EVE Search - Railgun balance, when do they get some love ?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Railgun balance, when do they get some love ?

» 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 .. 25 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.13 07:47:00 - [391] Originally by: Dabljuh I prove you wrong and generalize even further. Both the Maller and the Moa suck. A tanking bonus on a cruiser? Cruisers have too little EHP/Grid/Cap to be even considered for a second as alternatives to BCs in a tanking role. The Maller makes a superb heavy tackler - 80-100K EHP on a cruiser hull is brutal to try to kill. This is a totally valid cruiser role. But in general, I agree that many smaller craft have insufficient fittings and are also needlessly nerfed because of the tier system. Quote: Edit: Mind you, I say tracking is too high, but that's just a synonym for saying "speed tanking is too hard" - A general tracking decrease (especially with BS) would result in cruisers being slightly better tanks, which would make these two cruisers slightly better by comparison. The problem with "tracking is too high" is that tank is already much stronger than gank. It takes literally minutes for solo kills to happen - while it takes less than a minute for help to arrive (usually). On the flip side, tank doesn't scale while DPS does. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.13 07:52:00 - [392] Originally by: Dabljuh You're wrong: The smaller ship has the advantage (or at least: should have) of always being able to dicate range. Even if Blasters had much better tracking allowing them to be effective vs even smaller ships, the smaller ship can still dictate range, staying out of damage envelope. Right now, Blasters have the worst tracking in the game in relative terms. That means right now they're effectively the worst weapon to use against smaller targets. Really, blasters are the worst weapon to use against smaller targets at their optimal. That is a very very important thing to note. However, if the smaller ship has the advantage of dictating range, it has two options: - Attempt to kite inside blaster range, which means crossing a Zone Of Death, being in web range, in neut range, and easy drone range. - Attempting to kite outside of blaster range, which dramatically increases the blaster ship's "effective tracking" (to the point that the falloff penalty is so severe it stops doing any damage at all) and simultaneously destroys their own ability to deal damage at all. Frigs are far too close ranged. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Dabljuh	Posted - 2010.01.13 07:52:00 - [393] Originally by: Liang Nuren The problem with "tracking is too high" is that tank is already much stronger than gank. It takes literally minutes for solo kills to happen - while it takes less than a minute for help to arrive (usually). On the flip side, tank doesn't scale while DPS does. You're confusing cause and effect. Ships were exploding too fast because of generally too high tracking. CCP increased HP. If they had increased nerfed tracking, solo PVEers might have cried but we wouldn't have this particular problem.
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2010.01.13 08:02:00 - [394] What about looking at all blaster platforms and making sure that they are at least a bit faster and more agile than missile/drone ships of the same size of their race? I haven't seen anyone bring that up yet. I think blasters need a boost because the idea of taking a blaster boat through 0.0 strikes me as stupid. Short range, slow ships. Which implies to me that blaster boats are underpowered. There are ways to boost the problem, but if you go the dps route I wouldn't consider using blasters until it got to the point that blasters tore people up ridiculously fast. At which point they would probably be overpowered.
Dabljuh	Posted - 2010.01.13 08:07:00 - [395] Edited by: Dabljuh on 13/01/2010 08:07:37 Originally by: Hiroshima Jita What about looking at all blaster platforms and making sure that they are at least a bit faster and more agile than missile/drone ships of the same size of their race? I haven't seen anyone bring that up yet. I think blasters need a boost because the idea of taking a blaster boat through 0.0 strikes me as stupid. Short range, slow ships. Which implies to me that blaster boats are underpowered. There are ways to boost the problem, but if you go the dps route I wouldn't consider using blasters until it got to the point that blasters tore people up ridiculously fast. At which point they would probably be overpowered. If you give blaster platforms ways to essentially always dictate range (similar to minmatar) then you've made blasters overpowered as there's no longer a defense vs them. Conversely, where you have blasters, you can also put on rails. If you give blaster platforms the ability to dictate range, i.e. make them unkiteable, you conversely turn them into rail platforms with sniping superpowers. No, hybrids suck, because you're meant to make up with additional drones and missiles.
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2010.01.13 08:17:00 - [396] Yeah but I never suggested making them faster than minmatar. Minmatar are freaking fast. You can expect a nano-shield tanked minmatar ship to handle like a ship of another race one size class down minus a bit of agility. I just suggested that a ship like the ferox should handle better than the drake. +50 or so m/s and -.5 s align w/ mwd on wouldn't make them unstopabble killing machines. And if the basic conculsion is that "Hybrids should suck," why have/use hybrid platforms at all? The diemost should suck. If you're gallente you should fly the ishtar. Yes that solves the problem blasters have. But it leaves a big question mark as to why the developers wasted time making the diemos. Of course I don't know why they spent time making the augoror other than as the modle for t2 logistics. All races have some crappy ships. Leaving all blasterboats in that category is ok I guess. But I'm pretty sure having balanced ships that support different valid playstles would make for a better game that was more fun to play.
Dabljuh	Posted - 2010.01.13 08:50:00 - [397] Edited by: Dabljuh on 13/01/2010 08:56:22 IMHO Blasters suck even worse than they should (as hybrids, or compared to other systems) Hybrids are sucky because they're meant to be complemented by drones and missiles. Projectiles are [meant to be] somewhat sucky as well, but they're also meant to be complemented by fast ships. The problem is when you have a role like "Sniper" where missiles and drones simply don't work as a complement to the turrets. Because hybrids suck, to perform as good as a comparable laser platform, hybrid sniper platforms require more bonuses. 1. Buff [change] hybrid sniper ships rather than buffing rails as a whole. Hybrid snipers need more bonuses than laser ships to be competitive. [and less missiles / drones] Also: Why are all T3 BS exactly the same anyways? 2. Renormalize all tracking values on all turrets because of the fact that ships simply aren't moving as fast as they did when the turrets were originally designed. This nerfs long range combat and as a corollary, buffs hybrid platforms in general (drones/missiles work better on shorter ranges) and blasters in particular (obvious) 3. Undo the HP buff (corollary to 2.)
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2010.01.13 10:19:00 - [398] Originally by: Dabljuh Edited by: Dabljuh on 13/01/2010 07:48:46 Originally by: Liang Nuren No, a DPS buff is exactly what they need. A tracking boost would do nothing but ensure that you can't safely tackle a blaster ship in a smaller ship - but that ignores the already multitudinous counters that ships of size have over smaller craft. You're wrong: The smaller ship has the advantage (or at least: should have) of always being able to dicate range. Even if Blasters had much better tracking allowing them to be effective vs even smaller ships, the smaller ship can still dictate range, staying out of the damage envelope. It's merely a coincidence that Blasters occupy the same damage envelope as most frigate engagements (<10km) Needless to reiterate, but: Blasters currently have the worst tracking in the game in relative terms. That means right now they're effectively the worst weapon to use against smaller targets. You are WRONG! Because you fail to take into account player actions and tactics. Blasters are NOT the worse to engage smaller ships in their optimal. Because smaller ships are the ones that decide the range of engagement, not the larger ones. A mega pulse will NOT have easier time tracking a rifter than a Neutron blaster. Because the rifter will be very close on BOTH cases. On the case of smaller ships that prefer to stay away because of range superiority, like a zealot.. sorry but you are screwed in any case unless you receive help, a zealot will laught at both a blaster ship as a pulse ship as rail ships as tachyon ships because it can always find a HOLE in the engagement conditions where it receives near to zero damage. On a more realistic scenario.. take a rupture trying to attack and tackle a battleship (2 cases armageddon and megatron for example). It WILL get very close! IT will cross zones of death from the battleship turrets. For starters.. THAT moment is where a tanking bonus on a cruiser helps a LOT! After it reaches close range.. surprise.. the armageddon has a MUCH harder MUCH harder time to deal with the rupture than the megatron does. In fact the megatron WILL dispatch it quite quickly. Against smaller ships ABSOLUTE tracking is the most relevant value, not relative tracking. The range on this case is important only to set the size of the death zone. Relative tracking is only relevant against targets of same size and LARGER.. because on those cases you MAY/CAN/MIGHT be selecting the range of engagement yourself. BTW .. much better posting on last posts, you still have to show why ships surviving longer because of tracking and not because of HP would be better for game although (not saying it is or is not.. just saying you need to make a more clear argument of WHY). And remember that this have other huge effects, like in suicide ganking, alpha strike, capacitor sizes, balance between active and passive tanks. etc.
