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)
Otebski	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:46:00 - [2131] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: Meeko Atari Originally by: To mare can we please stop talking about TE/TC this is projectile boost thread not TE/TC thread THIS! I Totally Agree Are you just To mare's alt? Everyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together know that there interlinked, hell, there part of Nozh's OP. If we should stop talking about them, we should probably stop talking about the ammo changes too. Everyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub togather know that balancing ships around fitting 5 damage mods is failed concept.
Mysteriax Scoopex Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.11.07 18:47:00 - [2132] Originally by: Nian Banks Despite all the bickering, we are almost where we should be for a complete fix to projectiles. The only issues now are that the falloff increase to AC's is not quite enough and that the ammo needs a slight change to boost artillery by way of reducing the range penalty of the close range by 10-20% and reducing the close range ammos damage by a point and increasing the long range ammo by a point. Honestly the extra falloff and tracking ac's get is quite good. Huh what have you been smoking. We are getting close to a complete fix to projectiles? Artillery is worse for fleets on sisi then in TQ. No more alpha doesnt help at all in large fleets. It just makes me ungroup my guns so I can actually shoot all the primaries. The range and tracking for artilleries is so bad that it makes all minmatar BS extremely bad for any fleet, you dont use ACs for fleets unless its short range RR and the phoon does that better anyways. Only the phoon might be nice for RR BS fleets but guess why, it doesnt use projectiles. ACs damage is still poor, we will still use barrage so the ammo changes still wont be of any use. We will have slightly more falloff which is nice and the only bloody good change. Please CCP fix the arties. Alpha sucks! Tracking, range and DPS are the most important factors guess what arties are worst at......
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:34:00 - [2133] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: Meeko Atari Originally by: To mare can we please stop talking about TE/TC this is projectile boost thread not TE/TC thread THIS! I Totally Agree Are you just To mare's alt? Everyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together know that there interlinked, hell, there part of Nozh's OP. If we should stop talking about them, we should probably stop talking about the ammo changes too. No i am not an Alt of who ever you said... firstly TE/TC's affect all turrets not just projectiles secondly ammo changes only affect projectiles third anyone that can think past his own agenda can see that buffing TE / TC's is NOT a projectile balance but a turret buff that will still leave projectiles broken or are you just a blaster fan boi looking for a buff?
Haffrage Red Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 19:47:00 - [2134] I think the maelstrom needs a damage bonus instead of a rof bonus, and more drone space to make up for lowered ac setup damage output. Artillery has no actual alpha platform, while both hybrids AND lasers have platforms capable of achieving 10 effective turret volleys. That doesn't make sense
Schmell	Posted - 2009.11.07 20:03:00 - [2135] Originally by: Haffrage I think the maelstrom needs a damage bonus instead of a rof bonus, and more drone space to make up for lowered ac setup damage output. Artillery has no actual alpha platform, while both hybrids AND lasers have platforms capable of achieving 10 effective turret volleys. That doesn't make sense Would you enjoy 30-40 sec cooldown of 1400`s on that mael?
Haffrage Red Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:00:00 - [2136] Originally by: Schmell Originally by: Haffrage I think the maelstrom needs a damage bonus instead of a rof bonus, and more drone space to make up for lowered ac setup damage output. Artillery has no actual alpha platform, while both hybrids AND lasers have platforms capable of achieving 10 effective turret volleys. That doesn't make sense Would you enjoy 30-40 sec cooldown of 1400`s on that mael? Nah, 22 seconds would be fine. Which is what it would be without a rof bonus
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.07 21:31:00 - [2137] Originally by: Meeko Atari No i am not an Alt of who ever you said... firstly TE/TC's affect all turrets not just projectiles secondly ammo changes only affect projectiles third anyone that can think past his own agenda can see that buffing TE / TC's is NOT a projectile balance but a turret buff that will still leave projectiles broken or are you just a blaster fan boi looking for a buff? WTF are you talking about It's Part of Nozh's op, it's part of the solution not just to ac's, but artillery and deciding to just not talk about it because of some silly sense of parity is ****ed. I'm happy with the 30% fall off bonus on tracking modules because it's a module that's now worth fitting and a potential new tactic that breaths some long lost life back into ship fittings. Originally by:** Otebski Everyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub togather know that balancing ships around fitting 5 damage mods is failed concept. You obviously haven't been playing this game very long. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:12:00 - [2138] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: Meeko Atari No i am not an Alt of who ever you said... firstly TE/TC's affect all turrets not just projectiles secondly ammo changes only affect projectiles third anyone that can think past his own agenda can see that buffing TE / TC's is NOT a projectile balance but a turret buff that will still leave projectiles broken or are you just a blaster fan boi looking for a buff? WTF are you talking about It's Part of Nozh's op, it's part of the solution not just to ac's, but artillery and deciding to just not talk about it because of some silly sense of parity is ****ed. I'm happy with the 30% fall off bonus on tracking modules because it's a module that's now worth fitting and a potential new tactic that breaths some long lost life back into ship fittings. Originally by:** Otebski Everyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub togather know that balancing ships around fitting 5 damage mods is failed concept. You obviously haven't been playing this game very long. If the ship is fail ( and i do agree there are some ) then the ship needs to be looked at If the TE / TC modules are not working correctly then they should be looked at independently from all turrets because they affect all turrets this is a weapon system balance not an "open season " to buff anything that will improve turrets. all i want is a "plan" to fix what is broken not a half-assed attempt to shut me up. all this will do is make a new FOTM and i think you know that
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:29:00 - [2139] Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 07/11/2009 22:31:15 Originally by: Meeko Atari If the ship is fail ( and i do agree there are some ) then the ship needs to be looked at If the TE / TC modules are not working correctly then they should be looked at independently from all turrets because they affect all turrets this is a weapon system balance not an "open season " to buff anything that will improve turrets. all i want is a "plan" to fix what is broken not a half-assed attempt to shut me up. all this will do is make a new FOTM and i think you know that You don't even need to fix the entire line of projectiles to only fix whats broken. Proper ship bonuses would suffice. As for the TE/TC's, the 15% increase to optimal is about even to the 30% for fall off (in terms of damage beyond base optimal) and it's about in-line with the tracking disruptor fall off disruption effect (see reliable counter to T/D's). Just as optimal range boost all turrets but pulse lasers the most, fall off would improve all turrets, but AC's and Artillery the most. Really, this narrow view of lets make this weapon system the ideal (based on pure hurrdurr and folklore) and re-balance everything else later attitude is growing old, is going to very fix little, and probably make a lot of things worse or OP in the process. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Haffrage Red Federation	Posted - 2009.11.07 22:36:00 - [2140] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: Meeko Atari If the ship is fail ( and i do agree there are some ) then the ship needs to be looked at You don't even need to fix the entire line of projectiles to only fix whats broken. Proper ship bonuses would suffice. Remove rof bonus on all min BS, give all large projectiles +34% damage. Give better bonuses in place of rof bonus. I just fixed min BS and gave min snipers even more alpha

Veryez	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:42:00 - [2141] Originally by: Haffrage Remove rof bonus on all min BS, give all large projectiles +34% damage. Give better bonuses in place of rof bonus. I just fixed min BS and gave min snipers even more alpha Win
Gamrikis	Posted - 2009.11.07 23:54:00 - [2142] Edited by: Gamrikis on 07/11/2009 23:55:37 Originally by: Haffrage Remove rof bonus on all min BS, give all large projectiles +34% damage. Give better bonuses in place of rof bonus. I just fixed min BS and gave min snipers even more alpha Ya I can get behind this, I already have to un-group my weapons anyway, might as well make it worth my while to fire on multiple targets. This would give a minnie ship even with its sub par range a little more purpose to fly in a sniper fleet. The range is still an issue for RR but there are ways around this if you don't roll with the conventional sniper fleet.
