EVE Search - The Tier 2 ammo balance, Scorch nerf

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

The Tier 2 ammo balance, Scorch nerf

» 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)
Harotak Method of Destruction The 0rphanage	Posted - 2010.10.10 17:27:00 - [31] Edited by: Harotak on 10/10/2010 17:31:37 The best "scorch nerf" IMO would be to make lasers take 15-20 seconds to change crystals. You are after all swapping out a large part of the weapon rather than simply feeding it a different type of ammunition. Pulse lasers should't get the largest increase in range for T2 ammo and the shortest amount of time to switch to it.
Vrabac Zawa's Fan Club	Posted - 2010.10.10 21:50:00 - [32] Nerfing scorch would be downright ******ed. Boost t2 high damage ammo, yes. Nerf just about anything not related to projectiles? Hell no. Seriously now, scorch nerf... lol
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2010.10.11 09:19:00 - [33] Yeah , fix hybrids , dont break lasers.
Archeris vane Amarr Jupiter Force	Posted - 2010.10.11 17:52:00 - [34] scorch is fine as it is, don't make everyone and their dogs cross train to minmatar ..
DOOM2K	Posted - 2010.10.11 18:50:00 - [35] Originally by: Archeris vane scorch is fine as it is, don't make everyone and their dogs cross train to minmatar .. Short range large projectile T2 ammo is a shadow of its small and medium forms when you take into consideration the complete package of the ships.
Aglais Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.11 18:54:00 - [36] Are they going to be getting rid of the silly penalties on T2 missiles? Making a slow ship slower doesn't help at all, honestly, especially if the added range is nothing special. It just makes you die faster.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.10.11 19:20:00 - [37] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 11/10/2010 19:21:02 Originally by: Harotak The best "scorch nerf" IMO would be to make lasers take 15-20 seconds to change crystals.... Ever change colour lens in a stage projector? Takes no time at all, so not quite sure what the "large part of system" is supposed to be. Originally by: DOOM2K Short range large projectile T2 ammo is a shadow of its small and medium forms when you take into consideration the complete package of the ships. Short range T2 ammo is utter and complete garbage across all weapon systems (except missiles which were last ot be tweaked). Not exactly limited to projectiles "Fix" Scorch by making it purely EM based. Makes tanking against it a lot easier and creates a specialised weapon of limited use against omni-armour. Compensate by flipping damage types on all range reduced crystals (up to but excluding standard) to make the fat Amarr want to close range to put the therm smack down (thus further 'nerfing' Scorch).
DOOM2K	Posted - 2010.10.11 21:42:00 - [38] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 11/10/2010 19:21:02 Originally by: Harotak The best "scorch nerf" IMO would be to make lasers take 15-20 seconds to change crystals.... Ever change colour lens in a stage projector? Takes no time at all, so not quite sure what the "large part of system" is supposed to be. Originally by: DOOM2K Short range large projectile T2 ammo is a shadow of its small and medium forms when you take into consideration the complete package of the ships. Short range T2 ammo is utter and complete garbage across all weapon systems (except missiles which were last ot be tweaked). Not exactly limited to projectiles "Fix" Scorch by making it purely EM based. Makes tanking against it a lot easier and creates a specialised weapon of limited use against omni-armour. Compensate by flipping damage types on all range reduced crystals (up to but excluding standard) to make the fat Amarr want to close range to put the therm smack down (thus further 'nerfing' Scorch). I meant short range T2 ammo as in pulse vs. beams--Scorch is the long range version of short range ammo. Not much of a comparison between Scorch and Barrage in battleships. I wonder what the Dev meant by short range T2 ammo? The Dev mentioned Scorch so I think he meant the long and short range versions of short range ammo.
BullMastiff	Posted - 2010.10.24 15:04:00 - [39] Look, every change in this game the last year, everything has been geared for the survival of the noob. Increasing the others to match scorch is better. if you slow down the rate of which one can kill another, it just gives that much more time for that one person to call his 400 friends to kill you.
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.10.24 17:44:00 - [40] Pulse lasers kept their increased tracking after the "Need for Speed" ship speed nerf, how about you keep your range but give up tracking in return ?
