EVE Search - [proposal] Merge split weapon system bonuses

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[proposal] Merge split weapon system bonuses

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2009.11.29 19:45:00 - [1] Example: Typhoon class battleship. Current bonus: 5% damage bonus to large projectiles, 5% damage bonus to Torpedoes and cruise missiles Proposed bonus: 5% bonus to large projectiles AND Torpedo and cruise launchers, (another bonus follows) 5% to shield boost amount per level (just an example) Assumption made: Currently split weapon systems are unpreffered choice for pvp Goal: to make ships with split weapon systems more viable Effects of the change as i see them: While you still have problem with having to use two damage mods, if you ship is all outriged for tank, it does not matter. Now, you could use split weapon system not to rely on just one type of weapon, meaning if soemone speedtanks your gun, missiles still hit. Generally, I want to make ALL ships with split weapon systems more viable in pvp, because i like ships in split weapon systems and their inferiority dissapoints me. I propose to merge all bunuses to weapon for ships with split weapons into one, and give them an additional bonus that fits their role. E.g. bonus to tank, or maybe ROf bonus. Your thoughts?
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.11.29 19:53:00 - [2] Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 29/11/2009 19:53:39
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.11.29 20:38:00 - [3] you missed the news? the phoon just gets buffed. 5/5 highslots. so now you can make it 5 torps and have 3 utility slots. or 5 projectile turrets.
Maxsim Goratiev Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2009.11.29 20:44:00 - [4] Originally by: darius mclever you missed the news? the phoon just gets buffed. 5/5 highslots. so now you can make it 5 torps and have 3 utility slots. or 5 projectile turrets. Your post only oonfirms what i said People do not tend to use split weapon systems. this change would promote split weapons. And this is not just about typhoon, their is plenty of other ships with 2 weapons, including drone ships and ships that have both missiles and hybrids.
Insa Rexion CTRL-Q	Posted - 2009.11.30 21:45:00 - [5] huh, what a simple but good idea supported 110% -------------------------------------------- DOMINION ! Welcome to Amarr Online the sequel, last buff was business, this time it's permanent
Odetta Harpy	Posted - 2009.12.01 01:50:00 - [6] they saw that the gila and rattlesnake = fail so they changed it, so i think more ships need changing.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2009.12.01 13:15:00 - [7] Huh. Or you could just not use those ships in PvP. I mean is it me, or are we over thinking this. Where is it written that every ship has to be good at every task? Not supported. Leave my Typhoon alone, thanks. --Vel In the world of emoticons, I was colon capital d.
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.12.01 14:54:00 - [8] Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev Originally by: darius mclever you missed the news? the phoon just gets buffed. 5/5 highslots. so now you can make it 5 torps and have 3 utility slots. or 5 projectile turrets. Your post only oonfirms what i said People do not tend to use split weapon systems. this change would promote split weapons. And this is not just about typhoon, their is plenty of other ships with 2 weapons, including drone ships and ships that have both missiles and hybrids. but people got the option. i am mostly missile specced and the new typhoon is finally a decent armor tanked missile BS for me. so i will train matari BS just to get the phoon with 5 torps and 3 utility highs. i was concidering it with the 4/4 layout already but the new layout just makes it more sexy. my corp mate on the other hand will pick the phoon with ACs because he doesnt have the slightest clue about missiles. i like that kind of flexibility. and yes i also abused the rokh as missile boat. :p
Insa Rexion Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2009.12.01 15:35:00 - [9] Originally by: De'Veldrin Huh. Or you could just not use those ships in PvP. I mean is it me, or are we over thinking this. Where is it written that every ship has to be good at every task? Not supported. Leave my Typhoon alone, thanks. eh ? I mean this sincerely, did you not understand the proposal ? He's not suggesting removal of split weapons systems, just that the 2 dmg bonuses that are often applied to them (and are only as effective as 1 bonus on a single weapon boat) are rolled into one leaving another bonus slot free. This would improve the typhoon, why wouldn't you want that ? I'll try to ignore the implication of ur post that the typhoon doesn't have to be good at pvp incase i am misunderstanding you. -------------------------------------------- DOMINION ! Welcome to Amarr Online the sequel, last buff was business, this time it's permanent
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2009.12.01 16:55:00 - [10] Originally by: Insa Rexion Originally by: De'Veldrin Huh. Or you could just not use those ships in PvP. I mean is it me, or are we over thinking this. Where is it written that every ship has to be good at every task? Not supported. Leave my Typhoon alone, thanks. eh ? I mean this sincerely, did you not understand the proposal ? He's not suggesting removal of split weapons systems, just that the 2 dmg bonuses that are often applied to them (and are only as effective as 1 bonus on a single weapon boat) are rolled into one leaving another bonus slot free. This would improve the typhoon, why wouldn't you want that ? I'll try to ignore the implication of ur post that the typhoon doesn't have to be good at pvp incase i am misunderstanding you. Actually, I was referring to the OP's reasoning for the change - that these ships aren't preferred for PvP. If they aren't useful for PvP (I'm not saying I agree, but that's the point he's trying to make) then why do we have to change them to make them useful? Why not use a ship that's better at PvP? If you just want to boost split weapon ships, then let's stop obfuscating the purpose of the thread behind a mask of "make it more viable for PvP". tbh, I like my cruise missile spewing multi remote repping Typhoon with it's massive drone bay. I even gave it a name that suits it's role. It's called Multitool (because it was shorter than Swiss Army Knife). With the new slot layout, I'll probably drop one repper and add another CM Launcher - but tbh, the rest of the ship doesn't need to be changed. I say that because in order to add what is (in reality) a third bonus, that means something else about the ship has to be nerfed. --Vel In the world of emoticons, I was colon capital d.
Insa Rexion Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2009.12.01 17:21:00 - [11] Originally by: De'Veldrin Originally by: Insa Rexion Originally by: De'Veldrin Huh. Or you could just not use those ships in PvP. I mean is it me, or are we over thinking this. Where is it written that every ship has to be good at every task? Not supported. Leave my Typhoon alone, thanks. eh ? I mean this sincerely, did you not understand the proposal ? He's not suggesting removal of split weapons systems, just that the 2 dmg bonuses that are often applied to them (and are only as effective as 1 bonus on a single weapon boat) are rolled into one leaving another bonus slot free. This would improve the typhoon, why wouldn't you want that ? I'll try to ignore the implication of ur post that the typhoon doesn't have to be good at pvp incase i am misunderstanding you. Actually, I was referring to the OP's reasoning for the change - that these ships aren't preferred for PvP. If they aren't useful for PvP (I'm not saying I agree, but that's the point he's trying to make) then why do we have to change them to make them useful? Why not use a ship that's better at PvP? If you just want to boost split weapon ships, then let's stop obfuscating the purpose of the thread behind a mask of "make it more viable for PvP". tbh, I like my cruise missile spewing multi remote repping Typhoon with it's massive drone bay. I even gave it a name that suits it's role. It's called Multitool (because it was shorter than Swiss Army Knife). With the new slot layout, I'll probably drop one repper and add another CM Launcher - but tbh, the rest of the ship doesn't need to be changed. I say that because in order to add what is (in reality) a third bonus, that means something else about the ship has to be nerfed. I really don't think u are getting this at all. he's just saying that on a boat such as the cyclone the bonus would become "5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret and launcher rate of fire" This is one of the main reasons ppl don't use the cyclone all that much, 3 unbonused hi slots, when ppl do use it, it's because they have crystals and pills (this is pretty rare) or because it cheap. It's all very easy for you to casually say ..."just use other ships without split weapons", but especially regarding minmatar boats, that leaves few options. Split weapons do indeed suck, just ask a naglfar pilot. I appreciate that in some cases this may make some ships OP (cane perhaps) but that could obvoiusly be left as it is. BUT, for the split weapons ships that do need some DPS lovin, this is actually a good idea. -------------------------------------------- DOMINION ! Welcome to Amarr Online the sequel, last buff was business, this time it's permanent
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive The Obsidian Legion	Posted - 2009.12.01 18:42:00 - [12] No, I understand what he's saying. My point is, let's call this what it is - a boost to split weapon ships. And then be aware that if they give you this, they'll most likely take something else away to compensate for it. The point is, the ship really does have two bonuses. The rate of fire bonuses don't need to be lumped into a single bonus and add a third on top of it in the form of a tanking bonus because that's going to make the ship OP, frankly, unless they nerf something else in conjunction with it. People may not like the two rate of fire bonuses (especially if they don't actually mount both weapon systems - because then it seems like a wasted bonus) but that doesn't mean the ship needs to be changed. --Vel In the world of emoticons, I was colon capital d.
Graugaard Dark-Rising IT Alliance	Posted - 2009.12.01 18:58:00 - [13] Edited by: Graugaard on 01/12/2009 18:59:18 eve is made for pvp! supported ofc. boost mai typhoon so i can kill other tier 1 in 1vs1 >.< if you look at it, typhoon only got 1 bonus. cus the 5% damage/rof(?) bonus is split system, so atleast add 1 more bonus to typhoon like 5% armor each lvl (<3) *sigh*
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange	Posted - 2009.12.01 20:03:00 - [14] There are exactly two ships that this would apply to after the Sansha and Gurista ships got changed - the Typhoon and the Naglfar. The Nag needs this desperately, given how thoroughly it got screwed in Dominion - 5% ROF and 5% DPS on both weapon systems might almost be enough to make it usable again. The Typhoon probably doesn't, but I'd be fine with it getting it anyways, as long as the second bonus wasn't especially good - 5% speed, maybe, but not 5% damage. So yeah, I'm fine with it. It's only really one bonus now, them getting a second is cool by me.
Lotty Granat Superior Shipyards	Posted - 2009.12.01 22:47:00 - [15] Nope - there are already enough reasons to use the ships you assume are suffering you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. It's not like the rupture or 'phoon were left on the PvP shelf anyway... Have you even noticed that 90% of amarr ships only have 1 real bonus? The 10% cap use bonus just removes the pain of the chosen offencive configuration... should this change? No - players choose what they train for. It's the same for dual offensive ships, they have inherent advantages (no cap use - always doing at least some damage (missiles) but doing some high DPS damage (turrets) if the situation is right) so leave them be. [url=http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Lotty%20Granat][img]http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/signature.php/string,Lotty%20Granat/tpl,userbar/signature.png[/i
Kahega Amielden Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.12.01 23:09:00 - [16] Cap usage is a penalty which balances out the great range, tracking (at optimal), and reload speed of lasers. Saying that -10% cap use per level isn't a real bonus is like saying the damage bonuses on minmatar ships (which exist to counteract the normally poor DPS of projectiles) aren't real bonuses. Supported
Arcane Azmadi First Flying Wing Inc Primary.	Posted - 2009.12.02 01:35:00 - [17] Minmatar split-weapon ships start out with 2 strikes against them- firstly that you need to use BCUs as well as Gyros to get full damage bonuses, secondly that the second bonus, which only affects half your weapons, takes the place of a REAL second bonus such as those gained by other ships. Technically the Typhoon only has one bonus, which is already "5% per level to large projectile and missile rate of fire". This makes it a blatantly inferior ship to its closest equivalent, the Armageddon, which gets bonuses to both cap use and RoF (the Scorpion and Dominix are different ships altogether). I'm with the OP. Split bonuses that do the same thing, only in a more inefficient manner, make no sense. It's just bad ship design.
Ernst Ra'Kun	Posted - 2009.12.02 04:42:00 - [18] supported!
Gigglestheclown	Posted - 2009.12.02 04:48:00 - [19] Would be nice. I understand lore reasons why the minmatar have split weapon systems but I don't understand why the bonuses can't be merged. Where's the harm in that?
darkmancer	Posted - 2009.12.02 18:47:00 - [20] I'd prefer Gyros to give a 8.5% boost to missile damage. It's a small change but makes up for the weakness in split weapons systems without having to rebalance the minmatar ships, whilst not challanging BCU's. I'm supporting the proposal because i think something should be done. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong

Pages: [1] :: 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.