Nitch Bigga Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:03:00 - [2143] Originally by: Gamrikis Edited by: Gamrikis on 07/11/2009 23:55:37 Originally by: Haffrage Remove rof bonus on all min BS, give all large projectiles +34% damage. Give better bonuses in place of rof bonus. I just fixed min BS and gave min snipers even more alpha Ya I can get behind this, I already have to un-group my weapons anyway, might as well make it worth my while to fire on multiple targets. This would give a minnie ship even with its sub par range a little more purpose to fly in a sniper fleet. The range is still an issue for RR but there are ways around this if you don't roll with the conventional sniper fleet. I actualy like this, in addition, give the pest like a 5% optimal 10% falloff per level bonus, on top of increasing 1400's falloff a bit, and large autos to 17% and 34% respectively, then <Mays> blam <\Mays> you have a dedicated minny sniper that effectively snipes in falloff, and is a decent autocannon boat. Not sure what to do with the mael, maybe leave and just reduce the rof bonus, so it's still a good mission/small gang boat.
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2009.11.08 02:16:00 - [2144] Originally by: Pattern Clarc Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 07/11/2009 22:31:15 Originally by: Meeko Atari If the ship is fail ( and i do agree there are some ) then the ship needs to be looked at If the TE / TC modules are not working correctly then they should be looked at independently from all turrets because they affect all turrets this is a weapon system balance not an "open season " to buff anything that will improve turrets. all i want is a "plan" to fix what is broken not a half-assed attempt to shut me up. all this will do is make a new FOTM and i think you know that You don't even need to fix the entire line of projectiles to only fix whats broken. Proper ship bonuses would suffice. As for the TE/TC's, the 15% increase to optimal is about even to the 30% for fall off (in terms of damage beyond base optimal) and it's about in-line with the tracking disruptor fall off disruption effect (see reliable counter to T/D's). Just as optimal range boost all turrets but pulse lasers the most, fall off would improve all turrets, but AC's and Artillery the most. Really, this narrow view of lets make this weapon system the ideal (based on pure hurrdurr and folklore) and re-balance everything else later attitude is growing old, is going to very fix little, and probably make a lot of things worse or OP in the process. So in your line of thinking, just to clarify you would rather buff all weapons by boosting a module that may or may not be useful to all turreted weapons, forcing one race that already has tanking problems to sacrifice more slots to make their weapons viable? somehow that does not sound like a "fix" to projectile weapons me, it sounds like a deliberate nerf does any remember any patches prior to this one? where CCP will "balance" several things at one time and then we get um..i don't know...LAZORS for a year or two I want focus from CCP, even if that means a balance patch every month, but slow well thought out balance adjustments.
Cpt Branko The Scope	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:23:00 - [2145] Originally by: Pattern Clarc As for the TE/TC's, the 15% increase to optimal is about even to the 30% for fall off (in terms of damage beyond base optimal) Ha ha. No it's not. 15% optimal is a 15% optimal increase for a fully optimal based turret. 30% falloff is a 30% range increase for a falloff based turret. Take ANY chosen range as effective range. If you want, take 1/2 of falloff as "effective range". A boost from, eg. 20km to 26km falloff is a boost of your definition "effective range" from 10 to 13km, or 30%. It just makes TEs absurdly good, gives a disproportionate boost to ships which have the slots to expend on them over ships which don't, and so on and on. It becomes a "no brainer to fit" module. Just compare two SISI minmatar ships without TEs and with TEs. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.11.08 03:42:00 - [2146] Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 08/11/2009 03:45:20 Originally by: Cpt Branko Ha ha. No it's not. 15% optimal is a 15% optimal increase for a fully optimal based turret. 30% falloff is a 30% range increase for a falloff based turret. Take ANY chosen range as effective range. If you want, take 1/2 of falloff as "effective range". A boost from, eg. 20km to 26km falloff is a boost of your definition "effective range" from 10 to 13km, or 30%. It just makes TEs absurdly good, gives a disproportionate boost to ships which have the slots to expend on them over ships which don't, and so on and on. It becomes a "no brainer to fit" module. Just compare two SISI minmatar ships without TEs and with TEs. A 15% increase in optimal range increases the range at which you can apply 100% of your damage in 15% in optimal range based systems. A 30% increase in falloff increases the range at which you can apply REDUCED damage. Lets see an example: A weapon that has a 20 km optimal and a 3km falloff after receiving a 15% bonus to optimal and falloff can apply 100% of its damage at 23. A weapon that has a 3 km optimal and a 20 km falloff afte receiving the same 15% bonus is now able to apply 100% of its damage at 3.45 km. The bonus to falloff does not have the same effect of the bonus to optimal range. That is just a plain lie. Falloff and optimal range are two very different attributes, and the artifical attribute "effective range" that you create in your head is meaningless. The optimal range bonus COMPLETELY increases damage projection. The falloff bonus just alters the rate of damage degradation. They are on a different league entirely. Furthermore TEs and TCs are not absurdly good with a 30% bonus to falloff. They are STILL less mandatory than damage modules, and will just START to appear in close range weapon system fittings with this boost, in ships that CAN afford to use them AFTER all the tank and damage modules are fit. ===== "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...
