EVE Search - Hammer's new ammo work discussion

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Hammer's new ammo work discussion

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.02 22:35:00 - [1] Since the thread referred to by Kieron in general is about pulses, and not about the ammo work in the devblog he links to in the same post, herewith a thread to cry out, discuss and generally misbehave. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.02 22:38:00 - [2] I noticed that, so I was a bit hesitent to post my ammo comments in the "nerf lasers" thread. But I did anyways, check out my response on 2nd page
Na'Axin	Posted - 2005.03.02 22:45:00 - [3] Edited by: Na''Axin on 02/03/2005 22:45:30 yep, the nerf to long range laser crystals is really crappy.... nerf pulses alright, but IMO beams really don't need a nerf. don't touch those radio crystals >:( (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.02 22:46:00 - [4] Edited by: Selim on 02/03/2005 22:54:42 I didn't know about the dev blog until I posted in the thread. I just looked, and I love it. Big thumbs up from me. Except for titanium sabot doing such low kinetic, its supposed to be the highest kinetic one. I think the crystal changes are fine. Lasers were never meant to be very long range anyway, due to the obvious dissipation of the energy at longer ranges, this is why they have such poor falloff. Something could be done to make sure beams are in sync with the other long range guns, though. By the way, the radio crystal gives 1.6x range, rather than 1.5 for the others, this is obviously for a balance as it does weaker damage than the high-range ammos of the others. Plus being easier to resist with full focused hardeners. I really like the changes. It'll mean you can hit pretty damn far compared to other guns with radio, but you'll be doing less damage. By the way, I don't feel like making a thread for this, but could you make tracking computers give 10% bonus to falloff, and cut the optimal bonus to 10% as well? Would really help close-range guns. So yeah, big thumbs up to these changes.
BlueSmok	Posted - 2005.03.02 22:48:00 - [5] They've totaly cut the amount of kinetic damage done by all ammos which previously did kinetic damage. I wonder what they have planned for Kinetic dmg. Or if it was just faulty thinking. *Laws to suppress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security. Bene Gesserit Coda
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:02:00 - [6] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 02/03/2005 23:05:16 First of all. I commented about the 3 ranged hybrids ammo in the devblog comments. After calculating the way in which both projectile optimal and faloff and hybrid optimal and faloff behave under these new rules I would agree that both are pretty damn close, even with the relatively high faloff for projectiles. the low faloff on lasers make the point to not let lasers be reduced to three ranges valid and balanced imo. So so far so good. Range thing = thumbs up. Now for the damage types on hybrids: more thermal, less kinetic. On first thought: good, more shield damage, same armor damage must be good. But on the other hand. Wont this mean that yet another race does alot of thermal damage (we have lasers already). Won't this result in thermal tanking ftw negating the new advantage given exactly because of the relatively low damage hybrids did ? And what about the cap use bonuses ? I see plutonium lsot 10% of its bonus, uranium lost 15% ? Yest still they do only a little extra damage ? There have been situations in which I preferred using plutonium over anti matter purely to save cap on the challenged gallente ships. This option is now gone. But on further thought, the option to vary damage types more at the same ranges might be worth more. All in all, interesting stuff. I look forward to seeing it at work, and seeing the numbers crunched like they undoubtedly will soon. Aside from all that, this may not be the place or opportunity, but tbh, takling away some of the hybrid cap use bonuses makes looking over the total hybrid cap use even more important. I trust that hasnt gone unnoticed. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:28:00 - [7] Edited by: Selim on 02/03/2005 23:36:23 The one problem I have, is that artillery and railguns will have a serious disadvantage at adjusting range accordingly. You won't be able to hit good at -25% range with your -50% so you'll have to use your 1x range ammo, while the laser guy can use his -25% which does more damage. Its also worth noting that carrying 8 ammo types is a *****. Please, reduce the ammo volume by at least 50%. Also... change ammo switching times to 5 SECONDS. 10 seconds is crazy long. Lasers are gonna have a huge advantage there being able to switch ammo very quickly to modify range.
Parallax Error	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:37:00 - [8] Originally by: Selim The one problem I have, is that artillery and railguns will have a serious disadvantage at adjusting range accordingly. You won't be able to hit good at -25% range with your -50% so you'll have to use your 1x range ammo, while the laser guy can use his -25% which does more damage. Its also worth noting that carrying 8 ammo types is a *****. Please, reduce the ammo volume by at least 50%. A fair point, but having to keep up with ammo changes (which you have to due to the lasers tiny fall off) in any lag starts to get very tricky indeed. In practice would the extra falloff range from projectiles not help to buffer this or would you expect to see a marked difference with a laser user?
