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)
Jacob Stov	Posted - 2010.01.02 21:42:00 - [121] Originally by: Naomi Knight How does that would help the balance and diversity? Pls stop posting until you write something usefull, thx. This may sound counter intuitive, but if you want a buff for hybrid guns, train for something else. That is at least what experience from last 4 years of playing eve tells me. And, as I already wrote, I believe buffing hybrid guns is kinda difficult, because Caldari and Gallente gunboats are way too different. So, what to do ? Balancing blasters around Gallente ships and rails around Caldari thincans ? As Caldari pilot I would like a buff that plays to the strengths of my ship boni, namely more range. I guess Gallente pilots would prefer flat out damage buffs, cause it scales better with their ships. Maybe the answer lies within the ammo. More damage for shortrange and more optimal for medium and longrange charges.
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2010.01.02 22:00:00 - [122] Edited by: Rastigan on 02/01/2010 22:02:38 Originally by: Jacob Stov Maybe the answer lies within the ammo. Exactly, you can add +20% or so falloff, tracking, or capacitor usage savings to different ammo types for different situations. Or even get more creative and have certain types of ammo do the same damage as anti-matter but with their respective range/cap bonus but have tracking penalties, etc... And 1/2 hybrid ammo size, as it is a 1400mm II Matar boat has almost 6 times the staying power for an extended fight than a 425mm II railgun boat.
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.01.02 22:22:00 - [123] How would adding more range to Rail guns be a good thing? There is a lock range limit of 249k and there is another weapon system that outperforms Rails at that range limit.
Eli Porter	Posted - 2010.01.02 22:42:00 - [124] Originally by: Meeko Atari How would adding more range to Rail guns be a good thing? There is a lock range limit of 249k and there is another weapon system that outperforms Rails at that range limit. I'm guessing the thought process behind it is that having more range allows you to use some ammo types which bring you on equal grounds with other Sniper BS's at the popular ranges. However, even if this change would go through, it would only make you track better as opposed to having more EFT DPS, unless T1 hybrid ammo gets some kind of a weird buff. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.02 23:06:00 - [125] Originally by: Meeko Atari How would adding more range to Rail guns be a good thing? There is a lock range limit of 249k and there is another weapon system that outperforms Rails at that range limit. That range limit is hardly what matters, now is it? Increasing the optimal range bonus would let Rokh pilots use equally damaging faction ammo at the same ranges everyone else is using T2 ammo. You'd have over twice the tracking anyone else has - and equal damage. And "better" damage types too. But IMO the real interesting thing would be what happened to blasters. Examples: Increasing the optimal bonus to 20%/level would let a rail rokh deal 400 DPS at 180km with CN Thorium, and a Blokh would have a 13km optimal with Antimatter and 30km optimal with Null. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
toadturlte	Posted - 2010.01.02 23:12:00 - [126] No one fits for 250km range anyway because it gimps your fit too much. I doubt anyone would fit for more than 250km even if they could
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.01.03 01:06:00 - [127] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Meeko Atari How would adding more range to Rail guns be a good thing? There is a lock range limit of 249k and there is another weapon system that outperforms Rails at that range limit. That range limit is hardly what matters, now is it? Increasing the optimal range bonus would let Rokh pilots use equally damaging faction ammo at the same ranges everyone else is using T2 ammo. You'd have over twice the tracking anyone else has - and equal damage. And "better" damage types too. But IMO the real interesting thing would be what happened to blasters. Examples: Increasing the optimal bonus to 20%/level would let a rail rokh deal 400 DPS at 180km with CN Thorium, and a Blokh would have a 13km optimal with Antimatter and 30km optimal with Null. -Liang Did not think of it in that scenario, seems like would also make blasters a bit like AC's as well What about a ROF increase for Rails and a tracking increase for Blasters? or would that step on too many toes?
Rahm'Thalak	Posted - 2010.01.03 01:37:00 - [128] This thread is full of cry.
