EVE Search - [Proposal] T2 Close Range Turret Ammo sucks.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] T2 Close Range Turret Ammo sucks.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Suitonia Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.04.13 09:53:00 - [1] It is no secret that the t2 Close range ammo, for both long range, and short range turrets, is not even worth the cargo space it takes in your cargohold to carry. Why does T2 Close Range ammo suck? (Void, Javelin, Conflag, Gleam, Hail, Quake). The first reason is that faction ammo is readily avaliable, and is always in great supply on the market. T2 Close Range ammo does exactly 1.4492753623188355x more damage than faction ammo. Yes, less than a 1.5% increase. For this increase, you gain the following penalty's. Void ~ 50% Less Tracking, 25% increased cap cost, -50% Falloff. (It should be noted that Void gives a 47% Optimal range bonus over regular Antimatter, however, Blaster Optimal has terrible range as it is, and this increased range actually results in less effective range when you take into account the falloff penalty). Javelin ~ 75% Optimal penalty, 25% Tracking Penalty, 10% Speed Penalty, 25% increased cap cost. Conflag ~ 50% less tracking, 50% less optimal, 25% increased cap cost. Gleam ~ 75% Optimal Penalty, 25% Tracking Penalty, -10% Shield, +12% Signature radius Hail ~ 50% Optimal Penalty, 50% Falloff Penalty, -50% Tracking Penalty 5% increased cap recharge Quake ~ 75% Optimal Penalty, 25% Tracking Penalty, +12% Cap Recharge Penalty, -10% speed. All of the ammo types have 4 things in common, reduced range, a cap penalty, a tracking penalty, and in the case of t2 long range weapon, close ammo, a penalty which significantly compromises your ability to evade damage, and in gleams case, direct loss of EHP. The Long Range t2 Close Range penalty's are incredibly harsh because they stack with each other, for example, an apocalypse loading Gleam would more than half it's shields, and more than double its signature radius. It should be stressed and repeated that for all these incredibly harsh penalty's, that you are gaining less than 1.5% DPS. Another problem with t2 Close range ammo is the nature of the penalty's, Optimal and Falloff reductions make sense, however tracking penalty's, especially 50% tracking, on ammo thats meant to shoot at extreme close range, where traversal, and tracking is going to incredibly important, is stupid, the Signiture radius and speed penaltys also are stupid, and makes these ammo types, where they would make sense, going against a bigger ship, or bigger guns at close range and going under their guns, impossible. T2 Long Range Weapon, Close Range ammo users already place a risk on themselves entering the domain of close range weapons. My Proposal. ~ Scrap the tracking penalty's, and the signature radius/speed penalty's. ~ Rework the cap penalty on Projectile ammo, I think it should add a flat cap cost amount to fire the gun (maybe similar to blasters normal cap cost), instead of stacking cap recharge penalty's. ~ Increase the damage on the ammo so it is more like 5% more dps than faction ammo. ~ Get rid of the shield penalty on Gleam. This leaves us with ammo which gives a range and cap use penalty, which for 5% more damage I think is pretty fair. It leaves the ammo with the similar design, penalty's for a small improvement in damage, only that the the penalty's aren't completely ridiculous and the increase isn't either. Discuss & Support etc. ---
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.04.13 10:07:00 - [2] maybe kick the sigradius penalties on t2 short range missiles at the same go. rage/fury missiles also have less range and less explosion velocity (our tracking) compared to the plain t1 counterparts. A standard ham drake with rage missiles has a bigger sigradius than a golem. o_O
Rastino	Posted - 2010.04.13 11:55:00 - [3] Supported As it stands now most close range T2 ammo is more or less useless. I personally would never use it. If I need close range ammo I use fraction ammo. The OP explained why. All T2 close range ammo needs a overhaul both turret and missile ammo.
M Blanc	Posted - 2010.04.13 12:20:00 - [4] .
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.13 12:33:00 - [5] Unfortunately, in your analysis, you forgot to ask and answer a very reasonable question. Is it OK that Tech 2 Short Range ammo is bad? And the answer is: Yes; it is very OK that tech 2 short range ammo is bad. In fact, if it were not for the fact that autocannons and lasers would be terrible without tech 2 long range ammo(auto-cannons less so now) it would be very OK if tech 2 long range ammo sucked too. the reason for this is basically a dichotomy between people who can fit tech 2 guns and people who cannot. When tech 2 guns were created, they were very much "special" and rare. Not quite what faction is today, but similar enough that a full tech 2 fit on your ship was a significant expense and put you far above the largely "high meta named" ships you would expect to see. Since Tech 2 items have gotten less scarce in the time between then and now, the advantages of "being old" are, rather than having the option to find scarce items that boosted performance significantly is now not only the raw boost of in strength of fitting these options, but also cost reductions in fitting as "good fits" can go to the tech 2 items rather than more expensive named items. This has seriously messed up the marginal returns on skill training and is one of the primary reasons that new players are hampered in EVE. So, not only is it OK that tech 2 short range ammo is bad, its good that tech 2 short range ammo is bad.
The Djego Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.04.13 12:42:00 - [6] Edited by: The Djego on 13/04/2010 12:42:25 Originally by: Goumindong So, not only is it OK that tech 2 short range ammo is bad, its good that tech 2 short range ammo is bad. While the idea that also T1 guns can use T2 ammo has some merits, in regards to give people without the T2 weapons skills less of a handy cap it is not a serious justification that some ammo types should be next to useless compared to other alternatives. I actually would like something like a tracking bonus over the dps advantage or a more reasonable dps with the tracking disadvantages still present, so it doesn't make faction ammo obsolete. Edit, forget to support. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.13 12:58:00 - [7] That would be the case if it were not actively a detriment to newer players. And, especially given the problems that people proclaim with "taking 10 seconds to change ammo" i doubt that any option strong enough to sate people who want the ammo to be viable will also be weak enough such that it provides no significant advantage to people with tech 2 guns rather than people who do not have them. If you can find one, then good on ya. But until that time, or until tech 2 item requirements are modified, this idea remains something that should not be enacted or supported.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.13 13:26:00 - [8] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/04/2010 13:27:37 Originally by: Goumindong That would be the case if it were not actively a detriment to newer players. And, especially given the problems that people proclaim with "taking 10 seconds to change ammo" i doubt that any option strong enough to sate people who want the ammo to be viable will also be weak enough such that it provides no significant advantage to people with tech 2 guns rather than people who do not have them. If you can find one, then good on ya. But until that time, or until tech 2 item requirements are modified, this idea remains something that should not be enacted or supported. Not flying with T2 guns is a huge detriment already (by much more expensive fit if you use top named, by losing the final 5% from the appropriate turret V and spec IV, without even going into T2 long range ammo) - the DPS difference between someone with turret 4 and turret 5 + spec 4 is 12.5% already. On the other hand, it's not too hard to get into small T2 guns (back when people started with 800K SP, it took you a few days at most; now it takes maybe ten days or so), and ships larger then that for PVP purposes you should skill for T2 guns before starting to seriously fly them anyway (doing otherwise, even now, just leaves you with a overly expensive ship with subpar performance or a normally priced ship with really really subpar performance). I would not really mind T2 gun requirements being modified, but this should not be a reason to avoid making T2 ammo non-worthless. On the other hand, if T2 ammo becomes a no-brainer to use, that is problematic as well. So I would really go for T2 short range having optimal and falloff penalties but removing the rest like tracking and giving it 7-10% DPS over faction. With 10s reloads (well, lasers are obviously the problem), it makes it situational whether you use the much longer ranged faction or shorter range but higher DPS T2, something which can be exploited by someone with faction ammo loaded. Boosting gank is always got my vote, anyway. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.04.13 13:40:00 - [9] Edited by: Gypsio III on 13/04/2010 13:43:09 Rage/Fury missiles are well-balanced and are exactly what the high-damage T2 turret ammos should be. That is, designed to be used against ships bigger than you - Rage/Fury ammo has explosion radius/velocity penalties, but does ~11% more raw damage than faction. Applying this to turrets means keeping the tracking penalties but boosting damage. Result - ammo that isn't essential in the same way that Barrage/Scorch is (which, as noted, hurts new players), but provides a respectable DPS increase - but only in the right situations.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.04.13 13:49:00 - [10] Originally by: Gypsio III Edited by: Gypsio III on 13/04/2010 13:43:09 Rage/Fury missiles are well-balanced and are exactly what the high-damage T2 turret ammos should be. That is, designed to be used against ships bigger than you - Rage/Fury ammo has explosion radius/velocity penalties, but does ~11% more raw damage than faction. Applying this to turrets means keeping the tracking penalties but boosting damage. Result - ammo that isn't essential in the same way that Barrage/Scorch is (which, as noted, hurts new players), but provides a respectable DPS increase - but only in the right situations. the sigradius penalty is still stupid, no?

