EVE Search - nerf winmatar to boost hybrids

All Channels

Ships and Modules

nerf winmatar to boost hybrids

» 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)
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 14:05:00 - [31] Edited by: Aamrr on 29/06/2011 14:07:33 Double-post
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 14:07:00 - [32] Originally by: David Clausewitz autocannons and missiles will need a pretty big nerf before you consider nerfing lasers Quoted for truth. Lasers as a weapon system are pretty "meh." Compared to the other turrets, they have: Highest Powergrid Requirements (Usually) highest CPU Requirements Highest capacitor consumption No damage type selection Ships with "lol" 10% cap reduction Being able to swap crystals in 1 second sounds neat, but ultimately it's only mimicking what falloff does naturally. Really, the only redeeming features are Scorch and Tachyons. On the other hand, both of these are sexy as hell.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.06.29 14:19:00 - [33] angel ships are overpowered compared to single faction base bonus ships. Angel ships have equal bonus to the other pirate ships in class. . Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
Snyderm	Posted - 2011.06.29 15:31:00 - [34] Either quit eve, or just fly the ships CCP wants you to fly. In case you haven't noticed, CCP gives less than a crap about game balance. If they did, they would be working on that instead of avatars and station walking in order to sell $60 monocules. Because Gallante are the Washington Generals of EVE.
Economista	Posted - 2011.06.29 16:04:00 - [35] Edited by: Economista on 29/06/2011 16:04:40 alt
AstroPhobic Minmatar Holding Corp	Posted - 2011.06.29 16:08:00 - [36] Nerf minmatar? Sir, you best appropriate some damage graphs to validate any sort of point you think you have. I don't want to have to learn you how falloff works.
Fistme	Posted - 2011.06.29 16:11:00 - [37] Originally by: Aamrr Originally by: David Clausewitz autocannons and missiles will need a pretty big nerf before you consider nerfing lasers Quoted for truth. Lasers as a weapon system are pretty "meh." Compared to the other turrets, they have: Highest Powergrid Requirements (Usually) highest CPU Requirements Highest capacitor consumption No damage type selection Ships with "lol" 10% cap reduction Being able to swap crystals in 1 second sounds neat, but ultimately it's only mimicking what falloff does naturally. Really, the only redeeming features are Scorch and Tachyons. On the other hand, both of these are sexy as hell. ur dumb... Amarr ships have jacked up fitting and cap to allow for these so called "disadvantages". Take a look at relative fitting req then get back to the discussion....
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 16:52:00 - [38] Originally by: Cipher Jones angel ships are overpowered compared to single faction base bonus ships. Angel ships have equal bonus to the other pirate ships in class. You know, if you want to completely ignore the absurdly low mass and inertia multipliers. It's not like those are a factor in PvP or anything, right?
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 16:54:00 - [39] Edited by: Aamrr on 29/06/2011 16:54:48 Originally by: AstroPhobic Nerf minmatar? Sir, you best appropriate some damage graphs to validate any sort of point you think you have. I don't want to have to learn you how falloff works. And why don't you look at the DPS graphs of lasers with the various crystals loaded into them. Autocannons get to use their low-range ammunition basically for free, while lasers have to give up half their range to do so. We suffer range based DPS degradation just the same as you do -- we just have to go through the effort of swapping ammunition.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:27:00 - [40] Originally by: Aamrr Originally by: Cipher Jones angel ships are overpowered compared to single faction base bonus ships. Angel ships have equal bonus to the other pirate ships in class. You know, if you want to completely ignore the absurdly low mass and inertia multipliers. It's not like those are a factor in PvP or anything, right? My bad. other pirate ships dont have an insane shield bonus in addition to a second bonus either..., oh wait, they do. Compare pirate faction to pirate faction ships or the argument is a waste of our time. . Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
Dorian Tormak	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:33:00 - [41] Originally by: Cipher Jones Originally by: Aamrr Originally by: Cipher Jones angel ships are overpowered compared to single faction base bonus ships. Angel ships have equal bonus to the other pirate ships in class. You know, if you want to completely ignore the absurdly low mass and inertia multipliers. It's not like those are a factor in PvP or anything, right? My bad. other pirate ships dont have an insane shield bonus in addition to a second bonus either..., oh wait, they do.Compare pirate faction to pirate faction ships or the argument is a waste of our time. Yeah, I notice people arguing that Gallente suck and they'll say something like, "Oh mah gawd, the Taranis is outperformed by the Dramiel!!"
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 17:49:00 - [42] Originally by: Dorian Tormak Originally by: Cipher Jones My bad. other pirate ships dont have an insane shield bonus in addition to a second bonus either..., oh wait, they do.Compare pirate faction to pirate faction ships or the argument is a waste of our time. Yeah, I notice people arguing that Gallente suck and they'll say something like, "Oh mah gawd, the Taranis is outperformed by the Dramiel!!" Except I was comparing faction ships to faction ships. Put the Machariel next to, say, the Vindicator. Both are considered top-tier faction ships, and both command a price of about a billion isk. Both get approximately a 35% boost to their DPS output from a role bonus (Machariel getting it in RoF, Vindicator in raw damage). Both get a standard damage application bonus (Machariel gets falloff, Vindicator gets tracking). Both get a secondary bonus (more damage vs. web strength). However, the Machariel gets absurdly low agility and inertia ON TOP of all this. It gives up nothing to gain this advantage, and in fact has a VERY generous fitting allotment on top of it. Essentially, all of the angel ships have a hidden 4th bonus to their agility, "just because."
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 18:48:00 - [43] Originally by: Fistme Originally by: Aamrr Originally by: David Clausewitz autocannons and missiles will need a pretty big nerf before you consider nerfing lasers Quoted for truth. Lasers as a weapon system are pretty "meh." Compared to the other turrets, they have: Highest Powergrid Requirements (Usually) highest CPU Requirements Highest capacitor consumption No damage type selection Ships with "lol" 10% cap reduction Being able to swap crystals in 1 second sounds neat, but ultimately it's only mimicking what falloff does naturally. Really, the only redeeming features are Scorch and Tachyons. On the other hand, both of these are sexy as hell. ur dumb... Amarr ships have jacked up fitting and cap to allow for these so called "disadvantages". Take a look at relative fitting req then get back to the discussion.... You sure about that? Let's compare an Abaddon and a Maelstrom. They have identical powergrid. The Maelstrom has 1/7 more CPU. And the Abaddon has 1.3 GJ/s more capacitor to play with. With perfect skills, a full rack of Mega Pulses consumes 55.3 GJ/s. I'm not sure what kind of mental disorder it takes to think that 1.3 > 55.3, but apparently you have it.
Grimpak Gallente The Whitehound Corporation Frontline Assembly Point	Posted - 2011.06.29 19:06:00 - [44] Originally by: Sable Schroedinger I don't think a straight damage buff is the way to go. The current issue with blasters are many and varied, and a product of the last 2-3 years worth of game development. I can try and dig the posts out, but I've detailed many of the issues before. They include the number of attempts over the years to boost the other weapon types. Each change in themselves have helped the other weapons, but the sum of them have gone too far (imo) and so one or two need to be rolled back in favour of the ones that really worked in the end. Then we have the mechanic changes in webs and scrams. Not saying these need to go, but they have disproportionately effected blasters, add to that the addition of rigs, where those that would be used on blaster boats carry a penalty that is counter to style of combat for blaster ships. So, "blaster damage sucks" is just not enough of the issue. Its much more than that, the landscape of the game has completely changed and effected blasters the most so a rethink is needed. However, making all weapon systems have the same effective range just destroys the variance and flavour that is eve combat. p.s. little harsh on the SF stuff, but I'll forgive you ;) tbh, the damage does suck when compared to all drawbacks it has. making them deathspitters at scram range would be the way to go, coupled with a change on mobility. as rails go tho, I wonder if making them a long range weapon based on RoF would be interesting or not... --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Dorian Tormak	Posted - 2011.06.29 19:17:00 - [45] Originally by: Aamrr Originally by: Dorian Tormak Originally by: Cipher Jones My bad. other pirate ships dont have an insane shield bonus in addition to a second bonus either..., oh wait, they do.Compare pirate faction to pirate faction ships or the argument is a waste of our time. Yeah, I notice people arguing that Gallente suck and they'll say something like, "Oh mah gawd, the Taranis is outperformed by the Dramiel!!" Except I was comparing faction ships to faction ships. Put the Machariel next to, say, the Vindicator. Both are considered top-tier faction ships, and both command a price of about a billion isk.Both get approximately a 35% boost to their DPS output from a role bonus (Machariel getting it in RoF, Vindicator in raw damage). Both get a standard damage application bonus (Machariel gets falloff, Vindicator gets tracking). Both get a secondary bonus (more damage vs. web strength).However, the Machariel gets absurdly low agility and inertia ON TOP of all this. It gives up nothing to gain this advantage, and in fact has a VERY generous fitting allotment on top of it.Essentially, all of the angel ships have a hidden 4th bonus to their agility, "just because." That's pretty ****ed up.