Dr Cedric Caldari The Nietzian Way Vanguard.	Posted - 2010.01.03 03:42:00 - [129] Posting on a smartphone, excuse any spelling mistakes plz!!! I think ppl are on to something with the ammo thing: totally change the statistics of the ammo, perhaps something like this: all ammo does the same damage in S/M/L amounts, From antimatter up to uranium: rof bonus,cap use bonus, tracking bonus From thorium to iridium: tracking bonus, falloff bonus, cap use bonus Tugsten and iron get tracking, optimal, and falloff bonus. Javelin gets damage/rof bonus, optimal penalty Spike get rof optimal and damage bonus. This way, a blasterfit will let you dtermine your range with different ammos, and damage stays constant In the same way rail fits will be able to determine range w/ ammo and each ammo can play a specific range role This allows hybrid turrets to be a unique weapon type, while accentuating each sub type and maximizing each ships bonus structure very well Dr Cedric CEO Orbital Industry and Research -OIR-
Jacob Stov	Posted - 2010.01.03 06:53:00 - [130] Maybe a strange idea, but what about keeping alpha a constant number, but changing rof ? Means antimatter would have same damage mod as iron, but way higher rof. Base rof for hybrid guns would have to be lowered, to keep ammo/cap consumption in check. One idea one could steal from the projectile buff are tracking boni for midrange ammo. Uranium, thorium, lead for example.

MarieFrance Tessier	Posted - 2010.01.03 07:20:00 - [131] Originally by: Jacob Stov Maybe a strange idea, but what about keeping alpha a constant number, but changing rof ? Means antimatter would have same damage mod as iron, but way higher rof. Base rof for hybrid guns would have to be lowered, to keep ammo/cap consumption in check. One idea one could steal from the projectile buff are tracking boni for midrange ammo. Uranium, thorium, lead for example. I like this idea, but Antimatter would suck charges from your hold so fast it might be an issue, though that would be an interesting flavour difference for Hybrids if they just had a more dire ammo problem. Giving Hybrids a bonus that works in a different way is a cool idea and I generally like it. The thing that really hurts rails and blasters for PVE is that they don't operate at the same ranges rats do. There are not missions that demand 150km operating range except MAYBE the opening room to WC. There are not Th/Kin weak rats that get close enough for Blasters to ever be relevant. Kronos suffers because it is the only Marauder that can not fit close-range racial weaponry. The PVE scenarios we put hybrid ships in matters tremendously and we should consider it and it's consequences. Naturally, PVP is a completely different ball game, but every aspect needs to be solved in a consistent manner.
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.03 07:27:00 - [132] Originally by: MarieFrance Tessier The thing that really hurts rails and blasters for PVE is that they don't operate at the same ranges rats do. There are not missions that demand 150km operating range except MAYBE the opening room to WC. There are not Th/Kin weak rats that get close enough for Blasters to ever be relevant. Kronos suffers because it is the only Marauder that can not fit close-range racial weaponry. Serpentis Spies and Guristas Assault as well. There's more where that came from. And in reality, you don't want to have to operate at 150km. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Deb Dukar Minmatar	Posted - 2010.01.03 14:51:00 - [133] Originally by: Jacob Stov Maybe a strange idea, but what about keeping alpha a constant number, but changing rof ? Means antimatter would have same damage mod as iron, but way higher rof. Base rof for hybrid guns would have to be lowered, to keep ammo/cap consumption in check. One idea one could steal from the projectile buff are tracking boni for midrange ammo. Uranium, thorium, lead for example. seriously ... why dont u just fit a projectile weapon then? projectile and hybrid users have the same problem. ammo which is limited to our cargohold. simple way to solve this problem would the introduction of a ammo bay in every ship. they allready tried that on sisi but removed it the other day (god knows why). personlay i think hybrids are fine. just blasters could use some more falloff. ------------------------- horray for typos
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2010.01.03 15:22:00 - [134] My thoughts on the matter: -Rails (and blasters) could stand to use less cap ; 25ish% less seems about right. Reasons : Projectiles get to use no cap and can choose their dmg type. Lasers barely use ammo and can thus devote their hold to cap boosters and what not. Lasers can also efficiently change their ammo. Using a fair chunk of cap , being stuck on a damage type ( and indeed the 2 dmg types most universally tanked ) and a long reload time while still needing alot of ammo dont strike me as entirely balanced. Something has to give here and I propose cap use needs to be quite a bit lower than it is currently. -Increase the ammo optimal modifier by 5% ( AM = -45% optimal, plutonium = -32.5% optimal etc etc). Gives a bit more range to rails (which is supposed to be rails fortT) while not really effecting blasters. -Rails use too much powergrid for what you get as things stand now, maybe 4% less ?
Grut The Protei	Posted - 2010.01.03 16:10:00 - [135] Originally by: Liang Nuren There was a very astute post earlier in this thread pointing out that Gallente and Caldari really have different problems with Rails - and have different expected behaviors. It's what made me suggest possibly increasing the optimal bonus for Caldari ships. -Liang Probably the biggest problem with caldari hybrid boats is their poor PG. A ferox for example can only fit ions with a buffer tank reducing the impact of its range bonus. Give all the caldari gun boats a reasonable increase in grid and I think things would even out alot. Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know... Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought
Howen	Posted - 2010.01.03 18:05:00 - [136] Main problem are hybrid guns not ammo.Easy solution :more track(21%) and range(optimal(100%)fallof(36%) for blasters;and for rails more track(19%)and damage mod(10%) boost.I compared biggest L-sized t 2 guns.With such boost hybrids will take their role. Rails as good ranged weapon compared to lasers and projectiles.blasters will become close range death(very close) :-).
Ap0ll0n Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.01.03 19:08:00 - [137] I wouldn¦t mind if rails got a bit more damage and a reduction to cap usage. With Amarr¦s bonus to cap usage for lasers, they often cap stable with midrange ammo, which hybrid ships are not. Not even close.. Imo give rails a RoF boost.
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2010.01.04 12:24:00 - [138] As a slightly unconventional solution to the problems with Caldari railboats, how about buffing optimal-scripted tracking computers? At present,a TC with an optimal script is strictly inferior to a TE - they give the same optimal and falloff bonuses (15% and 30%, respectively), but the TC consumes >2x as much CPU, confers no tracking bonus, and requires cap to run to boot. By contrast, when scripted for tracking, a TC II gives a threefold greater boost than does a TE II, which seems like a reasonable tradeoff for its drawbacks. If an optimal-scripted TC II gave a 30% bonus to optimal, a max-skilled Rokh with 3x optimal-scripted TC IIs would get an optimal of 208 km and 369 DPS with CN Lead (or 550 dps at 150 km with CN antimatter), while a max-skilled Eagle (2 optimal-scripted TC IIs) would deliver 270 DPS at 100 km with CN Uranium. TL;DR - buff TC IIs, fix Caldari gunboats.
JeremyCricket	Posted - 2010.01.04 21:14:00 - [139] I thought the idea for different weapons systems for Caldari and Gallente sounded very interesting. However because the Caldari short range and Gallente long range weapons would end up being the same, and because it would be difficult to split a weapons system, I think a third hybrid weapon should be introduced. Rails would have more optimal but no fall-off, blaster would have more optimal and damage but less fall-off, and the new weapon system, to be called 'mass drivers' (X3 ftw!), would have slightly less damage but greater optimal than pulse lasers. My reasoning behind this is that this would give greater adaptability for caldari and gallente, a good option for gate camping and rrbs gangs, and would make the weapons more diverse, which is a good thing. Perhaps to diversify further hybrids should be much more rapid fire, but with smaller ammo size. TL;DR A third hybrid weapon,'mass drivers', similar to pulse lasors.
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.04 21:20:00 - [140] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/01/2010 21:20:29 Originally by: Ophelia Ursus Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 04/01/2010 13:41:23 As a slightly unconventional solution to the problems with Caldari railboats, how about buffing optimal-scripted tracking computers? At present,a TC with an optimal script is strictly inferior to a TE - they give the same optimal and falloff bonuses (15% and 30%, respectively), but the TC consumes >2x as much CPU, confers no tracking bonus, and requires cap to run to boot. By contrast, when scripted for tracking, a TC II gives a threefold greater boost than does a TE II, which seems like a reasonable tradeoff for its drawbacks. If an optimal-scripted TC II gave a 30% bonus to optimal, a max-skilled Rokh with 3x optimal-scripted TC IIs would get an optimal of 208 km and 369 DPS with CN Lead (or 550 dps at 100 km with CN antimatter), while a max-skilled Eagle (2 optimal-scripted TC IIs) would deliver 270 DPS at 100 km with CN Uranium. TL;DR - buff TC IIs, fix Caldari gunboats. My Maelstrom, Tempest, and Paladin all say YES PLEASE! :) -Liang Ed: Apoc and Zealot tend not to have TCs in the mids. Maybe the Apoc. Definitely not the Zealot. :-/ -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org

Bibbleibble	Posted - 2010.01.04 21:36:00 - [141] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/01/2010 21:20:29 Originally by: Ophelia Ursus Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 04/01/2010 13:41:23 As a slightly unconventional solution to the problems with Caldari railboats, how about buffing optimal-scripted tracking computers? At present,a TC with an optimal script is strictly inferior to a TE - they give the same optimal and falloff bonuses (15% and 30%, respectively), but the TC consumes >2x as much CPU, confers no tracking bonus, and requires cap to run to boot. By contrast, when scripted for tracking, a TC II gives a threefold greater boost than does a TE II, which seems like a reasonable tradeoff for its drawbacks. If an optimal-scripted TC II gave a 30% bonus to optimal, a max-skilled Rokh with 3x optimal-scripted TC IIs would get an optimal of 208 km and 369 DPS with CN Lead (or 550 dps at 100 km with CN antimatter), while a max-skilled Eagle (2 optimal-scripted TC IIs) would deliver 270 DPS at 100 km with CN Uranium. TL;DR - buff TC IIs, fix Caldari gunboats. My Maelstrom, Tempest, and Paladin all say YES PLEASE! :) -Liang Ed: Apoc and Zealot tend not to have TCs in the mids. Maybe the Apoc. Definitely not the Zealot. :-/ Change percentage optimal bonus to flat +xkm bonus. Now that would be interesting
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.04 21:40:00 - [142] Thinking about it a bit more, I think I'd use 2-3 TCs and Sig Amps in the lows for locking range (for Apoc)... so I think we'd still see the rail ships left in the dirt. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Bibbleibble	Posted - 2010.01.04 21:50:00 - [143] Originally by: Liang Nuren Thinking about it a bit more, I think I'd use 2-3 TCs and Sig Amps in the lows for locking range (for Apoc)... so I think we'd still see the rail ships left in the dirt. -Liang Now, I hate to argue with the god-king of S&M, but I don't think that would work too well, as sig amps don't give enough targetting range to get the benefit of the extra optimal.
Tagami Wasp Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.01.04 21:55:00 - [144] I disagree with a third hybrid ("mass driver"). All that needs be done is to adjust some attributes to the rails and blasters themselves. Or to their ammo. But not buff other auxiliary modules that will unbalance other weapon systems. ----------------------------------------------- This is a line of text without any meaning. -----------------------------------------------
Liang Nuren The Lollypop Factory	Posted - 2010.01.04 22:07:00 - [145] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/01/2010 22:07:32 Originally by: Bibbleibble Now, I hate to argue with the god-king of S&M, but I don't think that would work too well, as sig amps don't give enough targetting range to get the benefit of the extra optimal. Hmmmmm... yeah, you're probably right. It was strictly a thought that struck me a few minutes after my first reaction. Might still be workable by trading a rig for the lock range and stuffing some actual tank in your lows. At any rate, I think I could game that boost and maintain the Apoc's advantage over the Rokh. -Liang Ed: Also, I am hardly the "god-king of S&M". -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