prodalt	Posted - 2010.04.13 14:06:00 - [11] Originally by: Cpt Branko I would not really mind T2 gun requirements being modified, but this should not be a reason to avoid making T2 ammo non-worthless. It is if it contributes to the problem. Quote: Not flying with T2 guns is a huge detriment already (by much more expensive fit if you use top named, by losing the final 5% from the appropriate turret V and spec IV, without even going into T2 long range ammo) - the DPS difference between someone with turret 4 and turret 5 + spec 4 is 12.5% already. Precisely, It is a huge detriment already. No only in ease of acquiring, and strength, but also cost. So I am not sure why there should be any more detriment to these pilots. If you're arguing for a boost to tech 2 ammo you are necessarily arguing that this advantage ought to be larger than it currently is(and its currently massive, especially with tech 2 long range ammo. E.G. For lasers you go from 5 damage to 11 damage ammo in addition to the 12.5% boost from skills for a 147% increase in DPS Quote: So I would really go for T2 short range having optimal and falloff penalties but removing the rest like tracking and giving it 7-10% DPS over faction. With 10s reloads (well, lasers are obviously the problem), it makes it situational whether you use the much longer ranged faction or shorter range but higher DPS T2, something which can be exploited by someone with faction ammo loaded. Except that since if a player is primarily worried about range they run with Tech 2 long range ammo this has the same effect as making faction ammo worthless.(especially on lasers and autocannons where the falloff bonus on barrage makes it strong to very short distances and the lack of falloff on pulse lasers makes no one care about losing that marginal amount of range)
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.13 14:09:00 - [12] Stupid forum; the above is me.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.04.13 14:16:00 - [13] Originally by: darius mclever the sigradius penalty is still stupid, no? Well, I don't know, really. In the case of using T2 ammo against a bigger ship, it means that bigger ships finds it easier to hit you. Is it reasonable that this ammo increases the damage that you receive also? Or should you get the benefits of increased damage agaisnt a large ship, but with no meaningful drawbacks (assume that your decreased tracking is not a problem)? I think it's the sort of penalty that leads to some sort of tactical analysis of the situation. Rather than just "hurr big ship, load T2 hi-damage, shoot", a situation in which some level of thought is required to know which ammo to use is good for the game, as it favours player skill. I think the whole point of T2 ammo is that it should be situational, and I think that the sig penalty is reasonable as part of that. Anyway, Rage/Fury work okay even with the sig penalties, I think, so shouldn't it be okay with turrets also?
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.04.13 14:24:00 - [14] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: darius mclever the sigradius penalty is still stupid, no? Well, I don't know, really. In the case of using T2 ammo against a bigger ship, it means that bigger ships finds it easier to hit you. Is it reasonable that this ammo increases the damage that you receive also? Or should you get the benefits of increased damage agaisnt a large ship, but with no meaningful drawbacks (assume that your decreased tracking is not a problem)? I think it's the sort of penalty that leads to some sort of tactical analysis of the situation. Rather than just "hurr big ship, load T2 hi-damage, shoot", a situation in which some level of thought is required to know which ammo to use is good for the game, as it favours player skill. I think the whole point of T2 ammo is that it should be situational, and I think that the sig penalty is reasonable as part of that. Anyway, Rage/Fury work okay even with the sig penalties, I think, so shouldn't it be okay with turrets also? imho making a drake so big (sig radius wise) that even torps hit full dmg is just stupid. (iirc it was 540-550m sigradius with all rage hams) you dont need to target paint it anymore. part of the problem is that it has 7 launchers where each rage missile increases it further.
August Hayek Majesta Empire	Posted - 2010.04.13 14:32:00 - [15] Signed. Short range T2 ammo as it's now, is useless.
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2010.04.13 16:02:00 - [16] Originally by: darius mclever imho making a drake so big (sig radius wise) that even torps hit full dmg is just stupid. (iirc it was 540-550m sigradius with all rage hams) you dont need to target paint it anymore. part of the problem is that it has 7 launchers where each rage missile increases it further. Yeah, it's a bit much on any ship with lots of weapons, isn't it? Maybe making it a flat penalty ignoring the number of guns loaded with the ammo would be sensible? Or applying a stacking penalty to the penalties?
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.04.13 16:07:00 - [17] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: darius mclever imho making a drake so big (sig radius wise) that even torps hit full dmg is just stupid. (iirc it was 540-550m sigradius with all rage hams) you dont need to target paint it anymore. part of the problem is that it has 7 launchers where each rage missile increases it further. Yeah, it's a bit much on any ship with lots of weapons, isn't it? Maybe making it a flat penalty ignoring the number of guns loaded with the ammo would be sensible? Or applying a stacking penalty to the penalties? stacking penalize the penalty would be a start yes.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.04.13 17:17:00 - [18] Edited by: Malcanis on 13/04/2010 17:18:42 Originally by: Goumindong Unfortunately, in your analysis, you forgot to ask and answer a very reasonable question. Is it OK that Tech 2 Short Range ammo is bad? And the answer is: Yes; it is very OK that tech 2 short range ammo is bad. In fact, if it were not for the fact that autocannons and lasers would be terrible without tech 2 long range ammo(auto-cannons less so now) it would be very OK if tech 2 long range ammo sucked too. the reason for this is basically a dichotomy between people who can fit tech 2 guns and people who cannot. When tech 2 guns were created, they were very much "special" and rare. Not quite what faction is today, but similar enough that a full tech 2 fit on your ship was a significant expense and put you far above the largely "high meta named" ships you would expect to see. Since Tech 2 items have gotten less scarce in the time between then and now, the advantages of "being old" are, rather than having the option to find scarce items that boosted performance significantly is now not only the raw boost of in strength of fitting these options, but also cost reductions in fitting as "good fits" can go to the tech 2 items rather than more expensive named items. This has seriously messed up the marginal returns on skill training and is one of the primary reasons that new players are hampered in EVE. So, not only is it OK that tech 2 short range ammo is bad, its good that tech 2 short range ammo is bad. So wait, is this supposed to be an argument defending the fact that SR T2 ammo is hugely *worse* than faction ammo? Leaving aside the rather questionable assertion that T2 shouldn't represent a qualitative step up from T1, T2 ammo doesn't have to be significantly better than faction ammo. But it should be as good. It should be able to do something better, even if it's worse at other things (and no, +1.5% DPS does not count) T2 Long Range ammo is qualitatively better, after all.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.13 18:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Malcanis Leaving aside the rather questionable assertion that T2 shouldn't represent a qualitative step up from T1, T2 ammo doesn't have to be significantly better than faction ammo. But it should be as good. It should be able to do something better, even if it's worse at other things (and no, +1.5% DPS does not count) T2 Long Range ammo is qualitatively better, after all. T2 is a qualitative step up from tech 1. We are discussing navy faction ammo compared to tech 2 ammo. Navy Faction ammo isn't even the low faction ammo, but rather the middle tier faction. Why should tech 2 be better than or equal to faction equipment? Now there may be an argument, so lets assume that its true for a moment. Is is possible to make tech 2 ammo as good as faction ammo without making tech 2 guns even better? A: No. It is not If faction ammo is better in some situations and tech 2 in others, then tech 2 ammo will be used in those situations and the aggregate of the two will be a total increase in the strength of tech 2 guns, even if the two ammos, in comparison to each other, are relatively "balanced". (we can assume that you don't freeze up and load no ammo) So, in short, you cannot boost tech 2 ammo without boosting tech 2 guns and increasing the difference between those with tech 2 guns and those without even further. 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
Mimiru Minahiro	Posted - 2010.04.13 18:27:00 - [20] There once was a time when Hail was useful. Then they buffed fusion. Now its p.worthless. An overhaul of t2 ammo(short and long), t2 guns/launchers, and ship bonus's is in order. So many things have changed over the past 4 years things need a good balancing. But dont do one overhaul without an overhaul to (or at least with an eye towards) all. Otherwise you just break more stuff over time.

Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.04.13 19:44:00 - [21] Edited by: Bagehi on 13/04/2010 19:44:50 I'd fit standard antimatter before I would fit void or javelin. With blasers, I have to be inside the ship to hit it. The increased cap use for either is reason enough to not load it. With lasers, I'm all about my navy multispec, but would still prefer standard multi over conflag/gleam. Conflag means I run out of cap in 2 seconds and gleam kills the range of my beams too much as well as making my ship the size of a station (sig radius). I've never used hail or quake (I've heard loading it kills kittens). Anything that hurts falloff on projectiles or reduces the speed of the flying duct-taped-rust-bucket is a really bad idea. I'm not overly worried about T2 missile ammo. It seems to work fairly well. EDIT: support. This signature is useless, but it is red.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.13 20:51:00 - [22] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/04/2010 20:51:24 Originally by: prodalt Precisely, It is a huge detriment already. No only in ease of acquiring, and strength, but also cost. So I am not sure why there should be any more detriment to these pilots. These pilots should fly small where you get T2 very very fast until they can properly fly something large rather then jump into a ship they're not skilled for prematurely and die horrible deaths. It has been like that for a long long time. That said, I would not mind at all if T2 gun requirements were lowered to the appropriate turret skill at 4 (much like thermodynamics skill prerequisites being lowered was a move in the right direction). I don't view it as a important balance factor when discussing ship performance. Boosting T2 short range to have 1/2 the range (optimal and falloff included) of faction with having somewhat (say, 7-10%) higher DPS and no tracking penalties (since that makes it useless in combination with shorter range; since the range already incurs tracking penalties practically speaking) would give people the option to have more gank at expense of range. The only problem are Amarr with 0s reload time, which could probably be coded to require time to change to T2 shortrange and back from it. Having a "more gank" option at cost of having to fight in hugging range (what faction isn't really restricted to) and keep the target in hugging range would add a interesting option in combat and boost gank at the same time (which is in my book a good thing). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Suitonia Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.04.15 15:21:00 - [23] I'm all for lowering the skill requirements on tech II guns. I personally don't believe that the buffing of t2 close range ammo is going to make the skill gap between a new player and an experienced one anymore than it already is. Not being able to use Barrage/Scorch is a much bigger detriment than not being able to do 5~10% more damage at extreme short range. ---
MJ Maverick IronPig Sev3rance	Posted - 2010.04.15 21:49:00 - [24] Supported ------------------ Forum sig limits are too tight. So I cba to have a sig any more. CCP arse kissing drones are not welcome in my threads. CCP are not perfect.
Jish Ness	Posted - 2010.04.15 22:24:00 - [25]
I SoStoned	Posted - 2010.04.16 00:41:00 - [26] Edited by: I SoStoned on 16/04/2010 00:45:06 Brought this up long ago, CCP pretty much has said: STFU (and they locked the thread). It got about 75% positive activity to be reviewed, but was brought up during a CSM council who were solely interested in their own agendas and did not look whatsoever at those put forward by the player base. The current CSM is far more active, aware, and willing to bring these topics forward... if you can get around the PvP-only-to-the-exception-of-all-others circle and their cronies you might actually accomplish something. --- [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
Marlona Sky D00M. RED.OverLord	Posted - 2010.04.16 00:47:00 - [27] Originally by: I SoStoned Edited by: I SoStoned on 16/04/2010 00:45:06 Brought this up long ago, CCP pretty much has said: STFU (and they locked the thread). "This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity." ^^Don't exaggerate ISoStoned. Anyways, yes, all T2 ammo should have the penalties looked at.