Dabljuh	Posted - 2010.01.13 13:06:00 - [399] Edited by: Dabljuh on 13/01/2010 13:10:12 Originally by: Seishi Maru You are WRONG! Because you fail to take into account player actions and tactics. Blasters are NOT the worse to engage smaller ships in their optimal. Yes. YES THEY ARE. YOU USELESS **! MAKE A ING GRAPH FOR YOURSELF IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME! Get this into your head. Naked T1 Neutron Cannons will hit any frigate causing less than 96 m/s transversal at their optimal. Naked T1 Mega Pulses on the other hand will do significant DPS to frigate causing less than 162m/s transversal at their optimal. Yeah, the optimal of pulses is higher. But if you're assuming that the rifter starts at 5km or wherever, then neither of the weapon systems manages to hit anything. The question whether the Rifter survives it into the dead zone is how much damage he takes crossing that whole graph from the right to the left. \| "Ouch" \| ____ \| / \ \| / Zone \ \|Battle / where \ \|Ship / the BS \ Rifter \| @ / does dps \ <-- @ \|____/______________\__________ Because of higher absolute tracking, the neutrons' "zone of death" starts slightly to the left - about 25% - but dps doesn't peak as high as the pulses, nor does it extend anywhere near as far. The damage the rifter takes during the approach is represented by the area under the graph (work the rifters speed in) That area is much bigger for pulses than it is for blasters. (That's the reason why blasters do more damage on paper. They mean to compensate their narrower graph with sheer height. It just doesn't work because they also have too crappy relative tracking) That's the problem when you have a lack of relative tracking (or too much of it, in the case of every weapon other than blasters) the rifter starts taking damage at 50km rather than 20, and stops taking damage - in both cases - somewhere between 5 and 10km. Pulses have more time to DPS their target, and do more dps to it.** Relative Tracking. All in all, the rifter takes easily several times more total damage from the pulses - depending on circumstances. The total amount of damage the rifter is going to take is far greater with pulses. That's the whole point of relative tracking. Relative to their optimal, Blasters track worse. They should track better, but they don't. "Absolute tracking" is pointless if you don't take range into account. Quote: A mega pulse will NOT have easier time tracking a rifter than a Neutron blaster. YES IT WILL! Quote: Against smaller ships ABSOLUTE tracking is the most relevant value, not relative tracking. The range on this case is important only to set the size of the death zone. NO YOU USELESS **, TRACKING MEANS NOTHING WITHOUT RANGE AAAAARGHGHHGH I CANT STOP SHOUTING AT YOU FOR YOUR GODDAMNED STUPIDITY Quote:** you still have to show why ships surviving longer because of tracking and not because of HP would be better for game although (not saying it is or is not.. just saying you need to make a more clear argument of WHY). I'm speechless. I mean, it's pretty damn obvious to me. So for you simple minded folks, let me make an example. Lets say at some specific point, a frigate would get hit 50% of the time with the current values. The way the tracking mechanics work, if you reduced the battleships tracking by half, that 50% turns into ~0%. Conversely, if you double the tracking, that 50% turns into ~100%. So lets take that previous situation and compare it to a hypothetical, alternative scenario where tracking and EHP are cut in half. 1. The frigate gets hit for 50% of the battleships DPS and has 2000 ehp 2. The frigate gets hit for 0% of the battleships DPS and has 1000 ehp Sooo..... What's the better situation for the frigate? HUH? WELL?
kyrieee Psykotic Meat Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.01.13 13:21:00 - [400] Dude, calm down If people aren't understaning you then that's your fault for not making your point clear enough. Stop the profane, belittling, insulting all caps posts if you want to be taken seriously.