Arrador	Posted - 2010.01.04 22:14:00 - [146] Hybrid guns are a bit of a two headed-monster, as they are used by gallente ships and caldari ships. Quote: If an optimal-scripted TC II gave a 30% bonus to optimal, a max-skilled Rokh with 3x optimal-scripted TC IIs would get an optimal of 208 km and 369 DPS with CN Lead (or 550 dps at 100 km with CN antimatter), while a max-skilled Eagle (2 optimal-scripted TC IIs) would deliver 270 DPS at 100 km with CN Uranium. Great... I get to massively gimp my Rokh tank just to compete with a Mega Beam Abaddon with Aurora: 465DPS/2302 Volley - 108km Optimal. Quote: I think a third hybrid weapon should be introduced. Rails would have more optimal but no fall-off, blaster would have more optimal and damage but less fall-off, and the new weapon system, to be called 'mass drivers' (X3 ftw!), would have slightly less damage but greater optimal than pulse lasers. Sure Hybrids need love. But designing a new weapon system? I didn't think we were that special. The problem with Hybrids, is that they are outclassed in every niche by the 2 other turret systems. My goal would be to help them stand out in their niche, without copying the attributes of the other 2 turret systems. IE, we do NOT want to give rails a higher base Damage/more alpha. Instead, give them a higher rate of fire. This will keep their alpha the same, but increase their DPS output. We won't be tickling people to death with spike. I would also like rails to be able to contend in medium ranges. To accomplish this, I would suggest an increase in tracking speed, and redesign javelin. Remove the Speed,tracking, and ROF penalties of Javelin, but keep the increased cap usage. Borrow from Void's notebook and decrease the range penalty, so that you can hit farther than antimatter. As for blasters. A slight boost in optimal would be very helpful. Also revisit Void. a 50% reduction in tracking on a short-range weapon that has tracking problems already? Remove the tracking nerf. As far as Hybrid platforms go, the caldari gun boats, Moa, Ferox, Rokh are in need of a PG increase. the Rokh can't even fit a rack full of 425mms without a fitting mod. The ferox with a rack full of 250mms has 69pg left. You can't even fit a rack of 200mms + MWD on a Moa. The range bonus on our ships isn't enough to keep us alive, and we have no PG left to fit a propulsion mod to keep our range, or even fit a tank! And to add insult to injury, caldari ships have to use yet another midslot so we can actually target out as far as our guns can hit. The thorax fits a rack full of 200mm + MWD. The Megathron fits a full rack of 425mm + MWD. Hyperion fits a full rack of 425mm, and needs a 3% implant when you add MWD. Only the brutix shares the caldari's anemic PG when fitting rails. TL;DR - Boost PG on caldari gunboats, increase hybrids ROF, remove t2 ammo nerf on void + javelin.
Battlingbean Heaven's Gate	Posted - 2010.01.05 02:05:00 - [147] A new third hybrid weapon is an interesting idea and yes we are that special. Let this new weapon handle med ranges. Railguns are supposed to be THE sniper weapon right? So make them Completely that, give them huge alpha, huge cap usage per shot, and make each gun only hold 1 charge. Tracking should be fine for long range already.
Tagami Wasp Caldari Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.01.05 09:11:00 - [148] Edited by: Tagami Wasp on 05/01/2010 09:16:11 No more weapon systems, fix the ones we have first, asking for another weapon type is totally unfounded. The proposals about removing short range T2 disadvantages (both void and javellin) are very good. There will be a reason for using them instead of CN AM (and hail and conflagration need to be fixed too). Buffing Caldari hybrid boats is something that comes up again and again, not sure why CCP is so afraid to give us 10% more PG across the board (this would fix the NH as well, btw since it is based on Ferox hull). I also think that rails need better ROF in order to get a better dps, they are too anemic now. I am not sure about tracking, they are sniper weapons anyway, they are designed to hit at a distance. Blasters: looking at them from the Caldari viepoint, if the Rifter w/out range bonus can reach 12Km (opt + fallof) with 150mm ACs + Barrage, then the Merlin (which receives a range bonus) should be able to reach out there with Ions + Null. The fact that it doesn't, gives you a measure of what needs be done. (hint: scram range is 9 Km but Web is 10 Km, Rifter can kite ya easily and you'll do piddly dps if you hit him at all). Now use disruptor range to compare Ruppie w/ 220mms+ Barrage and Moa w/ Ions + Null. Same situation. Same solution? I think increasing the blasters range a bit (so that optimal + fallof reach at the edge of T2 disruptor range in bonused ships) is the best way to go. Gallente will be able to capitalize on this as well, since they cn fight at blaster optimal instead of fallof with scrams, and so solve some tracking issues (better hit quality = better dps). Edit: Not to leave the BSes out in the cold, remind me which blasterboat can hit through a Large POS shiled with Neutrons and Null w/out range modules fitted? ----------------------------------------------- This is a line of text without any meaning. -----------------------------------------------
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.01.05 09:50:00 - [149] Just redesign the whole hybrid weapon system with their ships :P
Ap0ll0n Gallente Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.01.05 10:23:00 - [150] Originally by: Arrador As far as Hybrid platforms go, the caldari gun boats, Moa, Ferox, Rokh are in need of a PG increase. the Rokh can't even fit a rack full of 425mms without a fitting mod. The ferox with a rack full of 250mms has 69pg left. You can't even fit a rack of 200mms + MWD on a Moa. The range bonus on our ships isn't enough to keep us alive, and we . Have you tried fitting 8 T2 Tachyons to a Apoc? MWD + 8 guns = 1 T2 and 1 T1 reactor control. Rokh does not need a PG increase.



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.