Veryez	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:13:00 - [2147] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 08/11/2009 03:30:02 Originally by: Pattern Clarc As for the TE/TC's, the 15% increase to optimal is about even to the 30% for fall off (in terms of damage beyond base optimal) Ha ha. No it's not. 15% optimal is a 15% optimal increase for a fully optimal based turret. 30% falloff is a 30% range increase for a falloff based turret. Take ANY chosen range as effective range. If you want, take 1/2 of falloff as "effective range". A boost from, eg. 20km to 26km falloff is a boost of your definition "effective range" from 10 to 13km, or 30%. This is where a difference in play styles comes into play. Increasing my falloff by 30% does very little to change the engagement range on a mael (for example), you will still want to get close to an apoc where you can bring greater damage to bear, while at the same time you'll be trying to stay out of null's/CN AM's kill zone. It just extends the range for errors a bit (since no matter what, you're almost never fighting in optimal). Get too far from an Apoc and you'll put yourself in a world of hurt, same with getting too close to a mega. I spent all saturday in a Tempest, and I'm still not convinced I'd drop a gyro for an TE. Maybe on a cane it's different, but small ships have the speed to control range, battleships don't, and it's battleships that need the help. And CCP, Artillery (especially large) needs to the falloff boosts too (optimal would be better, but I'll take the whatever help I can get).
Roemy Schneider Vanishing Point.	Posted - 2009.11.08 09:40:00 - [2148] tempest: +15% damage and -5% pg requirements for any high slot module per level -.- - putting the gist back into logistics
Pattern Clarc Blue Republic	Posted - 2009.11.08 10:15:00 - [2149] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 08/11/2009 03:30:02 Originally by: Pattern Clarc As for the TE/TC's, the 15% increase to optimal is about even to the 30% for fall off (in terms of damage beyond base optimal) Ha ha. No it's not. 15% optimal is a 15% optimal increase for a fully optimal based turret. 30% falloff is a 30% range increase for a falloff based turret. Man, in one post your whining about how ****ty fall off mechanics are and asking for the same fall off as optimal on pulses, and in the other post your spouting this nonesense. A 30% fall off increase is actually a 60% increase to your turrets sphere of influence. However the increase to dps at your previous fall off, relative to an optimal range can only be obtained with a fall off bonus thats significantly stronger. Messy? Totally. If it where up to me I would have given large AC's a straight optimal increase (15-18km or 200-250%) - infact see the link in my sig. However, since you all insist on balancing around fall off, this is what you get. I kinda like the fact that there's a bit more competition in slots - ship fittings have become remarkably predictable and stale. I highly doubt anyone but minmatar ships would benefit from it enough to sacrifice slots and the fact that a lot of falling minmatar ships have too few slots in the first place should be somewhere you should direct your energies. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:06:00 - [2150] Originally by: Schmell Originally by: Haffrage I think the maelstrom needs a damage bonus instead of a rof bonus, and more drone space to make up for lowered ac setup damage output. Artillery has no actual alpha platform, while both hybrids AND lasers have platforms capable of achieving 10 effective turret volleys. That doesn't make sense Would you enjoy 30-40 sec cooldown of 1400`s on that mael? Again someoen that does not understand! The reload time is time you are NOT bound to sit and wait. And its not time you loosign damage because you have Already dealt that damage. Its not time you are BEHIND to deal the damage. is time you are ahead and the other ships are trying to catch on you! WOuld lovely have a 3 minutes cycle for guns for an equali scaled alpha strike even.

