|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 12:00:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Double Dee
Originally by: Kanatta Jing Stealth blaster boost
hardly. all t2 short range ammo is getting booster which means blaster boats will still be utter **** compared to the rest of short range weapon platforms. nothing is changing for blasters sadly.
ànot to mention we don't quite know what the new drawbacks will be.
10 ISK on them putting a speed drawback on Void, just because "it would be too awesome otherwise" ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.18 19:08:00 -
[2]
More corner-tags eh?
Now, onto that meta-level inventory column everyone has been begging forà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.19 10:40:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Nepthys
Originally by: Tippia More corner-tags eh?
Now, onto that meta-level inventory column everyone has been begging forà
I suggest that you check Sisi, you might pleasantly surprised
♥♥♥ ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.19 20:16:00 -
[4]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Bomberlocks Could one of the devs please answer this question: On Sisi, the show info panel on microwarpdrives now show them as having a maximum cap penalty. Why was this done and are you aware of the effect it will have on an extremely large part of the game without any benefit that I can see right now? Minmatar ships especially, with the much lower cap than other ships, but also Amarr due to laser cap consumption are going to suffer because of this.
Please explain?
I don't see any changes to MWDs besides their icon changing to the new MWD icon, perhaps check again?
As others have mentioned, nothing has changed ù Bomberlocks has probably just missed that MWDs already have this penalty. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 18:32:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire damage +15-20% over faction ammo (so around 32-34 on Hail M) 50-75% tracking penalty
Here you go - situational, anti "larger target size" ammo. Similiar to missiles Rage/Fury progression (normal -> +15% -> navy -> +15% -> rage/fury).
You'd need to add an extra 0 to that damage bonus to make it worthwhile.
Just for the record, a 50% tracking penalty against a 1:1 tracking target means a reduction in DPS of ~85%. A 75% tracking penalty against a similar target means a DPS reduction of roughly 100%.
Also, the idea of "larger target size" ammo kind falls flat where a blaster fix is needed the most: in battleships. If you want to follow the missile progression, where furies do more damage at the cost projecting it worse, the tracking penalty should be somewhere in the region of 15û20%, not 50û75%.
It might work for projectiles and lasers, but certainly not for blaster ammo. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:34:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire It would work for all guns. Blasters too if pilot is smart enough to use "keep at 2500m" range button and gets enough webs on target. Plus afaik it is called "t2 shortrange ammo fix" not "blaster fix". In current version (proposed in blog) it doesnt help either: ammo sucks, blasters stay where they were.
The point is, it would work worse for blasters than for anything else, making them fall even farther behind. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:51:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire And whats the problem to balance it respective to weapons? -50% tracking on blasters, -75% on lasers (just a number from my ass, as i said its just idea not exact numbers)? You are creating problems where they dont exist/where they can be easily balanced between gun types.
You were the one who created this particular problemà
Tracking is one of those stats you need to be very careful with, because the effects of even very small changes are quite drastic. As such, it's not a good choice to use as a balancing mechanic because chances are you will bork it. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.10.21 20:16:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire When you want to create turret ammo that works only against bigger targets you can ONLY use tracking to enforce target selection. And as my general idea was: 'more damage vs bigger targets' there arent many options to discuss except damage and tracking.
There's also signature resolutionà but that amounts to the same thing.
But again, the "bigger targets" idea becomes an issue when you consider that you quickly come to a point where there is no bigger target.
If we're tossing ideas, I'd like to see high rof ammo ù less damage per shot, but vastly higher rate of fire, so you do tons more DPSà but only in, say, 30s bursts before it's time to reload. It would look sweet for ACs too ù just one single massive long burst instead of a lot of small onesà ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki |
|
|
|