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:44:00 - [9] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 02/03/2005 23:45:55 I did the hybrid and projectile math on it. Every time, the switch from the new short to med or med to long range ammo takes pace at max optimal+1x falloff. For projectiles there is some variation dependent on skills, but for hybrids there is not. That variation is small. So in the end, I'd expect it to pay off to switch at about optimal+0.75x faloff or something. To get best performance out of ammo. And tbh, with lasers having flaky faloff, the thing isnt gonna matter that much I think. Lasers would have to switch mroe often, but indeed will be more effective at ranges right in between two of the ammo types of the other turrets. Ofc, they cant know when that is, since one tracking comp or named turret changes the whole picture. As far as ammo types to carry, I fully expect to be using only three of these ammos in 905 of the engagements. One short, one med and one long. You figure out which it'll be. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Istvaan Shogaatsu	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:49:00 - [10] Radio S: 5 EM Iron S: 3 Kin 3 Therm This alone is broken. I know it's really fun for CCP to keep ruining one race while making the next a Flavor of the Month® but, for a change, could we maybe try achieving equilibrium? How do you even justify this?
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:50:00 - [11] Then again, it matters more with projectiles since the different damage types is one of its big advantages. Its sort of easy with autocannons, since you only really need the 3 high damage ones, but you burn through that pretty quick. I have trouble bringing enough ammo of one type as it is. Artillery is somewhat easier since it fires so slow, though.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:51:00 - [12] Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Radio S: 5 EM Iron S: 3 Kin 3 Therm This alone is broken. I know it's really fun for CCP to keep ruining one race while making the next a Flavor of the Month® but, for a change, could we maybe try achieving equilibrium? How do you even justify this? Radio gets 1.6 range, Iron gets 1.5. Check out Microwave, it has the same range and damage.
jamesw	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:52:00 - [13] Originally by: Rod Blaine You figure out which it'll be. Uranium FTW!!! -- jamesw Rubra Libertas Militia Originally by: RollinDutchMasters I fly a dominix, its like a portable blob in a can
Cheim	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:57:00 - [14] I commented in the dev blog thread to the effect that being able to choose the balance of kinetic and thermal at a given range didn't matter so Uranium would always be better than Antimatter, but after some math I want to retract that. I'm pretty bad with math though, so feel free to correct me. Uranium S: 6 thermal, 6 kinetic Antimatter S: 10 thermal, 2 kinetic Shield resists: 20 (60) thermal, 40 (70) kinetic 6.8 + 6.6 = 8.4 Uranium against unhardened 6.4 + 6.3 = 4.2 Uranium against hardened 10.8 + 2.6 = 9.2 Antimatter vs. unhardened 10.4 + 2.3 + 4.6 Antimatter vs. hardened 9.2/8.4 or 4.6/4.2 = 1.095238, so Antimatter is about 9.5% better against unhardened or normal triple-hardened shields. Armor resists (Amarr and Minmatar): 35 (67.5) thermal, 25 (62.5) kinetic 6.65 + 6.75 = 8.4 Uranium vs. unhardened 6.325 + 6.375 = 4.2 Uranium vs. hardened 10.65 + 2.75 = 8 Antimatter vs. unhardened 10.325 + 2.375 = 4 Antimatter vs. hardened 8.4/8 or 4.2/4 = 1.05, so Uranium is 5% better than Antimatter against unhardened or normal triple-hardened armor, not accounting for Gallente and Caldari bonus resistances. So it does matter. I still maintain it doesn't matter enough to base the hybrid ammo scheme around damage type, and I certainly don't think Uranium should use less cap than Antimatter, but there it is.
Parallax Error	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:57:00 - [15] Just to play devils advocate: If your swapping the projectile and hybrid ammo to the 0.5, 1 and 1.5 range format, wouldn't it be better to do the same for crystals? Atleast then you can tweak falloffs and optimals and carry a direct comparison between all 3 turret types?
Istvaan Shogaatsu	Posted - 2005.03.02 23:59:00 - [16] Quote: Radio gets 1.6 range, Iron gets 1.5. Check out Microwave, it has the same range and damage. K, iron does two damage types, radio does one. It now does the least damage of all ammo types, an ammo type inherently retarded against armour. This was its balancing factor, the fact that it only did EM and blew huge chunks against armour. Net result: Iron is just as good against shields as it is against armour, radio is only as good against shields as iron is but chokes against armour. Just another FOTM® rotation, nothing we haven't seen before. Guess it's time to put the Crusader away forever.
Liu Kaskakka	Posted - 2005.03.03 00:06:00 - [17] Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu FOTM® rotation Well, if that is not as good as "ultimate balance", at least it is better (and brings more variety out there) than continuous superiority by one.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.03 00:06:00 - [18] I can see where for small guns and non-hardened target radios would be sucky now yes. But look at it with a megabeams or tach in mind and someone with a thermal and kinetic armor hardener on and its all different again. tbh, i think giving lasers a bit mroe optimal with the radio crystal is a good idea. Laser had the lowest optimal of the long range classes. This gives then some way to catch up range-wise while not losing tha tracking or damage advanatage they have more then would be belanced. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.03 03:56:00 - [19] Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu Quote: Radio gets 1.6 range, Iron gets 1.5. Check out Microwave, it has the same range and damage. K, iron does two damage types, radio does one. It now does the least damage of all ammo types, an ammo type inherently retarded against armour. This was its balancing factor, the fact that it only did EM and blew huge chunks against armour. Net result: Iron is just as good against shields as it is against armour, radio is only as good against shields as iron is but chokes against armour. Just another FOTM® rotation, nothing we haven't seen before. Guess it's time to put the Crusader away forever. I'm afraid you don't understand. The microwave crystal has the same range as iron and carbonized lead, and also does the same amount of damage. Look, it even does some thermal. The radio crystal does poo damage but its got a higher range, I don't think you can complain about getting to hit farther.
Meehan	Posted - 2005.03.03 06:29:00 - [20] Originally by: Selim I'm afraid you don't understand. The microwave crystal has the same range as iron and carbonized lead, and also does the same amount of damage. Look, it even does some thermal. The radio crystal does poo damage but its got a higher range, I don't think you can complain about getting to hit farther. It doesn't. The low fall-off will allow hybrid/projectile users to hit much farther than radio crystals with their +0.1 range bonus will.
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.03.03 06:50:00 - [21] Originally by: Meehan Originally by: Selim I'm afraid you don't understand. The microwave crystal has the same range as iron and carbonized lead, and also does the same amount of damage. Look, it even does some thermal. The radio crystal does poo damage but its got a higher range, I don't think you can complain about getting to hit farther. It doesn't. The low fall-off will allow hybrid/projectile users to hit much farther than radio crystals with their +0.1 range bonus will. EH ? Hybrids and projectiles have lower optimal, and some falloff, the charge/ammo optimal bonus will only effect the optimal part by as much as they did before, while the crystals will effect almost the entire lasers range, more than they did before. how can you say lasers will get less range here ? On the point of kinetic damage, since we are going more towards racial damage types lately with every change (pushing more towards a scissors>paper>rock>scissors balance model) the kinetic damage is presumably being pushes towards its race - which is caldari - ownder of missiles (remember ages ago TomB said they'd given up and given hybrids as a whole to gallente ?) . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Nekhad Jormuzzar	Posted - 2005.03.03 06:53:00 - [22] Why the new fixation with thermal on hybrids? Wouldn't it be more logical to have a mainly thermal, a balanced, and a mainly kinetic ammo?
Meehan	Posted - 2005.03.03 07:05:00 - [23] Okay, I admit defeat. Trying to counter your "EH?" I actually found it all seems pretty balanced after all. Now just to see how it turns out to function in reality
Gierling	Posted - 2005.03.03 08:12:00 - [24] Likw I said in the dev blog. Make rails do Kinetic and explosive and blasters do thermal and explosive and it should help immensely. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.03 08:42:00 - [25] Eh, hybrid shells don't explode. They have plasma in them, and they're fired really fast from railguns, thus the kinetic and thermal. Blasters should really only do thermal but since they both use the same ammo it cant be changed. And for balance reasons, they shouldnt do explodo. Its supposed to be one of the projectile advantages to choose damage types, and even though it doesnt really matter that much in the end since you cant carry all that ammo anyway, it gives it 'flavor', which CCP loves so much.
Gierling	Posted - 2005.03.03 08:57:00 - [26] PLasma release from a highly pressurized shell impacting at relatavistic velocities is gonna do more then warm up the enemies hull (thermal). It actually would be textbook explosive force (Rapid pressure change). To make it work you just make it so that the long range ammos do Kinetic and Explosive and short range only do thermal and explosive. Your still not as versatile as minmater, and your still doing mainly one type of damage. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Lacreya Zydorna	Posted - 2005.03.03 09:09:00 - [27] Shifting damage on hybrid ammo from kinetic to thermal is an awful idea. It means more power to the thermal tanking, which is already too widespread anyway. This also means that 2 / 3 types of turrets will be mainly anti-shield type weapons instead of the balanced, 1 sheld, one half shield half armour, and 1 armour based turrets. If you are going to remove kinetic, stick the damage onto explosive instead
Grimpak	Posted - 2005.03.03 09:27:00 - [28] Edited by: Grimpak on 03/03/2005 09:28:07 looks like I'll still gonna use lead in rails heh ..since it got a pretty balanced damage distribution, plus the -50% bonus cap consumed is still good. but I have to agree that the shift for a single damage type is bad. ------------------- Quote: Fragm's Oversized Ego Cannon barely scratches the forums, inflicting omgnoonecares damage
Elrathias	Posted - 2005.03.03 09:45:00 - [29] tbh it should be one of the blasters weapon charateristics. -100% kinetic dmg and some explosive added as a bonus. idk how hard it would be to implement though. --------------------------
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.03.03 09:56:00 - [30] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 03/03/2005 09:58:29 Lasers now do less thermal, hybrids more. Lasers do more EM Projectiles do less kinetic, as do hybrids. So, if anything, what is going to change in the tanking department ? - 1 kinetic hardener + 1 EM hardener OR +1 thermal hardener OR +1 explosive (projectiles are getting popular again) Now, if you'd use the hybrid ammo with 50% kinetic damage that would rule. Using the thermal ammo is a guess, but if the choice was made to go for EM or expl hardening...it would be better then before as well. Mixing both ammo types... And against a untanked target...it would also be better overall due to increased shield damage... No, the more i look at it, the more i like it. Only problem is going to be to decide on when to switch form short to medium and medium to long. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: 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.