| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
masternerdguy
Gallente
Caldari Naval Reserve
   |
Posted - 2010.04.05 22:26:00 -
[1]
Edited by: masternerdguy on 05/04/2010 22:35:09
Edited by: masternerdguy on 05/04/2010 22:33:31
Ok, T2 is simply an improved version of T1, however T3 ammo would offer some possibilities. We could build our own warheads from a set of 3 slots on a blank state t3 missile. Here are some possible modules for a T3 rocket.
Slot 1 -- Determines dmg type
*Warhead Ionization Matrix - Gives it 12 EM damage
*Warhead Kinetic Matrix - Gives it 12 Kinetic damage
*Warhead Plasma Core - Gives it 12 Thermal Damage
*Warhead Detonation Amplifier - Gives it 12 Explosive damage
Note: +30% damage per tactical offensive missile skill level.
Slot 2 -- Defensive Subsystems
*Electronic Guidance Scrambler - Prevents defender missiles from getting a lock and adds +36 damage
*Phased Harmonic Amplifier - Increases chance of warhead damage penetrating shields to 5% per level (from 0%)
*Optical Targeting Link - Makes the missile able to target paint its target and +15 dmt
*Stasis Flux Coil - On impact, stasis webs target (5% velocity change per level) for 10 seconds.
Slot 3 -- Propulsion
*Transwarp Coupling - Allows missile to follow a target in warp and subtracts 10% damage
*Metaphasic Coil - Allows missile to engage a MWD and multiply its velocity by 500%. (At a 40% dmg reduction)
*Smart Fuel Cell - Allows missile to intelligently home on its target by intercepting it from the front rather than rear.
Fitting missiles and other ammo would simply be dragging the modules into a stack of t3 blank states. You could repackage missiles to undo their fittings.
They would cost about 3x the cost of the typical high end faction ammo for their respective weapon.
|
happygoat
|
Posted - 2010.04.05 22:34:00 -
[2]
not half bad
may I suggest making the TP ammount something like 2%
|
RootEmerger
|
Posted - 2010.04.05 22:57:00 -
[3]
25% to totally ignore all the defences of all shield-tanked ships?
:-\
|
happygoat
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 00:40:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: RootEmerger
25% to totally ignore all the defences of all shield-tanked ships?
:-\
no he said 25% chance of it penetrating shields at 5.
|
KuroiOokami
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 01:08:00 -
[5]
Edited by: KuroiOokami on 06/04/2010 01:10:30
Originally by: happygoat
Originally by: RootEmerger
25% to totally ignore all the defences of all shield-tanked ships?
:-\
no he said 25% chance of it penetrating shields at 5.
I Think that's the point he was getting at, when the skill is at level 5. Speaking of a skill that affects damage getting through shields, how would tactical shield manipulation at level 5 affect T3 ammo, seeing as the skill itself at level 5 offers no chance of damage leaking onto the armor if the shields are below 25%. As how it is described now it would essentially make that skill useless when someone is using T3 ammo.
Not that is a bad thing mind you as T3 ammo would cost a stupid amount (hopefully) of is to by in enough quantity to engage in PvP with.
Still T3 ammo probably is awhile out yet, especially as T3 ships are still relatively a new addition to EVE.
EDIT: adding an afterthought.
|
lookatzebirdie
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 04:34:00 -
[6]
Would much prefer a fix to T2 ammo first TBH
|
Sith LordX
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 08:58:00 -
[7]
This would be awesome for T3 ships and T3 guns.
|
Valentina Valentia
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 09:51:00 -
[8]
Section 1 is invalidated with the simply fact that one can choose the dmg type of the missle/change ammo already. +30% is overpowered, skills generally are 5% or less... per level is well, insanely out of proportion.
Section 2 is over powered.
defenders are worthless enough as is, this would invalidate an already pointlessly worthless item.
shield penetration would be so out of proportion with the rest of the weapons in the game, which already have issues as it is... this would be game breaking.
Target Painting Missles? - NO... there is a module for it, it's a mid-slot module for a reason.
Stasis - NO, same as above, a barrage of endless stasis for no cap, is game breaking - people would simply outfit a ship for tackle, that was tanked beyond belief and use 8 racks on a BS to nail a ship in place... webbing/jamming is fine as is... a missle isn't a tackle device. Why do you think there are no Player stasis drones in the game!
Section 3
See fighters - they are missles that follow you into warp, that is bad enough, and the cost/time/expense is balanced... what you propose is a cheap, T1 rookie ship that does what a Carrier/Mothership does, NO.
MWD? No... this is just too crazy to even consider...thinking deeply why, you will figure it out.
Angle of attack? this is silly.
I see no real advantage to any of this - it's not a flame, it's got imagination in the concept, but it fails to account for anthing that can't be done again or in a already efficient balanced way.
T3 Ammo might be better served to do something like this:
T3 Missles
Omni damage missle, does 1/4th of each type of damage regular missles to, slighly faster OR longer ranged, not both over regular, or something like that...
Personally atm I see no real NEED for T3 ammo or weapons or even T3 modules, there are more then enough already in T1/T2
T3 as I understand it IS subsystems and ship hulls, not a full on line of tech.
I really think that CCP should spend it's time and efforts on other things than another line of redundant items, when the existing ones cover all current needs. |
R Mika
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 10:55:00 -
[9]
Yah, how bout they make T2 ammo useful first...
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 11:48:00 -
[10]
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 06/04/2010 11:48:49
Originally by: happygoat
Originally by: RootEmerger
25% to totally ignore all the defences of all shield-tanked ships?
:-\
no he said 25% chance of it penetrating shields at 5.
It discriminates against shield users too much. Armor ships can easily laugh this off while shield users get stiffed. Now, if this subsystem caused bleeding from shield to armor and from armor to structure, depending on where the first layer stands at then it would be a little bit more fair. Example, if a ship still has enough shields then the bleeding goes from shield to armor. But if the ship is in armor, then the bleeding goes from armor to structure.
Or, you could design a subsystem ammo that aggressivelyand discriminitely attacks armor and keep the idea from the OP. Otherwise, it'd be too imbalanced against shield users.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
|
|
masternerdguy
Gallente
Caldari Naval Reserve
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 21:11:00 -
[11]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 06/04/2010 11:48:49
Originally by: happygoat
Originally by: RootEmerger
25% to totally ignore all the defences of all shield-tanked ships?
:-\
no he said 25% chance of it penetrating shields at 5.
It discriminates against shield users too much. Armor ships can easily laugh this off while shield users get stiffed. Now, if this subsystem caused bleeding from shield to armor and from armor to structure, depending on where the first layer stands at then it would be a little bit more fair. Example, if a ship still has enough shields then the bleeding goes from shield to armor. But if the ship is in armor, then the bleeding goes from armor to structure.
Or, you could design a subsystem ammo that aggressivelyand discriminitely attacks armor and keep the idea from the OP. Otherwise, it'd be too imbalanced against shield users.
not a bad idea
|
eliminator2
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 21:20:00 -
[12]
sounds good now turn them into projectile blaster and laser ammo :p
-----------------------------------------------
I met Eliminator1..... I chewed it up, and spat it out. Now, he is my minion.
I kill miners and mission runners people say, I call them target pra |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |