| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
FU22
Duty.
   |
Posted - 2010.04.17 16:28:00 -
[31]
Make training for t2 guns better, supported.
 Originally by: Millie Clode
Dear santa, for christmas I would like an endless supply of noobs to march across my screen so I can pretend I'm playing duck hunt
|
Lykouleon
Trust Doesn't Rust
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.17 20:16:00 -
[32]
Quote:
CCP Mindstar > Sorry - I've completely messed all that up. lets try again
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 09:28:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Goumindong
And whether or not you even have a rational to boost tech 2 ammo above faction ammo(based on some intrinsic argument about its superiority) is spurious at best
Do you even play EVE-Online anymore? If you did, you would know that there are lots of named items that are better than T2 and T2 items that are better than faction, etc, etc. We can either re-balance every mod/ammo/ship in the game or just re-balance the ones that have issues.
T2 short range ammo has an issue: it is worthless. T2 long range ammo is situationally useful and used often which makes the game better by creating more strategies and options for fighting.
I would rather have a more interesting game instead of one where everyone loads faction ammo herf derf, boring. T2 guns should also be something that people are excited to train for because of the new possibilities it offers, not just because it gets a flat +dps modifier, that is boring.
Supporting this topic
Originally by: Jim Raynor
EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose. |
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 17:44:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
I would rather have a more interesting game instead of one where everyone loads faction ammo herf derf, boring
What you will get is one where everyone loads tech 2 close range ammo. If tech 2 close range ammo is not boosted to the point where it makes sense to load it in the majority of settings then people will not use it in the majority of settings and only lasers will really get it as a benefit(not entirely true, but close enough).
So we have roughly two possibilities.
1. We change the game to where everyone uses tech 2 close range ammo
2. We boost lasers and everyone else still uses faction close range ammo
Why are these situations better than the current where everyone uses faction close range ammo? What is the difference between "everyone uses faction" and "everyone uses t2" in your "when everyone uses the same thing its boring" scenario?
|
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 18:01:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 18/04/2010 18:02:40
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 18/04/2010 18:02:02
Originally by: Goumindong
2. We boost lasers and everyone else still uses faction close range ammo except people who like using the optimal ammo for the situation at hand
You know, before they boosted Minmatar faction ammos, some of us used things like Hail to great effect (because it was very powerful up close IF you could be fairly certain you can get up close and keep your target there), while it was far from the "default" ammo to use (it sucked in the majority of situations).
In fact the forum warriors insisted it was useless because it was situational.
Sure, lasers are the problem because of 0 reload time, so you're not penalized for loading the wrong ammo at the start of a fight.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Arrador
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 20:38:00 -
[36]
Originally by: FU22
Make training for t2 guns better, supported.
supporting.
|
Taudia
Sane Industries Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 21:17:00 -
[37]
RANGE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY >:[
|
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2010.04.18 22:43:00 -
[38]
i agree that t2 ammo should be better than faction
but there should be also changes in production requirements
so that at best the prices between faction and t2 ammo switch so faction ammo gets a cheap alternative to t2 and faction doesn't get useless and i think for that to happen there has to be a increase in drop amount of npc's and maybe less lp isk cost in lp stores
thank you for overlooking my bad english and missing of any kind of punctuation ;-O
*Crazy* |
Amarr12345
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 12:26:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Suitonia
T2 Close Range ammo does exactly 1.4492753623188355x more damage than faction ammo. Yes, less than a 1.5% increase.
Did u mean 1.4492753623188355% (percent)?
Anyway, I support ur idea. T2 close range should have even better tracking than faction ammo.
|
Pheusia
Gallente
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.19 12:36:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Vaal Erit
I would rather have a more interesting game instead of one where everyone loads faction ammo herf derf, boring
What you will get is one where everyone loads tech 2 close range ammo. If tech 2 close range ammo is not boosted to the point where it makes sense to load it in the majority of settings then people will not use it in the majority of settings and only lasers will really get it as a benefit(not entirely true, but close enough).
So you cant conceive of some kind of compromise solution whereby T2 ammo keeps some of the very significant penalties (that faction ammo has none of, btw) but does a merely useful increment more damage (or different damage types or changes the effective sig res of the turret or whatever). That would make it situationally useful, no?
So one could use faction ammo that simply does a straight up extra DPS, or one could use T2 ammo, that has advantages and disadvantages, like it's supposed to.
I think you're being way too narrow minded and dismissive.
Signed,
Pheusia |
|
|
I SoStoned
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 12:35:00 -
[41]
Considering the rather overdone nerfs, T2 short range ammo should far surpass faction. Or have the nerfs removed and leave it as it is... slightly less worthy than faction but at least usable.
Long range, for the most part, achieves a workable parity so should merely have the nerfs removed with no modification of damage.
---
[i]It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set |
domitesting
|
Posted - 2010.04.20 12:43:00 -
[42]
I really dont understand why there is a penalty anyway! I mean you trained for T2 weapons, you also trained for T2 ammo, your penalty is the time it takes to train them, there shouldnt be a penalty for using T2 ammo with the T2 Weapon!
Simple! only penalty should be stacking penalties and difference one being long range one being short range..
|
Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 08:41:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Amarr12345
Did u mean 1.4492753623188355% (percent)?
Yeah.
---
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 16:48:00 -
[44]
PLease MAKE IT USEFULL!
|
Gigiarc
The Wyld Hunt
Sodalitas XX
|
Posted - 2010.04.21 17:42:00 -
[45]
|
Angel Scott
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 19:01:00 -
[46]
/supported
|
Rawr Cristina
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 19:28:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 24/04/2010 19:28:20
needs to be brought in line with T2 Damage Missiles (Rage, Fury both do considerably more damage than their faction counterparts)
whilst we're at it, un-nerf Javelin and Precision missiles
- Malyutka (The Virus) - |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 20:03:00 -
[48]
It needs a change, but I don't think this is the right one. For raw DPS, we already have faction. Give the T2 ammo other bonuses - tracking seems the most natural. If Void was Antimatter with 2x tracking and halved cap use, I think it'd see some play.
Still, I'll support. Lord knows the status quo isn't right.
|
King Rothgar
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 20:31:00 -
[49]
Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig. |
greymouse
Black Eclipse Corp
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 21:12:00 -
[50]
/supported
Cry Havoc!! Release the Mice of Menace!!! |
|
|
Lumy
eXceed Inc.
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.04.24 22:31:00 -
[51]
T2 close range range desperately needs a change. But this shouldn't be just simple DPS or tracking boost. You already have an high DPS option in form of faction ammo. High tracking is bad idea, because it would give large ships an edge over smaller ships, possibly eliminating need of support fleets. IMHO, we should give go opposite direction. Close range T2 ammo should give small ships a way to quickly deal with larger ships, but should be inferior when dealing with smaller or equal sized target.
1. Get rid of all penalties not associated with guns themselves. (signature radius, cap recharge, speed...)
2. Balance optimal and tracking penalties.
3. Increase raw damage of ammo. (1.5x of T1 ammo?)
4. Introduce penalty to signature resolution of gun.
So new T2 close range could look like this:
Raw damage: 18 (small)
Gun signature radius penalty: 2.5x - 3x
Penalties:
Conflagration: 0.5x Tracking, 0.5x Optimal
Void: 0.5x Tracking, 0.75x Optimal, 0.75x Falloff
Hail: 0.5x Tracking, 0.5x Falloff
Gleam: 0.75x Tracking, 0.25x Optimal
Javelin: 0.75x Tracking, 0.25x Optimal
Quake: 0.75x Tracking, 0.5x Optimal, 0.5x Falloff
This way, in frig vs. frig or battleship vs. battleship fight it seems to be fairly useless. But in frig vs. BC or battleship vs. capital could be quite useful.
Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 00:22:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Lumy
T2 close range range desperately needs a change. But this shouldn't be just simple DPS or tracking boost. You already have an high DPS option in form of faction ammo. High tracking is bad idea, because it would give large ships an edge over smaller ships, possibly eliminating need of support fleets. IMHO, we should give go opposite direction. Close range T2 ammo should give small ships a way to quickly deal with larger ships, but should be inferior when dealing with smaller or equal sized target.
1. Get rid of all penalties not associated with guns themselves. (signature radius, cap recharge, speed...)
2. Balance optimal and tracking penalties.
3. Increase raw damage of ammo. (1.5x of T1 ammo?)
4. Introduce penalty to signature resolution of gun.
So new T2 close range could look like this:
Raw damage: 18 (small)
Gun signature radius penalty: 2.5x - 3x
Penalties:
Conflagration: 0.5x Tracking, 0.5x Optimal
Void: 0.5x Tracking, 0.75x Optimal, 0.75x Falloff
Hail: 0.5x Tracking, 0.5x Falloff
Gleam: 0.75x Tracking, 0.25x Optimal
Javelin: 0.75x Tracking, 0.25x Optimal
Quake: 0.75x Tracking, 0.5x Optimal, 0.5x Falloff
This way, in frig vs. frig or battleship vs. battleship fight it seems to be fairly useless. But in frig vs. BC or battleship vs. capital could be quite useful.
You are aware that doubling the sig res of a gun is exactly the same as halving its tracking, right? You're proposing a 50% DPS increase in place of the current 17%, and having the only additional penalty be a bit of tracking. That's just silly.
|
Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 14:36:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Lumy
T2 close range range desperately needs a change. But this shouldn't be just simple DPS or tracking boost. You already have an high DPS option in form of faction ammo. High tracking is bad idea, because it would give large ships an edge over smaller ships, possibly eliminating need of support fleets. IMHO, we should give go opposite direction. Close range T2 ammo should give small ships a way to quickly deal with larger ships, but should be inferior when dealing with smaller or equal sized target.
1. Get rid of all penalties not associated with guns themselves. (signature radius, cap recharge, speed...)
2. Balance optimal and tracking penalties.
3. Increase raw damage of ammo. (1.5x of T1 ammo?)
4. Introduce penalty to signature resolution of gun.
So new T2 close range could look like this:
Raw damage: 18 (small)
Gun signature radius penalty: 2.5x - 3x
Penalties:
Conflagration: 0.5x Tracking, 0.5x Optimal
Void: 0.5x Tracking, 0.75x Optimal, 0.75x Falloff
Hail: 0.5x Tracking, 0.5x Falloff
Gleam: 0.75x Tracking, 0.25x Optimal
Javelin: 0.75x Tracking, 0.25x Optimal
Quake: 0.75x Tracking, 0.5x Optimal, 0.5x Falloff
This way, in frig vs. frig or battleship vs. battleship fight it seems to be fairly useless. But in frig vs. BC or battleship vs. capital could be quite useful.
As much as I love more gank in the game, this would overpower battlecruisers to the point where they outdamage gank BS.
---
|
Lady Spank
Trillionaire High-Rollers Suicidal Bassoon Orkesta
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 18:38:00 -
[54]
Supported.
Short-short: I see this as useful versus hulls a size up from your own.
Long-short: The bonuses need to be in line with WHY you would want to fit short range ammo in long range weapons. Namely your sniper fleet got compromised, or something smaller / faster than you has got under your usual range.
~_~
|
Dariah Stardweller
Gung-Ho
|
Posted - 2010.04.25 19:22:00 -
[55]
Supported, it is teh suck.
|
foksieloy
Universal Army
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 07:17:00 -
[56]
T2 gun damage ammo is never ever used. Ever.
Thats a good clue it needs fixing.
Supported.
_______________________
We come for our people! |
Pheusia
Gallente
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.04.26 08:14:00 -
[57]
T2 high-damage missiles are useful and effective, without obseleting faction ammo.
Just saying
Signed,
Pheusia |
Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.05.01 13:21:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Pheusia
T2 high-damage missiles are useful and effective, without obseleting faction ammo.
Just saying
this.
---
|
sir gankalot
|
Posted - 2010.05.01 13:58:00 -
[59]
|
Maylin Li
interimo
|
Posted - 2010.05.05 14:53:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Pheusia
T2 high-damage missiles are useful and effective, without obseleting faction ammo.
Just saying
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |