozh 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? ppl say we can choose our damage types wich up until now really havnt been the truth since we have had worse damage from our ammo then anyone else. changing the ammo in this order Fusion, Phased plasma, EMP would actually let us change damage types, and we would also be turned a bit more into a race that actually does explosive damage. My problem with this is that it truly relegates Hail to the trash bin. Right now the extra damage and the damage types are what sometimes, very rarely, cause me to load it. If this change goes through I am far better off using RF Fusion and not taking the penalties for the laughable damage difference. well now u see why every other race use faction and not t2 ammo the issue is t2 ammo, and that needs a whole new buff imo
Ulstan	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:28:00 - [42] It's nice to see projectiles being looked at, especially large projectiles. Standardizing ammo sizes is a good move. I don't know that small projectiles need any 'extra love' at all. They're already considered so good that ships like the punisher will fit them instead of using lasers. They beat out rockets on rocket bonused ships, for less fitting. Moreover, boosting the alpha of the thrasher by 50% will move it from being "The best of the destroyers" to "You would be absolutely stupid to fly any other destroyer" territory.
Orakkus Minmatar m3 Corp	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:37:00 - [43] Just wanted to say... Thank you. I only do diplomancy because I haven't found you.. yet.
AstroPhobic Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:41:00 - [44] THANK YOU! About time. Also, good to see you're considering the alpha boost for artillery (and falloff scripts). I have a few questions though: Have you looked into switching around some of the damage types for projectile ammo? Most people would like fusion to be the top damage ammo, with minmatar typically being labeled the "explosive" race. Also, any thoughts on making EMP into a more EM-focused ammo? As it stands currently, it's less than 50% EM damage. Taking the ratio to 4:2:1 on EM:EXP:KIN or similar would be a very welcomed change. Or as someone noted earlier, just scrapping the explosive altogether. One more: Have you done calculations on the amount of damage lost due to hit quality in falloff? Multiple people have done tests that prove hit quality scales into falloff, reducing damage even further. Since CCP never really attached a hit quality modifier to their tracking formula, was this simply an oversight, or are weapons supposed to do ~38.6% of their DPS at optimal + 1 falloff? If not, a 30-35% boost on falloff across the board would be a great move.
Ulstan	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:42:00 - [45] Originally by: Abrazzar Apart from stats, what could boost Projectile weapons would be a method to mix and match damage types with range. Like separating the delivery system from the warhead and the players can assemble them as desired. I agree the current system has some inelegancies, but your proposal would make them the absolute most versatile weapon system, much better than missiles. You could choose both your damage type (like missiles can) and switch to longer range/higher tracking ammo in the same turret (which Missile launchers can't do, they can only swap out damage types for a specific missile, not load another version of that missile with longer range or better tracking).
Tiberius Xavier Rage of Inferno Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:42:00 - [46] As a Minmatar pilot, we are becoming rarer in fleets because of range. We need increased range on all ammo type to attain the farther optimal range. A quarter the minmatar ships rely on missiles as well which for long-range combat become moot as well. Unfortunately sensor dampeners would have made this much more competitive. Perhaps boosting the effects of target painters would make a wider optimal range (i.e. don't apply falloff until outside an inner range). Someone mentioned that the reload time is cumbersome. This is where Amarr have significant advantage. Either reduce reload time or increase ammo capacity of the artilleries. In terms of damage type, more explosive damage would be nice overall. Perhaps allowing hardpoint/missile mounts to be interchangeable would make certain ships more viable for close-range combat where missile delay becomes less problematic. Look forward to seeing what the results of these experiments produce.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:50:00 - [47] 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? I have to agree with him. Fusion should be TOP damage ammo for minmatar. Is a bit nonsense that the racial damage is only the 3rd level ammo! Also EMP could be stramlined. Make it just 2 damage types. EM and kin. That would give some reality to the concept of changing ammo
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:50:00 - [48] The Minnie shield-tankers would also benefit from balancing the fitting requirements of shield transporters with those of remote armour repairers, so they'd be able to receive remote rep love from ships other than the dedicated logistics platforms. At the moment, non-logistics remote repping is hopelessly skewed in favour of armour tanks via fitting requirements, which really hurts the poor Minnie shield-tankers.
Ath Amon	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:51:00 - [49] i dont think these changes will help much, adjust of dmg for emp and pp is ok and i suppose faction ammos will follow... but AC is subpar even with t2 ammos that have same dmg of other t2 ones so yes, the standard and faction ammos will perform more in line with the ones of other races but will still remain the problem of inefficency of acs (low dps for its optimal range and high dps reduction from falloff) on top of the ammo change AC is probably in need of another 10% in dps bonus or of more >optimal< range to estabilish itself as a reliable weapon system for the close "mid range" (inbetween max optimal of pulse and optimal+faloff of blasters, factoring t2 ammos ofc) among ACs 800mm in particular is in need of some boost... it track worse than a neut blaster, it have not a noticeable range improvement and even its dmg doesnt scale on par of neuts. for arties.... they will be useless even with a +200% alpha... alpha is dead and useless, we will be able to take out a bs in 2, 3 volleys max? of course not so is just useless as dps is what really count, expecially with 150k hps tanks on BS... arty need more dps not more alpha non sense, you have the graphs... compare them :P if anything arties could be built as burst weapon system (not alpha) where you do very high dmg for a certain amount of time till you recharge the weapon (lowering your overall dps), this can be balanced tweaking rof/dps vs clip size/recharge time and i think it will a more viable balancing factor than alpha (that become useless after 2 volleys) still a huge dps boost will be needed for arties again and again... is the long range weapon with the shortest range, the worst tracking and the worst dps... really, boosting alpha whitout touching anything else will not change anything, we will just have to away 4-5 more years before you will look again at them 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".
Fish Mittens Minmatar 0utbreak	Posted - 2009.09.23 17:56:00 - [50] Edited by: Fish Mittens on 23/09/2009 17:56:48 WOW! This is exactly what artillery needs ( see here ) Arts now have their own unique role, not the best DPS, not the best range, but best alpha. I love it. Also a falloff script is badly needed for tracking comps. With regards to AC balancing, be careful with mediums, they are in a good place right now. Large need a good look at as do smalls. -Fish

Caroline Nikon	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:02:00 - [51] I have a grand proposition to all minmatar pilots. Lets all join on sis and make a giant conga line while singing commemorative songs to celebrate this HOLY DAY! So very ultra T2 THANK you to ccp!
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:02:00 - [52] Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 23/09/2009 18:02:52 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida I sincerely hope you are not planning on changing small artillery in this fashion. The Thrasher can already one volley 85+% of of all small targets (its primary victims), a 50% increase would allows 3-4 thrashers using just 1-2 volleys to down cruisers. M and L artillery on the other hand can definitely use the love. Otherwise looks good. I do hope you find a solution to the pointless short range T2 ammo though, but it can wait I suppose EDIT: Why on earth is this posted in F&I, will you immediately move it to its proper section (ie. one down). A weapon system whose sole advantage is high alpha strike is only useful if it CAN kill thinks in one volley. No, 3-4 thrashers even with a 50% alpha increase won't down a proper tanked cruiser in one volley, they may do it with a non plated low tier cruiser, as they SHOULD. ===== "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...
De Guantanamo	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:02:00 - [53] Awesomesauce. Would you care to look into rockets as well purty please?
Haffrage Verdant Inquiries Asomat Drive Yards	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:05:00 - [54] Some time ago a devblog went up about abandoning the traditional multi-tier system for projectile ammo, and adopting a 3 tier system for projectile ammo. EMP, Fusion, and Phased Plasma would be in the first tier, with equal overall DPS, all -50% optimal. The next 3 would fit into the next tier, with base optimal (and in this plan increased tracking as well), and the last 3 would fit into the long range tier with I don't remember what optimal. This would go a long way towards both "balance," but more importantly "usefulness." Damagetype selection is a poor balancing point when you can use ammo A with 60 base damage to deal 40 dps, or ammo B with 40 base damage for 41 effective dps and a full 10 seconds spent not shooting because you changed ammo types, which often making it better to not change ammo at all. I'd also really like to see the projectile ammo change timer changed to 5 seconds (any shorter and you can just swap ammo types twice faster than you can reload), but that's an addon. Additionally, due to the nature of projectile ammo, I often found (emphasis on "found" - I barely have time to play anymore) myself bringing at the very least 2 kinds of ammo (as it is for all races), but due to damagetypes I wound up bringing another one to two kinds. In order, these are Barrage, RF EMP, RF Fusion or Hail (depending on the ship, its bonuses, and whether it's cap injected), and lastly RF PP. This is problematic considering minmatar in general have the smallest cargoholds, and on top of that are the most likely to fit overdrive injectors (fortunately OD's and cap injectors don't usually go together these days). Could you consider cutting the volume of projectile ammo, and then the capacity of projectile weapons accordingly? I'd say 50% is a great starting point. And lastly, I know this is a projectile thread and not a ships thread, but given the 50% artillery alpha change it's worth bringing up. Due to the alpha-oriented nature of artillery and projectiles being the only weapon to have no distinct sniping platform, can you possibly consider changing the Maelstrom's rof bonus to a damage bonus (without gimping/bloating the acmael's dps)? So if it's changed to 5% damage you can add more drone bay to make up for the smidgen of lost dps, or if it's 7.5% you can cut some bandwidth/dronebay to make up for the gained dps (I would think the latter is ideal to make up for the already poor artillery dps, and overall loss in turret dps if changed to 5%). Projectiles are the only weapon platform that don't have the ability to hit with 10 effective turrets in a volley, which compared to range bonuses is like giving every weapon an optimal bonus but railguns. Yes, the maelstrom has more effective turrets in terms of dps of all battleships (10.667 vs. 10 flat at the most), but the specialty of artillery is alpha and if you're seeking to improve that role then either the range part (which artillery is already the worst at, which hurts alpha further if engagements occur in falloff), the tracking part (artillery is also the worst, and has no tracking bonused battleship to make up for it), or the alpha part needs special consideration (which is happening here ). Just some thoughts, sorry if it's a bit :walloftext: but I'd rather keep the thoughts together than make a half dozen paragraphs with each one half finished
Onnen Mentar Murientor Tribe	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:13:00 - [55] I really appreciate this is being looked into (finally). Anyway, LARGE is the keyword here. Large AC could do with a boost just for them. Boost them and at the same time you probably fix the tempest and the phoon. About the other changes: - I like the boost to alpha to give Minmatar some racial flavour again. Might be worth checking whether the Thrasher gets too much alpha now though. - I'm no big fan of equalizing the short range/long range damage. I really enjoyed the extra dps nuclear gave and didn't really mind emp did slightly less. After all, there was always hail to choose from. cough So.. instead, maybe have a look at t2 ammo types across the different races. Much more (useful) tweaking to be done there? (Scorch anyone? ) If hail would have slightly less harsh drawbacks it wouldn't really matter as much that emp has lower damage compared to the other close range ammo types. That way minmatar get to keep more damage type options, and retain some racial flavour. As we all know making everything the same is not balance. Concerning damage type selection, I thought it was quite alright. It's true minmatar damage selection can rarely be put to good use due to range/reload issues, but changing this would require turning projectiles almost into a system similar to missiles or lasers. Which brings me to another concern: fix rockets damage output. Finally, any chance you could share your "vision" on weapon balance with us? Like, what are projectiles/hybrids/lasers supposed to be best at? What are the advantages/disadvantages supposed to bring and how do those tie in with the respective battle doctrines of the different races? I'm sure you have thought about these issues internally at CCP, but sharing them with us all would certainly make discussions about balance a lot more constructive (and again: probably a lot less whining for everything to be equal).
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:23:00 - [56] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 23/09/2009 18:23:45 Originally by: CCP Nozh 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? Wow, I honestly didn't expect you to get to this so soon. I like the changes you're suggesting, because I think they won't break the game - and one of the things I want most is not to break the game. Specific comments: - +1 to swapping ammo order to have racial damages first. - +1 to "homogenizing" the ammo damages. - +1 to TC/TE falloff changes. This has been a long time coming. - +1 to increasing alpha at the cost of ROF (leaving DPS unchanged). I've done several treatise on this, and I know it's an overall nerf in fleet combat and missions, but it is still so very much worth it to have semi-meaningful alpha in PVP. It also restores some of the Minmatar flavor, which is really fantastic. Yeah, a huge +1 to all the suggested changes so far. And a huge T3 Double-Plus-Good thank-you! -Liang Ed: Fail -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Josh Silver Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:24:00 - [57] If Projectiles (esp Autocannons) are so terrible, why are the Vagabond/Sleipnir etc by FAR the most popular small gang and solo ships? I agree there is a problem with Battleship sized projectiles (and the Minmatar hull offerings in that class) and Blasters, but you have to be careful not to buff the small/med Minmatar ships even more.
Spaztick Terminal Impact Kairakau	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:27:00 - [58] Edited by: Spaztick on 23/09/2009 18:27:00 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? I think against omni tanks people don't mind the current order of ammo, since EMP is the highest, but it would certainly fit the race better to have explosive as a primary damage type. Also I think Titanium Sabot rarely gets used in PvP in autocannons because kinetic and thermal are often closely tanked together, and for that most pilots would use Fusion instead for the higher damage, or stick with EMP, but the trend seems to be highest damage ammo -> thermal damage as thermal is generally a "weaker" hole in shields and armor, especially against T2 Amarr ships (the bane of Matari). If I had to change anything, I would reorder as Lumy did, but keep the long range upper tier of ammo as Nuclear/Depleted Uranium/Proton/Carbonized Lead. This would keep the same order of dominant damage type as the lower tier of short ranged ammmo (Fusion, Phased Plasma, EMP, Titanium Sabot). I would change EMP's current 5/2/4 EM/kinetic/explosive to 6/2/3 to give it a bit more focus on EM damage (20% increase in total EM with a 25% decrease in explosive). If I really wanted to be anal about consistency I'd dump the EMP's explosive damage entirely and go with straight 8/2 EM/kinetic damage layout to be consistent with proton.
Lumy Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:27:00 - [59] 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? EMP - Highest damage ammo. This is what you use in PVP. Damage type is irrelevant, tbh. PP - This is what I mostly used in PVE, pretty much against everything but Angels. Damage done to Blood Raiders/Sanshas or Guristas is comparable to EMP or Titanium sabot (respectively), so there is no much point to use other. Of course rocks against Serpentis. Fusion - Good against Angels. Titanium sabot - See PP. DU - Weird mixture of exp/kin/(little)thm damage. I tried to use it against Serpentis at mid/long range, but later given up in favor of PP/Nuclear combination. Proton - Too much kinetic IMHO, but somehow useful against Blood Raiders/Sanshas. Nuclear - Decent long range ammo. If my Maelstrom would have little more locking range, I would probably switch to Carbonized Lead Carbonized Lead - Long range artillery ammo without tracking penalty. Again, for PVP damage type is irrelevant. To sum it up, for PVP people use ammo on opposite ends of range/damage spectrum. For PVE flavored ammo isn't flavored enough. DU is the worst offender. On the other side PP is really good. What I would love to have is to give every ammo type to have just two damage types: ~1/3 kinetic + ~2/3 flavor. [lolrp]ship gets physically hit by projectile + magic happens[/lolrp]. Something like this: \|exp\|kin\|thm\|emp\|sum\|optimal\|tracking Fusion \| 8 \| 4 \| \| \|12 \| -50 \| +0 * x% PP \| \| 3 \| 8 \| \|11 \| -37.5 \| +3 * x% EMP \| \| 3 \| \| 7 \|10 \| -25 \| +6 * x% Sabot \| 2 \| 7 \| \| \| 9 \| -12.5 \| +9 * x% Nuclear \| 6 \| 2 \| \| \| 8 \| 0 \|+12 * x% Proton \| \| 2 \| \| 5 \| 7 \| +20 \| +8 * x% DU \| \| 2 \| 4 \| \| 6 \| +40 \| +4 * x% Lead \| 3 \| 2 \| \| \| 5 \| +60 \| +0 * x% x = magical (balancing) contant Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.09.23 18:28:00 - [60] Originally by: Onnen Mentar I really appreciate this is being looked into (finally). Anyway, LARGE is the keyword here. Large AC could do with a boost just for them. Boost them and at the same time you probably fix the tempest and the phoon. ALL ACs are problematic. The large, medium and small ACs are EQUALLY bad. The smaller versions are SOMEWHAT compensated by the speed of small and medium minnie ships, but still suck overall. A vagabond, for example usually engages at 20km or more, because its great advantage is teh ability to control range. At this distance its ACs, loaded with barrage will inflict something around 40% of their nominal damage (which is already low) that assuming PERFECT tracking. Quote: So.. instead, maybe have a look at t2 ammo types across the different races. Much more (useful) tweaking to be done there? (Scorch anyone? ) If hail would have slightly less harsh drawbacks it wouldn't really matter as much that emp has lower damage compared to the other close range ammo types. That way minmatar get to keep more damage type options, and retain some racial flavour. As we all know making everything the same is not balance. Simple is better because complicated never gets done. The changes are overall good enough as they are. ===== "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...



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

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.