Dabljuh	Posted - 2010.01.13 13:22:00 - [401] Edited by: Dabljuh on 13/01/2010 13:26:12 Actually that last point may deserve some more attention. It's a more legitimate point than I immediately realized. Why is it a better game if a 1000 ehp frigate survives with half tracking, when a 2000 frigate doesn't? Everything (except blasters) overtracks at the moment. That means, people get hit too often. If you get hit too often - or lets say, always - then the only way to deal with enemy DPS is to absorb it. This is about Battlecruisers vs Cruisers. Battlecruisers have 3x the EHP of cruisers, and the signature radius of a battleship. Overtracking is the reason why everyone is using battlecruisers these days, as opposed to cruisers. It doesn't make a lick of difference, because everything is tracking so well, you're going to get hit just the same whether you're in a BC or in a cruiser. If you do get hit anyways, you must absorb. BCs are far better at absorbing damage than cruisers - way more ehp, tanking bonuses, more grid/cpu/slots. If a prepared cruiser could actually dodge battleship guns under most circumstances - and even cruiser guns under certain circumstances - where a battlecruiser could not, then it would make sense to use cruisers over battlecruisers a lot of the time. But you can't dodge because everything has way too much tracking, so cruisers have only one advantage left and that's the fact that they align slightly faster. Except ... the cane of course. Originally by: kyrieee Dude, calm down If people aren't understaning you then that's your fault for not making your point clear enough. Stop the profane, belittling, insulting all caps posts if you want to be taken seriously. You're right, it is my fault if people don't understand me. But it is not my fault if people don't believe me. There's a difference between people not understanding me and people going: "No ur rong blosters are the best wepon system vs smallr targits" and crap like that that has simply nothing behind it except delusion and misunderstanding. However: Profanity is legitimate and always awesome. **** yeah!
Arrador	Posted - 2010.01.13 15:47:00 - [402] I get the impression that people don't understand the concept of radians. Radians. A boost to Optimal/Range is a boost to Tracking. This is why Rokh pilots completely ignore the tracking penalty of Spike.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2010.01.13 15:51:00 - [403] Wil repeat.. behavign like a pre adolecent does not help at all your position, only streghts mine. In fact it basically ensure that people will not even read the rest of your post. Second the people that disagree with you mostly are on this game balance annalysis game for a looong time and have checked double checked and trippled checked calculations ans models far more complex that this. Some have even implemented computer auxiliated simmualtions to prove their points. So these people will have a very high requirement on PROOFS and demonstrarions to believe anything you bring that goes against their years of analysis. For last.. cruisers CAN avoid tracking of close range BS weapons fairly easily be that on AC, Blasters of pulse lasers. In fact blasters hit better than Pulses on that scenario... FAR better specially on the megatron. A rupture will have a very hard time to kill a megatron but if well piloted can deal quite well with a commonly setup abaddon. So the fact that pulses track well at their optimal is irrelevant when that abaddon is engaging a ship that will decide the engagement range (and by logic avoid the best range for pulse lasers). In fact rails, beams, tachyons, pulses arties everything is inferior to blasters on that scenario, with sole exception of low tier ACs. So there are scenarios where blasters are good. The problem is mainly that blasters are good at a scenario that is DIFFICULT for the blaster ship to enforce upon others. Specially on larger group fights. That comes again to the point. The extension of the envelope of engagement is NOT the predominant factor alone. The capability to enforce that envelope that comes along the ships themselves and the current tactics used in TQ are as much important as the envelope of engagement itself. Example.. vagabond... IF vagabond was nto the fastest HAC, .. if it was barely faster than a battleship for example, then its falloff bonus would be USELESS. Because it would not be able to enforce that envelope of engagement. OTher example.. 1v1 tempest vs megatron.. tempest will win almost always.... in fact tempest will defeat almost any battlehsip on 1v (not that it means its a suberb ship) , why? Because it has the capability to enforce its envelope of engagement... and if such envelope doe snot exist.. to bail out. An abaddon has much broader envelope of engagement and more firepower and tank than a tempest. BUT the abaddon has a MUCH harder time to enforce its supremacy. In fact a tempest pilot should never die to a solo abaddon. Envelope of engamement of the weapons is just a subset of envelope of the engamenet from the SHIP+weapons system
Silvarus Trighton	Posted - 2010.01.13 15:56:00 - [404] How about having it so hybrid weapons always have a chance of shield penetration? Like how damage can go through a shield when it's under 1/4 capacity, why not make it so hybrid (or maybe just rail) weapons always have this chance of say... 50% even if the target is at full shields (modified by tactical shield manipulation though, so 25% chance on someone with L5 TSM) to have damage pass through? Or maybe even make it so its a chance (~5%) of hull damage when shooting into a targets armor? It would make sense as far as realism when you consider a high powered railgun shooting at a ship, it would pass right through especially a weak part in the armor (hence the 5% chance). Just throwin out ideas .
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2010.01.13 16:00:00 - [405] Originally by: Arrador I get the impression that people don't understand the concept of radians. Radians. A boost to Optimal/Range is a boost to Tracking. This is why Rokh pilots completely ignore the tracking penalty of Spike. Up to a certain point. And only on certain conditions, and that is what i was trying to point. If your rokh is trying to hit something at 1 km.. it WILL have a harder time than a megatron.. and same difficulty as a hyperion. And on quit a significant ammount of engagements the battleships are NOT able to decide what the range they engage, at least against ships small enough so that tracking becomes a prevalent issue. All this discussion sounds like when RAF tactitians advised their spitfire pilots that were having issues against german FW190. Use your superior turn radius to your advantage.... to only receive as response something on the lines of .. ok.. just explain for them that they need to get into turning combat using their faster, more armed and more resilent planes, completely ignoring their advantage on being able to decide how to fight. Equipment advantage is only as advantageous as the ammount of enforcement of those conditions you can bring to bear upon your opponent. And that MUST be taken into account as top level issue on game balance. That is why people fail to realize why pulse lasers are NOT awesome close range combat weapons. Their awesomeness happens basically because current combats are 9 in 10 times at conditions they are good.
Arrador	Posted - 2010.01.13 16:14:00 - [406] Originally by: Seishi Maru Originally by: Arrador I get the impression that people don't understand the concept of radians. Radians. A boost to Optimal/Range is a boost to Tracking. This is why Rokh pilots completely ignore the tracking penalty of Spike. Up to a certain point. And only on certain conditions, and that is what i was trying to point. If your rokh is trying to hit something at 1 km.. it WILL have a harder time than a megatron.. and same difficulty as a hyperion. And on quit a significant ammount of engagements the battleships are NOT able to decide what the range they engage, at least against ships small enough so that tracking becomes a prevalent issue. Optimal is the independant variable here - not tracking. A boost in tracking speed does not incur an increase in optimal range :) And as far as Battleship sized weapons hitting frigates... Isn't this why all Battleships have drone bays?!? Originally by: Seishi Maru All this discussion sounds like when RAF tactitians advised their spitfire pilots that were having issues against german FW190. Use your superior turn radius to your advantage.... to only receive as response something on the lines of .. ok.. just explain for them that they need to get into turning combat using their faster, more armed and more resilent planes, completely ignoring their advantage on being able to decide how to fight. Equipment advantage is only as advantageous as the ammount of enforcement of those conditions you can bring to bear upon your opponent. And that MUST be taken into account as top level issue on game balance. That is why people fail to realize why pulse lasers are NOT awesome close range combat weapons. Their awesomeness happens basically because current combats are 9 in 10 times at conditions they are good. Now you are talking about balancing a platform vs a weapon :)
Dabljuh	Posted - 2010.01.13 16:31:00 - [407] Edited by: Dabljuh on 13/01/2010 16:35:43 Originally by: Seishi Maru Wil repeat.. behavign like a pre adolecent does not help at all your position, only streghts mine. Yes, it's a well documented fact that ******s in history suddenly got everything right when people started calling them names. Except you're still talking out of your ass. Since you hate ASCII graphs so much, here's a few EFT graphs for you. The last one is a combination of the first two. Also, since you're going to ask: I used a Mael because it doesn't have bonuses for either weapon system. You need to separate 'blaster vs pulse' issues from 'mega vs rokh' issues. I have spent a "looong time annalysis" and have "checked double checked and trippled checked calculations ans models". I have even implemented computer auxiliated "simmualtions" to prove my points. I have a very high requirement on PROOFS and "demonstrarions" to believe anything and I am now convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt: Not only were your parents brother and sister, you also have several more chromosomes than normal.
McCreary075 Gallente Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.01.13 17:36:00 - [408] Originally by: Dabljuh Not only were your parents brother and sister, you also have several more chromosomes than recommended. I had a damn good laugh at that.
Skex Relbore	Posted - 2010.01.13 18:16:00 - [409] Originally by: McCreary075 Originally by: Dabljuh Not only were your parents brother and sister, you also have several more chromosomes than recommended. I had a damn good laugh at that. I did too, though I do think that Dabljuh needs to lay off the Ad homs because they do lesson ones credibility. Which is a shame because I happen to think he's making the better argument in this discussion.
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.13 18:54:00 - [410] Originally by: Dabljuh Also, since you're going to ask: I used a Mael because it doesn't have bonuses for either weapon system. You need to separate 'blaster vs pulse' issues from 'mega vs rokh' issues. You cannot separate weapons from ship bonuses and realistic fits in the way that you are - because when you reassemble your "proofs" back down to what is actually Eve, it doesn't actually fit. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org

Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang	Posted - 2010.01.13 18:57:00 - [411] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Dabljuh Also, since you're going to ask: I used a Mael because it doesn't have bonuses for either weapon system. You need to separate 'blaster vs pulse' issues from 'mega vs rokh' issues. You cannot separate weapons from ship bonuses and realistic fits in the way that you are - because when you reassemble your "proofs" back down to what is actually Eve, it doesn't actually fit. -Liang EXACTLY!!!! THIs is a major and undeniable concept that must be always observed on any game balance analysis.
Grapez The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple	Posted - 2010.01.13 19:07:00 - [412] Originally by: Hiroshima Jita What about looking at all blaster platforms and making sure that they are at least a bit faster and more agile than missile/drone ships of the same size of their race? I haven't seen anyone bring that up yet. I think blasters need a boost because the idea of taking a blaster boat through 0.0 strikes me as stupid. Short range, slow ships. Which implies to me that blaster boats are underpowered. There are ways to boost the problem, but if you go the dps route I wouldn't consider using blasters until it got to the point that blasters tore people up ridiculously fast. At which point they would probably be overpowered. Yeah, this, and also what Liang is saying re: EHP slowing getting boosted over time without corresponding DPS boosts and combat taking too long to conclude. Minmatar can still be the most agile/have the most effective orbit speed, but blasterships really need to be the fastest straight-line ships in Eve.
Grapez The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple	Posted - 2010.01.13 19:22:00 - [413] Originally by: Silvarus Trighton How about having it so hybrid weapons always have a chance of shield penetration? Like how damage can go through a shield when it's under 1/4 capacity, why not make it so hybrid (or maybe just rail) weapons always have this chance of say... 50% even if the target is at full shields (modified by tactical shield manipulation though, so 25% chance on someone with L5 TSM) to have damage pass through? Or maybe even make it so its a chance (~5%) of hull damage when shooting into a targets armor? It would make sense as far as realism when you consider a high powered railgun shooting at a ship, it would pass right through especially a weak part in the armor (hence the 5% chance). Just throwin out ideas . I like it, but it will never happen. It would spell the death of those ships that are most concentrated on shield tanking, and thus have the least amount of armor/hull (Minmatar, Caldari). You could conceivably pop a Drake or a Cyclone without ever having to break their tank. Mind you, I think it's a cool idea, but the large majority of players have a vested interest in maintaining Caldari/Minmatar PvP ability, and thus this idea will get whined into the ground. It's ideas like this that I think Eve really needs, though. Why only care about paper DPS, tracking, etc., when we could have weapons with unique, if niche, abilities? We need an interesting Eve, "balance" be damned, IMHO.
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.13 19:28:00 - [414] Originally by: grapez It's ideas like this that I think Eve really needs, though. Why only care about paper DPS, tracking, etc., when we could have weapons with unique, if niche, abilities? We need an interesting Eve, "balance" be damned, IMHO. You only say "balance be damned, IMHO" because you wouldn't find your entire race obsoleted (and make no mistake - obsoleting 2 of the 4 races would be a bad thing). I think that you can have damage with effects other than skipping entire tank layers. Here are some ideas: - Gives -10 cap to target on successful hit - Deals DOT - Lowers resistances - etc Oh wait, but I'm just taking these ideas directly from MUDs/EQ/WOW/Warhammer/Diablo/etc. IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the way things work. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Grapez The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple	Posted - 2010.01.13 19:30:00 - [415] Originally by: Liang Nuren Here are some ideas: - Gives -10 cap to target on successful hit - Deals DOT - Lowers resistances - etc Oh wait, but I'm just taking these ideas directly from MUDs/EQ/WOW/Warhammer/Diablo/etc. IMO, there's nothing really wrong with the way things work. -Liang Hm, weird, you say successful MMOs have a more diverse set of damage effects?
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.13 19:42:00 - [416] Originally by: grapez Hm, weird, you say successful MMOs have a more diverse set of damage effects? Weird, you know that Eve was MMO of the year, and that it virtually always wins PVP GOTY? I hate to break the news to you, but Eve is a successful MMO. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Grapez The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple	Posted - 2010.01.13 19:45:00 - [417] Edited by: grapez on 13/01/2010 19:45:40 Originally by: Liang Nuren - Gives -10 cap to target on successful hit - Deals DOT - Lowers resistances - etc There are good ideas, which would make for a more diverse and interesting Eve, would greatly expand the tactical toolkit that gangs have to work with, and would introduce a whole other dimension to Eve PvP, and yet you hate them because those MMOs have them.
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.13 20:55:00 - [418] Originally by: grapez There are good ideas, which would make for a more diverse and interesting Eve, would greatly expand the tactical toolkit that gangs have to work with, and would introduce a whole other dimension to Eve PvP, and yet you hate them because those MMOs have them. No, you totally misunderstand. I really enjoy combat in those games - but those kinds of things are inherently much harder to balance. Eve isn't really missing out by not having them. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Qwert0	Posted - 2010.01.13 21:50:00 - [419] On the subject of making railguns 'unique,' how about doing something like this: Give all BS railguns the same dps (probably a little higher than 425's now) Make 250's have high tracking, and a relatively short medium range, with a very high rof. Give 425's low tracking, high range, and make them more alpha focused. Make 350's sit in the middle. And naturally extend this to medium and small rails. (75's in particular would be interesting with this) You could even give 250's HIGER dps than 425's just to make things interesting. This would give rails a unique flavor among the weapons and give interesting new options to both Mega and Rokh pilots. Naturally, fitting/cap/ etc would need to be tweaked, and I have no ideas to help blasters, though giving each their own flavor would make some sense with the whole Gallente/Caldari thing. Honestly, I don't know how this would turn out in practice, but we need more odd ideas like this that make them interesting without adding completely new game mechanics.
Beltantis Torrence Groovy Guns	Posted - 2010.01.13 21:53:00 - [420] Edited by: Beltantis Torrence on 13/01/2010 21:53:17 I flew hybrid ships until I could fly any other turret ship. After that I immediately stopped flying hybrid ships. Outside of sniping @ 100-250km hybrids are terrible. Pulses and autocannons outclass blasters because of range in a huge way, railguns have terribad DPS and tracking whereas artillery make up for that with alpha and beams make up for it with the highest DPS using t2 sniper ammo at range. In a world without doomsday I can't think of a single hybrid-dependant (IE, not drone dependant) ship I'd fly for any reason at all other than an eagle fitting faction ammo at 100km with a paper thin but uber-tracking setup.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: 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.