Schmell	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:14:00 - [2151] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Schmell Originally by: Haffrage I think the maelstrom needs a damage bonus instead of a rof bonus, and more drone space to make up for lowered ac setup damage output. Artillery has no actual alpha platform, while both hybrids AND lasers have platforms capable of achieving 10 effective turret volleys. That doesn't make sense Would you enjoy 30-40 sec cooldown of 1400`s on that mael? Again someoen that does not understand! The reload time is time you are NOT bound to sit and wait. And its not time you loosign damage because you have Already dealt that damage. Its not time you are BEHIND to deal the damage. is time you are ahead and the other ships are trying to catch on you! WOuld lovely have a 3 minutes cycle for guns for an equali scaled alpha strike even. In modern fleet warfare (subcaps vs subcaps fights i mean) nobody need ships, that are making one shoot for 3 minutes. When fleet have good focus, primary dies before you can even lock it, ability to switch damage fast >>>>> big BROADSIDE(tm)
To mare Amarr Advanced Technology	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:27:00 - [2152] Originally by: Meeko Atari Originally by: Pattern Clarc Originally by: Meeko Atari Originally by: To mare can we please stop talking about TE/TC this is projectile boost thread not TE/TC thread THIS! I Totally Agree Are you just To mare's alt? Everyone with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together know that there interlinked, hell, there part of Nozh's OP. If we should stop talking about them, we should probably stop talking about the ammo changes too. No i am not an Alt of who ever you said... firstly TE/TC's affect all turrets not just projectiles secondly ammo changes only affect projectiles third anyone that can think past his own agenda can see that buffing TE / TC's is NOT a projectile balance but a turret buff that will still leave projectiles broken or are you just a blaster fan boi looking for a buff? her english is much better than mine so not my alt :D but i totally agree with what she said. the only reason went out when i asked whats the problem of increasing weapon falloff and decreasing the boost on TE is because sisi TE make blaster better, so this is a projectile boost thread or a blaster boost thread? in the end if we care about projectile boost increasing falloff on the weapon and reducing it on the module is a much better boost for projectile. the falloff boost of 20% per tier is only needed on arty (all size) and large AC, small AC can stay at +10% per tier. with this we have medium and small projectile + TE nerfed a bit so this may adress all the problem of people screaming S and M projectile being OP (lol), Large projectiles can still work even w/o TE and they get more or less the same results with a TE they get now on sisi. arty falloff sniping will be still viable if number of falloff on arty get tweaked correctly. and to all the blaster you have to be stupid if you consider the new TE the solutions to all your problems do you prefer a boost to the weapon tracking/range or a boost to a module ? also wtb a decent blaster fit wich involve TE/TC
Techno Dog Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:39:00 - [2153] Originally by: Seishi Maru WOuld lovely have a 3 minutes cycle for guns for an equali scaled alpha strike even. That mean one-shoot most opponents, yea, that would be great, and very OP. This thread about the balance, not about make the Minnie's overpowered...
1600 RT	Posted - 2009.11.08 13:44:00 - [2154] Originally by: Techno Dog Originally by: Seishi Maru WOuld lovely have a 3 minutes cycle for guns for an equali scaled alpha strike even. That mean one-shoot most opponents, yea, that would be great, and very OP. This thread about the balance, not about make the Minnie's overpowered... lol guys when arty had 12s cycle time was bad now on sisi it have a 22s reload its worse but if the ship get a 3 min reload it get OP make sense.
Wowow BAM	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:24:00 - [2155] So all in all these changes are horrible,just absolute crap. Its like trying to put a tiny band aid on hip fracture, im still waiting on real change before I finally give up and start playing a different mmo.Please CCP actually post some real changes, playing as minny is like playing on hard mode vs other races.Something needs to be addressed now and promptly.The new changes that were posted are just dumb, I honestly hope that you will update this before the next expansion arises because I have a great feeling you will just forget about minmatar for another year or two and throw us another dog biscuit to **** us off more.
To mare Amarr Advanced Technology	Posted - 2009.11.08 14:30:00 - [2156] Originally by: Wowow BAM So all in all these changes are horrible,just absolute crap. Its like trying to put a tiny band aid on hip fracture, im still waiting on real change before I finally give up and start playing a different mmo.Please CCP actually post some real changes, playing as minny is like playing on hard mode vs other races.Something needs to be addressed now and promptly.The new changes that were posted are just dumb, I honestly hope that you will update this before the next expansion arises because I have a great feeling you will just forget about minmatar for another year or two and throw us another dog biscuit to **** us off more. no some changes are good like alpha boost on arty, damage purification on ammo, falloff boost on AC (but need more on large) some are arguably at best like the TE/TC with 15%-30% boost
Techno Dog Minmatar	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:03:00 - [2157] Originally by: 1600 RT Originally by: Techno Dog Originally by: Seishi Maru WOuld lovely have a 3 minutes cycle for guns for an equali scaled alpha strike even. That mean one-shoot most opponents, yea, that would be great, and very OP. This thread about the balance, not about make the Minnie's overpowered... lol guys when arty had 12s cycle time was bad now on sisi it have a 22s reload its worse but if the ship get a 3 min reload it get OP make sense. You get those point, to scale alpha the 3min cycle? Try to get the math, in currently on TQ a Mael with 8x 1400mm T2 w/ Quake ammo and 3x Gyro T2 have almost 6500 alpha (all LvL5 skills), and w/ Tremor around 3700. Just take your 12sec cycle time, and let's scale. 3min = 180 sec 180 / 12 sec = 15 To scale the alpha, we need 15 times more damage, so 6500 x 15 = 97500 Alpha damage w/Quake 3700 x 15 = 55500 Alpha damage w/Tremor Can i call this OP?
Nuts Nougat Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.11.08 16:48:00 - [2158] Originally by: Techno Dog Originally by: 1600 RT Originally by: Techno Dog Originally by: Seishi Maru WOuld lovely have a 3 minutes cycle for guns for an equali scaled alpha strike even. That mean one-shoot most opponents, yea, that would be great, and very OP. This thread about the balance, not about make the Minnie's overpowered... lol guys when arty had 12s cycle time was bad now on sisi it have a 22s reload its worse but if the ship get a 3 min reload it get OP make sense. You get those point, to scale alpha the 3min cycle? Try to get the math, in currently on TQ a Mael with 8x 1400mm T2 w/ Quake ammo and 3x Gyro T2 have almost 6500 alpha (all LvL5 skills), and w/ Tremor around 3700. Just take your 12sec cycle time, and let's scale. 3min = 180 sec 180 / 12 sec = 15 To scale the alpha, we need 15 times more damage, so 6500 x 15 = 97500 Alpha damage w/Quake 3700 x 15 = 55500 Alpha damage w/Tremor Can i call this OP? I could live with this tbh. ---
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2009.11.08 17:38:00 - [2159] Here is an idea out of left field. Maybe give arties and ac a better chance of landing wrecking shots. I have no clue how that mechanic works, but keep everything as the changes are now, which seems no mimi is happy with, but throw in a 10-15% boost to the chance of a wrecking shot from ac and arties of all tiers. It would prolly balance out the dps alittle more, + give mimi it's flavor speed + broadsides.
Mysteriax Scoopex Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.11.08 18:01:00 - [2160] Originally by: To mare Originally by: Wowow BAM So all in all these changes are horrible,just absolute crap. Its like trying to put a tiny band aid on hip fracture, im still waiting on real change before I finally give up and start playing a different mmo.Please CCP actually post some real changes, playing as minny is like playing on hard mode vs other races.Something needs to be addressed now and promptly.The new changes that were posted are just dumb, I honestly hope that you will update this before the next expansion arises because I have a great feeling you will just forget about minmatar for another year or two and throw us another dog biscuit to **** us off more. no some changes are good like alpha boost on arty, damage purification on ammo, falloff boost on AC (but need more on large) some are arguably at best like the TE/TC with 15%-30% boost Alpha changes are bad for large fleets in general as proven already in the past in this thread. it just makes me ungroup my guns and not firing all of em at the primary. Yeah it may be killmailwhoring but killmails are still the primary use to judge pilots, since damage done is bugged anyways.



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.