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.06.29 19:18:00 - [46] Originally by: Aamrr You sure about that? Let's compare an Abaddon and a Maelstrom. They have identical powergrid. The Maelstrom has 1/7 more CPU. And the Abaddon has 1.3 GJ/s more capacitor to play with. With perfect skills, a full rack of Mega Pulses consumes 55.3 GJ/s. I'm not sure what kind of mental disorder it takes to think that 1.3 > 55.3, but apparently you have it. You also might wanna have a look at the cap consumption of x-large shield boosters compared to 1600mm armor plates. I dont know what kind of mental disorder it takes to think that 55.3 > 72, but apparently you have it.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 19:26:00 - [47] Edited by: Aamrr on 29/06/2011 19:26:39 Fair point.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.06.29 19:31:00 - [48] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 29/06/2011 19:33:00 Originally by: Aamrr Were you to compare the two ships, both of them running an active tank, there's little debate which of them would be burning more cap. That would be about as pointless as comparing both of them with passive tanks. We dont even need to debate which tanking type is way superior for all but a miniscule number of niche scenarios. Nice ninja edit with the cap consumption btw
Alara IonStorm Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.29 19:40:00 - [49] Originally by: Omara Otawan That would be about as pointless as comparing both of them with passive tanks. We dont even need to debate which tanking type is way superior for all but a miniscule number of niche scenarios. Nice ninja edit with the cap consumption btw Speaking of Niche Scenarios most Mealstroms today are Buffer Tanked not Active Tanked. In fact a very small number in comparison are Active Tanked almost Niche. -- EVE Online is commited to $$Excellence$$
Viibl Triibl	Posted - 2011.06.29 19:46:00 - [50] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Viibl Triibl Edited by: Viibl Triibl on 28/06/2011 15:50:00 If your solution to fix something is to nerf something else, you're not fixing anything. I'm also going to go out a limb and say that you probably don't know a goddamn thing about game design or balance, so it might be best if you just stop posting on the subject altogether. only dumb people think nerf is bad and buff is good as balance is relative you know even less about game design and balance than he so stop posting Blasters aren't suddenly going to track better or shoot farther if you nerf projectiles. You're not making any sense. Also, are you posting in haiku? Stay in school.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.06.29 19:54:00 - [51] Originally by: Alara IonStorm Speaking of Niche Scenarios most Mealstroms today are Buffer Tanked not Active Tanked. In fact a very small number in comparison are Active Tanked almost Niche. That was pretty much my point. Its not only the Maelstroms, the majority of Sleipnirs are using buffers, Brutixes and Astartes too, and even some Myrmidons you see rolling buffers.
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 20:08:00 - [52] I was attempting to pick two ships with most of their traits in common. Both are Tier-3 battleships with modest drone bays, 8 turrets, one DPS bonus, and one tanking bonus. Whether the ship in question active tanks or doesn't is really irrelvant. Amarrian ships have more capacitor to play with, but it's something like 1-3 GJ/s depending on the ship. This doesn't come close to compensating for the massive drain their turrets have.
Alara IonStorm Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.29 20:12:00 - [53] I wonder if Lasers did not have Scorch or Aurora Crystals what Laser Boats would still be in use. I know the rest of the Abbadons that haven't gon Arty would soon. The Only Minmatar Ships that would be affected by the loss of T2 Ammo are Kiters who will just Compensate with another TE. T2 Ammo is the onlything good about Amarr. -- EVE Online is commited to $$Excellence$$
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.06.29 20:19:00 - [54] Originally by: Aamrr Whether the ship in question active tanks or doesn't is really irrelvant. Amarrian ships have more capacitor to play with, but it's something like 1-3 GJ/s depending on the ship. This doesn't come close to compensating for the massive drain their turrets have. It is very relevant as active tanking obviously puts a huge strain on the capacitor. It just doesnt suit your argument.
