|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thirzarr
   |
Posted - 2009.12.29 13:39:00 -
[1]
I have a thought on this:
Artillery and AC work with high falloff, right?
Lasers have a healthy mix of optimal and falloff mostly, right?
And hybrids are... well... not quite what they could be following the logic.
So: Increase tracking, basically remove falloff and increase the optimal.
This would make hybrids a weapon that "need to be in range, but if they are: booyah"
Now ammunition:
There is a good reason for antimatter being the only amunition used in rails: everything except range sucks, especially the plain-and-simple-damage. So of all the tradeoffs one could choose from, which one are you going to pick? Exactly! So.. what could ammo do?
* Bonus to sigradius for precision variants (leave tracking alone, its bad enough!)
* Bonus to RoF and Capreduction for close combat ammo.
* Bonus to optimal for long range ammo.
Thats three types of ammo, that would have their own special role in engagements.
On the long run, I'd suggest seperating rail (compressed kinetic energy) ammo and blaster (overheated matter - thermic) ammo. They are totally different and being able to use blaster ammo in rails makes several bonus systems 'break' the other weapon in its 'supposed role'.
|
Thirzarr
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 15:39:00 -
[2]
My biggest gripe at all hybrid turrets is that non of them does a proper amount of DPS at the 25-55 km range. Wich basically eliminates all hybrids from all effective missionrunning. Also making the kronos the worst maraudeur.
|
Thirzarr
|
Posted - 2010.01.08 13:15:00 -
[3]
Well... this thread is actually pretty amazing!
How often has one seen one where everyone agrees on the topic: Railguns flunk the 'should I fit one' test.
|
Thirzarr
|
Posted - 2010.01.09 11:03:00 -
[4]
I hate when this happens... :P but I'll have to agree with liangs approach on this:
Damage for blasters to offset their well deserved drawbacks.
RoF to increase DPS on rails. Probably would have to be lowered in cap usage.
I personally feel the amunition bein somewhat... unrewarding. I'd hate to see the diversity of the charges go, but maybe the proposed solutions could be ammunition based? *ponders*
|
Thirzarr
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:45:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Thirzarr on 15/01/2010 12:48:02
If they were to redo the formula - here are the things I'd like to see:
big slow target in close = hard to miss.
big target in close = hard to miss.
big fast target in close = slight chance of missing.
big slow target far away = easy to hit.
big target far away = rather probable to hit.
big fast target far away = about 50:50
...
small fast target far away = only absurd luck helps.
--------------
Second though:
You get a gun with a tracking value wich describes its ability to compensate for ship movement.
You get a gun with a resolution basically being its accuracy.
Now for the sake of sanity lets say the accuracy and tracking of a gun refer to its 'optimal range' wich is dependant on type of gun and charge used.
So now the accuracy is something that should resemble a cone from close to further away.
take that into account and remove the ability to 'compensate' for lack of accuracy by improving tracking. You will probably have to rework the accuracy of guns to not be as ****e as they are now, but its a great new stat to give weapons a certain role - i.e. 'sniper-mods' that increase accuracy at the cost of tracking.
You see what I'm getting at?
Far away wont need much tracking but will need accuracy. Close in will not need as much accuracy but more tracking. So one could actually end up with 'tracking built artillery for medium range engagements' or the like.
I know this would be major work and probably cause a lot of tears initially. But I do believe the game would get a good dose of:
* customisation options
* make for easier possibilities to balance adjustments that are easier to comprehend. (right now changing tracking has such vast implications)
* intuitively working turrets (right now its almost a science to a new player - I just got another friend hooked :P )
I'd whip up some math on this if it were planed.
* A cone-shaped probability function for range x with defined resolution y @ optimal and dented to match falloff range above optimal.
* Combine it with the "tracking speed @ range x and relative speed z" thing.
Honestly - I'd think about charge-dispersion over range for some kinds of charges (plasma isnt THAT stable is it?).. THAT + New 'hit graphics' would so rock!
|
|
|
| |
|