The Internets	Posted - 2010.10.24 20:03:00 - [41] Everyone who is saying Scorch is fine the way it is is either trolling, only use laser based ships, or have no idea what they're talking about. Mega Pulse II /w Scorch = 45km Optimal, 8km Falloff, 44 DPS Neutron Blaster Cannon II /w Null = 11km Optimal, 16km Falloff, 52 DPS 800mm Repeating Artillery II /w Barrage = 6km Optimal, 36km Falloff, 40 DPS Add in ships and their bonuses and there is absolutely no contest whatsoever. There is a reason the Armageddon is the de-facto battleship for gangs. Scorch (remember it's almost all optimal too unlike blasters and autocannons) means you don't have to worry about closing the distance at any point in a fight. Logistics ships supporting the enemy get tackled by your side? Blaster/Autocannon ships can't do anything, Amarr reaches out and slags them. Laser DPS is solid as well, fighting in optimal always means consistent quality of hits, shots you take before they can even hurt you as the burn towards/try to run, and huge advantages against the ever more popular shield tank gangs. Scorch needs to be changed from 50% to 15-25% range increase for a better balance in EVE. Saying it's fine because you've trained FotM is not a good approach.
Kalia Masaer Amarr Border Defense Consortium	Posted - 2010.10.25 02:32:00 - [42] Scorch is an issue but overall it is the balance between the turrets that is messed up. AC's are also stupidly overpowered due to the fact their base falloff is so high. Their base falloff should be reduced and all ammo should affect falloff as well as optimal. To the different tiers of ammo a use as well as some variation in range for acs. Of coarse Hybrids need to be put in the game. For a current example of how messed thing are I will show you ranges with max skill with a ship without bonuses. HPL II\Multi optimal 7.5km, Falloff 5km, DPS 36 425mm II\EMP optimal 1.5km, Falloff 12km, DPS 32 HNB II\Anti optimal 2.3km, Falloff 6.3km, DPS 42 HPL II\Stan. optimal 15km, Falloff 5km, DPS 24 452mm II\DU optimal 3km, Falloff 12km, DPS 22 HNB II\Lead optimal 4.5km, Falloff 6.3km, DPS 28 HPL II\Radio optimal 24.5km, Falloff 5km, DPS 15 425mm II\CL optimal 4.8km, Falloff 12km, DPS 14 HNB II\Iron optimal 7.2km, Falloff 6.3km, DPS 18 HPL II\Scor optimal 23km, Falloff 5km, DPS 33 425mm II\Barr optimal 3km, Falloff 18km, DPS 30 HNB II\Null optimal 5.6km, Falloff 7.8km, DPS 39 You will note that with short range ammo the 12km falloff of AC's means they can completely out-range both other weapons. With mid-range ammo lasers and ac's and even Blasters are fairly well balanced. With long range ammo lasers come into their own and blasters lag behind With T2 ranged ammo laser are very much at the fore front as they are not fighting in fall-off and Blasters are completely out of the game doing 0 damage at the range of scorch and barrage. Overall Blasters should probably have base falloff and optimal almost match with ammo affecting both evenly. This makes up a good deal for their tracking and gives them some more in your face melting power. AC's should have their base falloff nerfed and optimal buffed to about 25% base falloff, with ammo affecting falloff more than optimal. This reduces op effectiveness of short range ammo and gives a reason to use the other types. Laser could probably remain the same as long as a buff was added to the other T2 ammo range. This would mean arty and rails ranges would need to be rebalanced for their ammo though so it is not an easy fix.
Siltavuoren Jammu	Posted - 2010.10.25 17:20:00 - [43] Staring straight at pure dps and range numbers is absolutely the best way to reach balance.. While I agree that hybrids are in need for a tweak of some kind, please for love of gods consider projectile vs laser fitting AND ESPECIALLY cap use difference. You can have my scorch crystals if the tradeoff is lasers going capless like missiles and projectiles.
Hentes Zsemle	Posted - 2010.10.25 23:08:00 - [44] Please if you are doing imaginary spaceship fights, do it properly. ACs have the most falloff, and becouse of this the most maximum range most of the time, but with non-existent optimal ranges that also means that they are never doing the dps you see in eft. optimal+falloff = 0.5x dps
Kalia Masaer Amarr Border Defense Consortium	Posted - 2010.10.26 01:00:00 - [45] The raw numbers are messed, and need to be fixed to give each weapon a purpose and point where it is better than the other. And while you say using cap is a major disadvantage using ammo is a surprisingly major drawback as well in a long engagement. Likely there needs to be some balance in PG, CPU, Tracking and possible penalties for the weapons. Unfortunately we have to start somewhere and the key place is at giving the weapons a use. Hence fixing the raw numbers then worrying about everything else. AC's rule wish short range ammo simply because they have ridiculous base falloff and very good tracking. Lasers rule at long range because they have a high base optimal and T1 ammo affects optimal and not Falloff. Blasters suck because they have very poor base optimal and poor base falloff, then the T1 ammo only affects Falloff. On top of this they track on average worse than the equivalent AC. Deal with the range problems then deal with DPS and tracking, then fitting and you will end up with different weapons that are all worth using. Mess with one weapon at a time and we will have the continuous problems we currently have. Blasters once ruled, then it was laser, now it is AC's with laser reasonably close behind and blasters almost chased from the field. I don't want weapons to become flavor of the year because they were over buffed. I want every weapon to have a viable role and that starts with range.
Lirey	Posted - 2010.10.26 05:04:00 - [46] Originally by: Lirey I know the best solution for the blaster problem. Learn other weapon type. It is common now to fit AC on Myrm or Ishtar. P.S. 23h 7m left Large Energy Turret V. Yeeeehaaa! Please do not nerf Scorch! I will not survive to change weapon 3rd time! P.S. Hybrid weapon is bad. Gallente drone ships are good.
Gecko O'Bac H A V O C Cascade Imminent	Posted - 2010.10.26 12:57:00 - [47] Originally by: Hentes Zsemle Please if you are doing imaginary spaceship fights, do it properly. ACs have the most falloff, and becouse of this the most maximum range most of the time, but with non-existent optimal ranges that also means that they are never doing the dps you see in eft. optimal+falloff = 0.5x dps Actually something less than that due to how the damage formula works... Basically you're not only losing hits (since hit chance at optimal + falloff is 50%), but damage quality as well (since damage quality is something like hit chance + [-50, +50]). Basically you're hitting less often and for less damage.
Kokura Nin	Posted - 2010.10.26 13:23:00 - [48] Just give lasers a clear tracking disadvantage as payment for their optimal advantage
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2010.10.26 13:30:00 - [49] Originally by: Fon Revedhort falloff - that's how other types of long-range tech2 ammo work. They rely on falloff. You haven't actually seen what the falloff for energy turrets are, have you? Check it. You'll see why amarr pilots never have to train Trajectory analysis. Signature removed for evading the profanity filter and trolling. Zymurgist
Ogogov Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.10.26 13:42:00 - [50] 20% buff to Void damage and lose the tracking penalty. Kthx :)
VanNostrum	Posted - 2010.10.26 13:42:00 - [51] Originally by: The Internets Everyone who is saying Scorch is fine the way it is is either trolling, only use laser based ships, or have no idea what they're talking about. Mega Pulse II /w Scorch = 45km Optimal, 8km Falloff, 44 DPS Neutron Blaster Cannon II /w Null = 11km Optimal, 16km Falloff, 52 DPS 800mm Repeating Artillery II /w Barrage = 6km Optimal, 36km Falloff, 40 DPS Add in ships and their bonuses and there is absolutely no contest whatsoever. There is a reason the Armageddon is the de-facto battleship for gangs. Scorch (remember it's almost all optimal too unlike blasters and autocannons) means you don't have to worry about closing the distance at any point in a fight. Logistics ships supporting the enemy get tackled by your side? Blaster/Autocannon ships can't do anything, Amarr reaches out and slags them. Laser DPS is solid as well, fighting in optimal always means consistent quality of hits, shots you take before they can even hurt you as the burn towards/try to run, and huge advantages against the ever more popular shield tank gangs. Scorch needs to be changed from 50% to 15-25% range increase for a better balance in EVE. Saying it's fine because you've trained FotM is not a good approach. Pfff YOU are the troll! Most Amarr ships get cap usage bonus while others get dps bonus. Add in the factor that Amarr are armor tank and use low slots they don't have the luxury of fiilling their lows with TEs and Gyros like Minmatars do. I assume you also don't know that Amarr ships were not flown for many years before EM resist nerf and pulse buff. We don't want Amarr to go back to being the least played again.
The Internets	Posted - 2010.10.26 17:02:00 - [52] Originally by: VanNostrum Originally by: The Internets Everyone who is saying Scorch is fine the way it is is either trolling, only use laser based ships, or have no idea what they're talking about. Mega Pulse II /w Scorch = 45km Optimal, 8km Falloff, 44 DPS Neutron Blaster Cannon II /w Null = 11km Optimal, 16km Falloff, 52 DPS 800mm Repeating Artillery II /w Barrage = 6km Optimal, 36km Falloff, 40 DPS Add in ships and their bonuses and there is absolutely no contest whatsoever. There is a reason the Armageddon is the de-facto battleship for gangs. Scorch (remember it's almost all optimal too unlike blasters and autocannons) means you don't have to worry about closing the distance at any point in a fight. Logistics ships supporting the enemy get tackled by your side? Blaster/Autocannon ships can't do anything, Amarr reaches out and slags them. Laser DPS is solid as well, fighting in optimal always means consistent quality of hits, shots you take before they can even hurt you as the burn towards/try to run, and huge advantages against the ever more popular shield tank gangs. Scorch needs to be changed from 50% to 15-25% range increase for a better balance in EVE. Saying it's fine because you've trained FotM is not a good approach. Pfff YOU are the troll! Most Amarr ships get cap usage bonus while others get dps bonus. Add in the factor that Amarr are armor tank and use low slots they don't have the luxury of fiilling their lows with TEs and Gyros like Minmatars do. I assume you also don't know that Amarr ships were not flown for many years before EM resist nerf and pulse buff. We don't want Amarr to go back to being the least played again. Vagabonds, Sleipnirs and Maelstroms and every so often Hurricanes filling their lows with Gyros/TEs have similar DPS to Amarr equivalents fitting none at long ranges since you're comparing optimal shots versus falloff hit quality/misses. Amarr ships were always popular; they didn't get buffed due to disparities, they got buffed due to massive multipage threadnaughts from random people who jumped on the bandwagon just like nanos, ewar (dampeners mainly) falcons, and very soon to be Drakes.
Kanatta Jing	Posted - 2010.10.26 17:39:00 - [53] Comparing Optimal, Fall off and DPS without including tracking. While comparing short range guns that fit on ships that are expected to travel at approx 1km/s during combat. That are expected to harm ships that are faster then that. Okay.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.26 19:15:00 - [54] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 26/10/2010 19:17:51 Scorch is just objectively better than barrage or null. Example: Lets say your engagement range is optimal + .5x falloff (or 85% DPS). It's unreasonable to expect autos or blasters to fight at optimal + falloff because then you're doing 38% of your listed damage. Lets say your base optimal is 1km and your base falloff is 1km. If you load ammo that gives a 50% falloff bonus, your engagement range for 85% DPS is 1km + (.5 * 1.5) = 1.75km. Lets say you load ammo that gives 50% a optimal bonus. 1.5km + (.5 * 1) = 2km. Of course, lasers have more optimal than falloff and autos have more falloff than optimal. Of course this would differ slightly if you applied them to real weapons, but I don't think that would significantly change the results. Now, would those who are against a scorch nerf argue that lasers are underpowered relative to autos and blasters without t2 ammo? They have the longest ranges, the best tracking at those ranges, great damage (approaching blaster-level damage...and the ships come with a huge cap to offset the only real downside they have, which is cap use. Plus, they swap crystals instantly...negating the scorch tracking penalty. On the other hand, a minmatar ship with barrage needs to spend 10 seconds loading new ammo if something gets close. I don't see anything wrong with lasers having that kind of range and flexibility. I think the appropriate reaction would be a slight damage nerf on Scorch (though nothing incredibly significant)
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.10.26 19:44:00 - [55] Originally by: Kahega Amielden Scorch is just objectively better than barrage or null.... For cruiser weapons at ranges between 17-24km perhaps, outside that rather small bracket it fall to pieces. Those ranges just happen to be where you can point but have no range control whatsoever (scram/web) and laser boats are fat as hell these days since plate/trimark have become mandatory so chances are you get ****d or target vacates area. Tracking is average and you'll find that most pulses can be very easily tracking tanked .. and with no room for neuts on majority of fits it has no defense against a close agile target (ex. Rifter can tracking-tank a Medium Pulse Punisher, scale up as needed same is true for bigger guns). With the new and improved projectile ammo, autos and TEs you only load barrage on near pure kiting fits, if you get close enough for it to matter you have already messed up. Use RF ammo as standard if you are in anything other than kiting fit/ship. Falloff gives you plenty of damage from afar and eliminates the need to change ammo, in short: not a valid argument any more.
The Internets	Posted - 2010.10.26 19:51:00 - [56] Tracking is a very minor issue for Pulses unless you're out soloing. Insta-swap crystals to something more accurate, lower tracking requirements at the long ranges Scorch can reach (and which no other T2 ammo can), and as soon as you throw in a gang situation where webs, scramblers, etc are involved, it becomes practically a non-issue. There is a reason Zealots and Armageddons are incredibly popular PvP/Fleet ships. Scorch lets you treat the "short-range" weaponry as long range with a high RoF, better tracking (vs arty/rails/beams/etc), high DPS, no reloading required, etc.