Sable Schroedinger Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2011.06.29 20:22:00 - [55] Originally by: Cuko I've stated many times in the past. The main boost to Minmatar were the changes to the tracking enhancer. But! The tracking enhancers, only realy increased the viabilty of 3 ships: Tempest, Hurricane, Rupture. Without the changes to the tracking enhancer I was'nt planing on flying the Hurricane anymore (Didn't have to much going for it). It was subpar to most other battlecruisers: Drake (solo and fleets), Brutix (solo-active tank), Myrmidon (solo-active tank) and Harbinger (fleet). I'm very apposed to changing tracking enhancers back to the way they were. The Drake and Hurricane, fill the role of a nano-battlecruiser the best (fast n hard hitting). While regressing tracking enhancers wont realy hurt the Rupture. It would effect the Hurricane negatively and would likely be the worst battlecruiser ingame. I'm not to sure about how reverting tracking enhancers would effect the Tempest (luv the Tempest before and after the changes). In anycase, you could regress all changes to autocannons and Minmatar would still be win (was before the changes). As long as tracking enhancers remained untouched. Minmatar will be more viable in fleet engagements. BUT! If CCP reverted the tracking enhancer. Minmatar would lose it's current usefulness in fleet engagements. Back to the level's they were before the boost/changes and would make Minmatar and Gallente primarily; the 2 close-range pvp factions again. -proxyyyy Removing the falloff bonus completely, I agree, would be a mistake. Although I don't accept your view that it would make the cane terrible. The cane was a solid armour tanked BC long before the changes (I'm pretty sure I could dig out posts from mini pilots claiming the cane was the best of all the BCs at that time in fact). Personally I think the falloff bonus just needs to be reduced to around 15% in line with the optimal bonus on the mod. This still leaves minmatar with the option of pushing their range out a bit, but removes some of the crazier numbers we're seeing atm. Yes I would miss the extra range on my pest and cane, but that doesn't mean I can't see the issue with that range. -------------------------------------------- SF Recruiting
Aamrr	Posted - 2011.06.29 20:33:00 - [56] Edited by: Aamrr on 29/06/2011 20:35:33 Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: Aamrr Whether the ship in question active tanks or doesn't is really irrelvant. Amarrian ships have more capacitor to play with, but it's something like 1-3 GJ/s depending on the ship. This doesn't come close to compensating for the massive drain their turrets have. It is very relevant as active tanking obviously puts a huge strain on the capacitor. It just doesnt suit your argument. Correct. Active tanking EITHER ship will place a huge strain on its capacitor. The Abaddon just has the additional strain of its lasers, too. Not all Minmatar ships are active-tank bonus'd, you know. Edit: And you've still done nothing to dispute my factual evidence that Minmatar have more fittings relative to the cost of their turrets. I repeat. Identical powergrid, 14.3% more CPU. Go compare 800mm autocannons and mega pulses. I daresay you'll find a discrepancy.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2011.06.29 20:48:00 - [57] Originally by: Aamrr Edit: And you've still done nothing to dispute my factual evidence that Minmatar have more fittings relative to the cost of their turrets. I repeat. Identical powergrid, 14.3% more CPU. Go compare 800mm autocannons and mega pulses. I daresay you'll find a discrepancy. What factual evidence if I may ask? I only see claims, not a single shard of evidence. The Maelstrom has in fact way more CPU troubles with standard fittings due to CPU. Powergrid is just as irrelevant for 800mm Maelstroms as it is for a megapulse abaddons.
Cipher Jones Minmatar	Posted - 2011.06.29 21:05:00 - [58] Originally by: Aamrr Originally by: Dorian Tormak Originally by: Cipher Jones My bad. other pirate ships dont have an insane shield bonus in addition to a second bonus either..., oh wait, they do.Compare pirate faction to pirate faction ships or the argument is a waste of our time. Yeah, I notice people arguing that Gallente suck and they'll say something like, "Oh mah gawd, the Taranis is outperformed by the Dramiel!!" Except I was comparing faction ships to faction ships. Put the Machariel next to, say, the Vindicator. Both are considered top-tier faction ships, and both command a price of about a billion isk. Both get approximately a 35% boost to their DPS output from a role bonus (Machariel getting it in RoF, Vindicator in raw damage). Both get a standard damage application bonus (Machariel gets falloff, Vindicator gets tracking). Both get a secondary bonus (more damage vs. web strength). However, the Machariel gets absurdly low agility and inertia ON TOP of all this. It gives up nothing to gain this advantage, and in fact has a VERY generous fitting allotment on top of it. Essentially, all of the angel ships have a hidden 4th bonus to their agility, "just because." The amount of DPS that the vidi does compared to a mach is a greater ratio than the ratio between the agility of the 2 ships, so while its like a hidden bonus to the mach, its also like a hidden bonus to the vindi. . Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
Alara IonStorm Caldari Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.29 21:11:00 - [59] Originally by: Cipher Jones The amount of DPS that the vidi does compared to a mach is a greater ratio than the ratio between the agility of the 2 ships, so while its like a hidden bonus to the mach, its also like a hidden bonus to the vindi. Which makes up for everything... Unless you are outside of a docking ring or mighting anything with a Warp Disruptor and a bit more speed then you. -- EVE Online is commited to $$Excellence$$
Headerman Minmatar Quovis Shadow of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2011.06.30 01:47:00 - [60] The other alternative to fixing hybrids is to fix Gallente. Active armour tanking rigs add weight, slowing the ship, making blasters pointless. This in turn makes rails equally pointless: their super long range just isn't needed. I for one thing that the end result should be... Blasters: slightly less damage for better range Rails: more DPS for less range Ships: Ability to get in/out range to use the guns. Should Gallente boats get a slight agility buff? Should active armour rigs get a penalty to something else than weight? Or, should the whole ethos of fall-off damage that Minmatar have be given to Gallente, and the Gallente give very high damage, short range bonuses to the Minmatar?

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.