I SoStoned Caldari	Posted - 2010.04.16 01:01:00 - [28] Originally by: Marlona Sky Originally by: I SoStoned Edited by: I SoStoned on 16/04/2010 00:45:06 Brought this up long ago, CCP pretty much has said: STFU (and they locked the thread). "This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity." ^^Don't exaggerate ISoStoned. Psshhh.... Hush, you. Originally by: Marlona Sky Anyways, yes, all T2 ammo should have the penalties looked at. In short: A - Short range T2 charges (hybrid/proj/crystal) should have their tracking increased considerably, not decreased. I'll say nothing about missiles due to the signature & explosion velocity calculations are just wrong on so many ways. Needed, but require adjustments. B - Detriments that affect a ship as a whole (speed, cap regen, sig radius) should be reduced considerably or made into a flat detriment regardless of the quantity of weapons so loaded. C - Currently there is no advantage whatsoever to selecting T2 short range over Faction other than the ridiculous cost for Faction. This should be changed to put faction in the meta chain just as modules are: T1, base faction, T2 short range, higher meta faction. D - long range T2 charges far surpass T1 and faction equivalents and could use a balancing modification to bring them in line with short range variants. Hopefully not in such a manner as to make them as worthless as short range are currently. E - POS weapons should be able to use T2 ammo types. --- [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
Badger Beard	Posted - 2010.04.16 12:42:00 - [29] Edited by: Badger Beard on 16/04/2010 12:43:44 Perhaps tech 2 needs more specialisation for its usage with a clear application. Type 1- Higher DPS with ship signature and/or tracking penalties for applying more dps to larger and slower targets but as a draw back you are at greater risk of getting hit. Type 2- Lower DPS with reduced ammo signatures and/or tracking bonuses so you can hit smaller and more agile ships more successfully but as a result you take a DPS reduction But keep cap usage and other considerations in line with the parent ammo A more extreme (perhaps less favourable) alteration as mentioned above - for newer players with insufficient skills to be given access to T2 ammo. Perhaps rework the skills so the specialisation skills apply to all turret of that size and have tech 2 turrets accessable at lv 5. However as penace for the loss of the specific dps bonus and higher fitting costs for tech 2 turrets give them fixed reduced penalties/increased bonuses for using tech 2 ammo. edit: crap spelling and grammer but there is most likely more
Brengholl	Posted - 2010.04.17 01:50:00 - [30] i cant seem to understand the argument about new players who cant use t2 guns/ammo a new player cant use a t2 cruiser... so how about we make HACs worse than their t1 variants?

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

Allan Sheperd	Posted - 2010.05.05 17:06:00 - [61] As it stands right now I can only use T2 close range turret ammo on ships using T2 close range missile ammo.
Jag Kara United Investment	Posted - 2010.05.05 17:11:00 - [62] Originally by: Gypsio III Originally by: darius mclever imho making a drake so big (sig radius wise) that even torps hit full dmg is just stupid. (iirc it was 540-550m sigradius with all rage hams) you dont need to target paint it anymore. part of the problem is that it has 7 launchers where each rage missile increases it further. Yeah, it's a bit much on any ship with lots of weapons, isn't it? Maybe making it a flat penalty ignoring the number of guns loaded with the ammo would be sensible? Or applying a stacking penalty to the penalties? I think that would make a more balanced solution to the projectile problem too. A flat cap cost changes the role of the gun as the only non-cap using gun. In Soviet Russia, carebears gank YOU!
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2010.05.07 16:02:00 - [63] Supporting the removal of the penalties. Not so sure on the damage boost. Still supported overall.
Odetta Harpy	Posted - 2010.05.07 18:47:00 - [64] T2 short range ammo is so crap i dont think i will every use it unless it is changed, i can use 2 types of t2 guns and i think both arnt worth it, faction ammo is better.
Augustus Thorn	Posted - 2010.05.07 18:49:00 - [65] yup t2 ammo is crap
Deus Teragrammaton	Posted - 2010.05.07 19:44:00 - [66] I would have to say that I disagree with this, not supported. As a minmatar pilot who uses Hail, you guys are giving it a bad rap. I do more damage with Hail M then I do with most faction medium ammo, and I just make up for the optimal and tracking penalties with a tracking computer and optimal projectile rig, and am still able to fit a half decent tank and other damage mods. I haven't really noticed this big difference in T2 and faction except in the higher tiered faction ammos, and even that doesn't really justify the price difference. Tell you honestly, the only times I even use faction ammo is in PVE, never in PVP because the cost is too much not supported
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.05.07 20:53:00 - [67] Originally by: Deus Teragrammaton I would have to say that I disagree with this, not supported. As a minmatar pilot who uses Hail, you guys are giving it a bad rap. I do more damage with Hail M then I do with most faction medium ammo, and I just make up for the optimal and tracking penalties with a tracking computer and optimal projectile rig, and am still able to fit a half decent tank and other damage mods. I haven't really noticed this big difference in T2 and faction except in the higher tiered faction ammos, and even that doesn't really justify the price difference. Tell you honestly, the only times I even use faction ammo is in PVE, never in PVP because the cost is too much not supported You're doing it wrong. The purpose of PVE is to make money, not waste it on expensive ammo. In PVP, there is a reason to use expensive ammo if it helps you kill the other guy faster than he can kill you (by doing more damage or penalizing you less). I'm curious, what range do you have with these Hail AC guns? I'm assuming you are flying a Vaga to be able to keep targets in range? This signature is useless, but it is red.
Deus Teragrammaton	Posted - 2010.05.07 21:18:00 - [68] Edited by: Deus Teragrammaton on 07/05/2010 21:20:39 Edited by: Deus Teragrammaton on 07/05/2010 21:18:18 Quote: You're doing it wrong. The purpose of PVE is to make money, not waste it on expensive ammo. In PVP, there is a reason to use expensive ammo if it helps you kill the other guy faster than he can kill you (by doing more damage or penalizing you less). I'm curious, what range do you have with these Hail AC guns? I'm assuming you are flying a Vaga to be able to keep targets in range? I dont use faction ammo all the time in PVE, just for the more difficult missions, like Angel Extravaganza or Worlds collide, where I need the extra damage to kill stuff quick. Other then that, t1 ammo suffices. as for what range I get with hail, on a vaga, I get 2 km optimal, 13 km falloff give or take, depending. Edit - thats with 425mm t2 AC
Bobbeh Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.05.08 08:34:00 - [69] TL;DR (But kinda Read some of it) First off i think the argument that it makes the Haves better and the have nots have less is completely pointless but also completely true. "Omg the Older Players do more damage then the younger players, well now thats not fair" Seriously STFU, if someone wants to train to T2 weapons it should give them an advantage just liked someone training recon to 5 not to 4. T2 and In Tech 2 should be more advanced than Tech 1, Faction should be More advanced than Tech 2. Reasoning is pretty obvious, Tech one being basic tech should never equal tech 2 lets call that cutting edge, and Faction is what the military or navy would use, assuming that they usually bankroll the big research companies and develop most of the tech you would assume their Guns would be t2+ more as they are advancing the cutting edge tech. Officer/Deadspace stuff is would be prototype gear stuff that is rare and in small quantity compared to their faction and t2 counterparts. With that said ammo should stack up as such IMO T1<Worst Faction<T2<Militart< Best Faction. Considering T1 is then readily available to everyone and has limited experience required (making shells in your garage). Worst faction would be more expensive and a lil bit better like last years model. T2 would be Cutting Edge Distributed ammo it costs you a pretty penny but its basically what the military uses. Military grade ammo would be Slightly better than T2 assuming the military made slight modifications and changes to it for their use. Best Faction would be Spec ops style ammo, Made in special shops precise recipes with hard ingredients super costly but does the job better than anything else. Now Consider T2 is the best Cutting Edge ammo released by the states for mass production. If it was a **** product that all in all punished the user noone would use it, and someone would come out with something better and release it for mass distribution. Ok So back to the Age argument: Why shouldnt older players have the advantage.... Lets re-word this Why shouldnt Players that choose to train certain skills further or more extensively not get rewarded when compared to Players who didn't train those skills. If someone wants to train to T2 guns and ammo and then fights someone who didnt want to train to those should he not have the advantage. Shouldn't the T2 ship be quiet superior to the T1 basic ship and slightly superior to the best named (as well as being much more cost effective,) Ship. So we assume T2 ammo only works in T2 guns cause the guns are able to handle special ammos that might not be stable in T1 guns or might need special primers or firing triggers that arent in the t1 model. Wouldn't you then also assume that these modified slugs/rounds must also have a decent added benefit to firing them if they are Higher Tech then similar lower tech rounds. The Description of Hail ammo The Hail is an attempt to combine the penetration of titanium sabot with the versatility of a depleted uranium shell. It consists of a fairly large titanium sabot shell with a payload of depleted uranium submunitions. It has tremendous damage potential, but should not be used at long ranges. Any pilot using this ammunition should be prepared to trade optimal range and capacitor energy for increased tracking speed and a devastating amount of damage. It is both Tit Sabot and Depeleted uranium, 2 Tech 1 ammos. Shouldnt Be Fired at long range, And Drains Capacitor (assuming its to do something to the ammo) In exchange should get Increased Tracking and Devastating Damage. Sounds Fair But The Tracking is a penalty in game? Hail ~ 50% Optimal Penalty, 50% Falloff Penalty, -50% Tracking Penalty 5% increased cap recharge