Lemmy Kravitz	Posted - 2010.10.26 20:52:00 - [57] Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 26/10/2010 20:55:31 Originally by: Kalia Masaer Scorch is an issue but overall it is the balance between the turrets that is messed up. AC's are also stupidly overpowered due to the fact their base falloff is so high. Their base falloff should be reduced and all ammo should affect falloff as well as optimal. To the different tiers of ammo a use as well as some variation in range for acs. Of coarse Hybrids need to be put in the game. For a current example of how messed thing are I will show you ranges with max skill with a ship without bonuses. HPL II\Multi optimal 7.5km, Falloff 5km, DPS 36 425mm II\EMP optimal 1.5km, Falloff 12km, DPS 32 HNB II\Anti optimal 2.3km, Falloff 6.3km, DPS 42 HPL II\Stan. optimal 15km, Falloff 5km, DPS 24 452mm II\DU optimal 3km, Falloff 12km, DPS 22 HNB II\Lead optimal 4.5km, Falloff 6.3km, DPS 28 HPL II\Radio optimal 24.5km, Falloff 5km, DPS 15 425mm II\CL optimal 4.8km, Falloff 12km, DPS 14 HNB II\Iron optimal 7.2km, Falloff 6.3km, DPS 18 HPL II\Scor optimal 23km, Falloff 5km, DPS 33 425mm II\Barr optimal 3km, Falloff 18km, DPS 30 HNB II\Null optimal 5.6km, Falloff 7.8km, DPS 39 You will note that with short range ammo the 12km falloff of AC's means they can completely out-range both other weapons. With mid-range ammo lasers and ac's and even Blasters are fairly well balanced. With long range ammo lasers come into their own and blasters lag behind With T2 ranged ammo laser are very much at the fore front as they are not fighting in fall-off and Blasters are completely out of the game doing 0 damage at the range of scorch and barrage. Overall Blasters should probably have base falloff and optimal almost match with ammo affecting both evenly. This makes up a good deal for their tracking and gives them some more in your face melting power. AC's should have their base falloff nerfed and optimal buffed to about 25% base falloff, with ammo affecting falloff more than optimal. This reduces op effectiveness of short range ammo and gives a reason to use the other types. Laser could probably remain the same as long as a buff was added to the other T2 ammo range. This would mean arty and rails ranges would need to be rebalanced for their ammo though so it is not an easy fix. you ever fight in deep falloff? your dps goes to absolute dookie. AC's and Arties are fine nicely balanced. Blasters are fine atm. scorch needs a tracking nerf. railguns need a boost. All T2 ammo except for for scorch need a bosst/rebalance compared to faction ammo.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar	Posted - 2010.10.26 22:48:00 - [58] Quote: Tracking is average and you'll find that most pulses can be very easily tracking tanked .. and with no room for neuts on majority of fits it has no defense against a close agile target (ex. Rifter can tracking-tank a Medium Pulse Punisher, scale up as needed same is true for bigger guns). With the new and improved projectile ammo, autos and TEs you only load barrage on near pure kiting fits, if you get close enough for it to matter you have already messed up. Use RF ammo as standard if you are in anything other than kiting fit/ship. Falloff gives you plenty of damage from afar and eliminates the need to change ammo, in short: not a valid argument any more. Okay, so are you arguing that lasers are underpowered without t2 ammo? Scorch allows the ship to retaliate at barrage ranges WITHOUT losing damage to falloff. It's still objectively better.
Miss Veila	Posted - 2010.10.28 16:39:00 - [59] Are any of you even considering tracking?? Doesnt look like it. Lasers with any ammo can barely hit their own ship class at close range. Try hitting a frig that is in your face with a Zealot... doesnt happen. I have even tried it with full fit of tracking mods and a rifter orbiting at 5km. Not a hit in 10 minutes of firing and my gunnery skills are maxed.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.10.28 16:52:00 - [60] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 28/10/2010 16:55:12 Originally by: Kahega Amielden Okay, so are you arguing that lasers are underpowered without t2 ammo?.. Essentially yes. Specifically Scorch actually, if you start using lasers extensively across all sizes you come to realise that Scorch is the only redeeming feature of the entire weapon system. Once you account for mediocre tracking, high fitting requirements, restricted damage types and heavy cap use (even WITH bonus!) there is really not much in favour of lasers .. good base range doesn't do you much good when you are slower than most other ships and lack mids to control range and/or inject cap to run drives + shoot.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: 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.