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.05.08 09:23:00 - [70] Quake Description A large titanium sabot shell that delivers a shattering blow to the target. It is however nearly twice as bulky as standard ammunition and has a somewhat slower rate of fire. The tremendous recoil generated by this shell means that the ship's velocity must be substantially curbed and a small portion of the ship's capacitor energy redirected to manuvering thrusters for stability. So in Exchange for a Heavy Slug the pilot Less shots in the gun, Slower fire rate, Slower speed. in exchange More Damage ( with the description should be alot more damage) Also if the ship is slower and more stable tracking should be increased just a thought... Conflag The Conflagration is a supercharged X-Ray crystal created by Carthum Conglomerate for the Imperial Navy. Has much greater damage potential than the standard version, but needs considerably more capacitor and also has reduced effective range. Better Magnification on crystal means Hotter stronger beam, But pilot loses Tracking and optimal go out the window and it costs a bunch more power to fire through. But you get Lots more damage. (really dont see how tracking is effected by the crystal tho) Gleam The Gleam overdrive crystal has tremendous damage capacity but needs substantially more energy than normal and its energy signature is very easy to lock onto. It also requires the ship's shields to be strengthened around the turret to prevent critical backlashes Well Pilot Loses Capacitor and Signatur is Huge But more damage and Shields should be Strengthened. (but according to Bonus's shields are weakened.... interesting So either Shields are specifically strengthened around the turrets only at which point they could probably over heat for longer or the ships shields as a whole are increased at cost of capacitor) Javelin The Javelin charge consists of a cluster of Iridium Fletchets with a Graviton Pulse Detonator. This allows for much higher damage than can be achieved by a standard rail system. However, the inherent entropy of graviton pulses means that it is very hard to maintain accuracy at long range. According to the Description Pilot loses Accuracy (Optimal and tracking) in exchange for much more damage, but they get hammered with a speed penalty why? Finally Void The Void Xenon charge is a high-powered blaster charge that delivers an extremely powerful blast of kinetic energy. However, it has several serious drawbacks, most notably the fact that it requires considerably more capacitor energy than any other blaster charge. It also needs to maintain a clean aim for a slightly longer time than normal. Pilot gets A lot of damage at the cost of Rate of fire and more capacitor use. What do i think Bonus's Should be according to Description IMO T2 Ammos should be as such (IMO) Close range Gun Close range ammo: Reduced Range, Damage Bonus, Tracking Bonus. Long Range Ammo: Range Bonus2, Damage Penalty(ROF), Accuracy Penalty. Long Range Gun Close Range ammo: Reduces range, Increases Damage2, Reduced Speed. Long Range Ammo : Increased range, Reduced damage, increased Tracking Essentially what you get is ammo that is meant for the guns purpose Does it well, While the other ammo that is opposite Compensates for the lacking but doesn't do well to compete with its Competitor in the other class. Close range ammo (for Long range gun) gets a bonus to Damage at Close range cause well makes sense a large bonus if its doing decent damage at Long distance if you get hit by it at close range, DAMN it should hurt, But those guns turn slow. Long Range ammo ( Short Range Gun) Ammos Designed to make up for the guns inherent flaws in distance fighting but in such sacrifices damage (Rof). In the End the Ammo types for the specific guns should be unparalleled in their Niche Close range to Close range and long range to Long range, and make up for the slack in the weaknesses by sacrificing its strengths when it comes to Long range to close range and vice versa.

dtyk	Posted - 2010.05.08 11:23:00 - [71] Yep, supported.
Don Pellegrino The Tuskers	Posted - 2010.05.08 14:40:00 - [72]
Resha Tsvort	Posted - 2010.05.09 11:47:00 - [73]
Anna Headshot	Posted - 2010.05.11 17:13:00 - [74] This needs to happen.
Suitonia Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.05.17 17:17:00 - [75] bumping this ---
Amerilia	Posted - 2010.05.17 19:53:00 - [76] signed
Leaving Eve	Posted - 2010.05.17 21:08:00 - [77] Supported, or I'm Leaving Eve.
Suitonia Gallente Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.06.28 02:05:00 - [78] bump ---
Max Hardcase The Scope	Posted - 2010.06.28 18:51:00 - [79] T2 short range ammo +15% dmg -20% tracking It can be produced cheaply but it comes with a tracking penalty.
Mr Intel	Posted - 2010.06.28 19:54:00 - [80] Just like the Black Ops and ROFLkets, T2 ammo needs to be balanced. They dont need a huge buff, and other things dont need a nerf, they just need to be somewhat balanced with each other. /signed

CG Oglethorpe Universal Army Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.06.29 13:58:00 - [81] Another in the line of things that need to be fixed.
Jennifer Celeste	Posted - 2010.06.29 18:22:00 - [82] Originally by: Suitonia The first reason is that faction ammo is readily avaliable, and is always in great supply on the market. T2 Close Range ammo does exactly 1.4492753623188355x more damage than faction ammo. Yes, less than a 1.5% increase. what? 1.49x (x means times) != 1.5%....did you fail basic math?
ihcn	Posted - 2010.06.29 21:26:00 - [83] Originally by: Suitonia T2 Close Range ammo does exactly 1.4492753623188355x more damage than faction ammo. Yes, less than a 1.5% increase. You do not understand math.
muktar paneer MercTek Industries	Posted - 2010.07.02 08:53:00 - [84] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/04/2010 13:27:37 Originally by: Goumindong That would be the case if it were not actively a detriment to newer players. And, especially given the problems that people proclaim with "taking 10 seconds to change ammo" i doubt that any option strong enough to sate people who want the ammo to be viable will also be weak enough such that it provides no significant advantage to people with tech 2 guns rather than people who do not have them. If you can find one, then good on ya. But until that time, or until tech 2 item requirements are modified, this idea remains something that should not be enacted or supported. Not flying with T2 guns is a huge detriment already (by much more expensive fit if you use top named, by losing the final 5% from the appropriate turret V and spec IV, without even going into T2 long range ammo) - the DPS difference between someone with turret 4 and turret 5 + spec 4 is 12.5% already. Boosting gank is always got my vote, anyway. Bringing the skill differences into the argument is just wrong. Someone with tech 2 has actively put that long training time into the weapons skills and there should be a significant difference to justify it. cut the gap and you end up with a scenario where you could spend that time training defensive skills to a higher level than the guy who specialised in gnus yet still end up doing little less damage. People have the choice of training it or not and if they don't shouldn't ***** about the consequences. T2 ammo costs a mint, it should be good. Supported.
Andrea Griffin	Posted - 2010.07.02 17:40:00 - [85] Edited by: Andrea Griffin on 02/07/2010 17:41:28 With very few exceptions, all T2 ammo needs to be looked at. There are only a few worth using at all. I haven't spent the time analyzing the situation as thoroughly as others have, there's plenty of good information in the thread already, so I'll leave it at that. I would like to add that faction ammo seems fine as is; It's T1 ammo that does more damage. That's great. T2 ammo should provide something unique and helpful that faction ammo does not. I would also like to see some balance based on the size of the charge itself. What about a close range AC ammo that does excellent damage, but you can only fit half as many rounds in the gun? This would go along with the Minmatar philosophy of guerrilla warfare - get in quick, hit something hard, and get out before the duct tape falls off.
Harkwyth Mist Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2010.07.03 03:13:00 - [86] Whether a player is new or old doesn't really matter, as someone who has been in the game longer will always have a slight to strong advantage, this is perfectly fair. As the T2 ammo's are worse than thier T1 counterparts then they are unbalanced and need fixing. Nerf T1 ammo!!!
Slick O'Hara	Posted - 2010.07.03 06:14:00 - [87] Signed
Dav Varan	Posted - 2010.07.06 19:39:00 - [88] I think your problem stems from the fact that you are comparing T2 ammo to Faction Ammo which usually cost in the region of 10 times as much. Compare the T2 ammo to T1 Standard.
The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition	Posted - 2010.07.08 09:10:00 - [89] Originally by: Dav Varan I think your problem stems from the fact that you are comparing T2 ammo to Faction Ammo which usually cost in the region of 10 times as much. Compare the T2 ammo to T1 Standard. It is 3 times the cost, and it hardly matters in PVP, if you don't plan to shot down a pos or a couple triage carriers. And next to nobody uses T1 ammo in PVP. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
foksieloy Minmatar Universal Army Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.07.08 10:55:00 - [90] Originally by: Dav Varan I think your problem stems from the fact that you are comparing T2 ammo to Faction Ammo which usually cost in the region of 10 times as much. Compare the T2 ammo to T1 Standard. Cost is a bad balancing factor, take a look at the number of titans in game to see what I mean. And when you spend 150 mil on a ship, you do not care about additional 3 mil for the ammo. Because without it, you just condemned your ship to death. Long story short, only t2 ammo that actually works is barrage and scorch. _______________________ Drink Eau du Nichup«, the taste of heaven. Now available as Nichup Citrus« as well!

Captain Organs ArmoredCore Armed Forces	Posted - 2010.07.08 20:51:00 - [91] +1
Cordran Li Silver Angels Inc	Posted - 2010.07.12 04:59:00 - [92]
Alica Wildfire Federal Investigations Agency	Posted - 2010.07.19 10:36:00 - [93] Edited by: Alica Wildfire on 19/07/2010 10:36:43 +1 Perfectly broken short range ammo. Even in description this wrong. Description for Hail says: The Hail is an attempt to combine the penetration of titanium sabot with the versatility of a depleted uranium shell. It consists of a fairly large titanium sabot shell with a payload of depleted uranium submunitions. It has tremendous damage potential, but should not be used at long ranges. Any pilot using this ammunition should be prepared to trade optimal range and capacitor energy for increased tracking speed and a devastating amount of damage. This is easy to fix. So please do it. Nobody is using Hail and other T2 short range ammo who is not a nutcase at the moment. It's definitly broken. And please do not fix the description. Fix the ammo. It's broken and everybody that is checking the damage done by tracking and all that will see: broken. Definitly not working. Easy to fix. -- FREEDOM, PUNK & AUTOCANNONS


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.