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)
LosVener	Posted - 2005.03.03 20:59:00 - [61] I love these changes and the pulse laser changes (at least in theory as I haven't had a chance to actually test them). One thought though. With the new ammo and crystals, hybrids always do at least as much thermal as kinetic and lasers always do more EM than thermal. In my opinion (and I am primarily a projectile and missile user), it might be better if some of the hybrid ammo did more kinetic than thermal and some crystals did more thermal than EM. For example: new close range hybrid ammo uranium 6 thermal 6 kinetic plutonium 8 thermal 4 kinetic antimatter 10 thermal 2 kinetic my suggestion uranium 4 thermal 8 kinetic plutonium 7 thermal 5 kinetic antimatter 10 thermal 2 kinetic This would allow the hybrid user more flexibility in damage types and make it more difficult to tank a specific race. Another way that this could be implimented is the way Hammer mentioned. Close range hybrid ammos could do more thermal while long range does more kinetic. Likewise, lasers could do more thermal at close range and more EM at long.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:01:00 - [62] CCP Hammer, if you want hybrid users to be happy with ammo damage, then simply do this: 0.5 range ammos: - 10 thermal 2 kinetic - 6 thermal 6 kinetic - 2 thermal 10 kinetic Then everyone should be happy, cause now you are giving people 3 good choices. Some people like thermal better, some people like kinetic better, some people want balanced damage. Hybrids are used by both Gallente and Caldari, and both of those races are supposed to focus on thermal and kinetic damage types. So it makes sense to have ammo that gives good options for both damage types. If you want to make medium range ammo more useful on hybrids, make it slightly more damaging. Railguns rely a lot on optimal range, so using 0.5 range ammo is kinda harsh. If medium range ammo was a bit more damaging it would be used more often, thus helping fulfil the role of railgun as long range - medium damage type gun
Weston McArthur	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:02:00 - [63] Hammer, how about one ammo doing mostly kin for .5 and 1.5, one ammo doing mostly therm for .5 and 1.5, and the rest are 'ballanced', with the 1.0's leaning to either side, but not completely.
Gierling	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:03:00 - [64] Hammer, the changes are interesting. However I do agree that the long ranged ammos and maybe one of the mid ranged (Lead) should be a little more biased towards kinetic. Its not like rails do crazy damage to begin with. I'd LIKE to see the total spread changed to have the longer ranged ammo do kinetic and explosive, with the shorter range ammo doing explosive and thermal... however that may be unreasonable and if it is just say so and I'll stop harping on it. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:07:00 - [65] Edited by: Selim on 03/03/2005 21:09:47 I think I agree that there needs to be one -25% range ammo. Either that, or make all the short range ammo -37.5%. And I don't think boosting the short range proj ammo will be unbalancing, since long range hybrid is getting a boost, too. Quote: Please, you have explosion ammo and EMP ammo. Two of the weakest resitance damage types. Do what I am often forced to do when PvP. Mount a hardner or two for your weakest damage restiance Except that we need two hardeners for armor, while you only need one, and we dont have cpu or mids to shield tank. Anyway lets not get off topic.
CCP Hammer	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:08:00 - [66] Originally by: Elaine Threepwood Just a short question: The short range projectile ammos are listed as doing a total of 12 damage in the blog (same as the hybrids and lasers) but on the test server they are only doing 11... Which one was the mistake? Uh.... the image should be 11. Crap... I thought I replaced that image but I guess not. ok fixed NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, GO BACK TO YOUR HOMES!!!!!!
CCP Hammer	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:09:00 - [67] Originally by: Dionysus Davinci Originally by: Elaine Threepwood Which one was the mistake? The Network Administrator putting a spreadsheet app on Hammerhead's machine /stab!!!
Elaine Threepwood	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:10:00 - [68] Originally by: CCP Hammer I was origianlly going to give the short range projectile ammos more damage but when asked point blank by TomB if I truely thought that the projectiles needed more damage after I just boosted them I couldn't honestly and whole heartedly say that yes I felt they should. I don't like to put changes like this out unless I feel it's for the better so max damage stayed at 11. OK, that makes sense... after all it works quite well right now imo compared with railguns with short range projectile ammo doing slightly less damage and long range doing slightly more (makes for variety...), soooooo is there a reason projectile long range ammo is getting dropped in damage to hybrid levels, while short range isn't being brought up to hybrid level? The only one i can come up with is the projectiles have a spread of damage types.
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:13:00 - [69] Originally by: CCP Hammer Originally by: Elaine Threepwood Just a short question: The short range projectile ammos are listed as doing a total of 12 damage in the blog (same as the hybrids and lasers) but on the test server they are only doing 11... Which one was the mistake? Uh.... the image should be 11. Crap... I thought I replaced that image but I guess not. ok fixed NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, GO BACK TO YOUR HOMES!!!!!! Why are you not boosting it to 12? You're boosting long-range hybrid ammo to what the projectile ammo is at, but short-range projectile ammo isn't getting a boost. The fact that you can choose damage types may help a little on certain heavy assaults and such but thats about it. Especially since it means you need to carry around all the ammo types. Plus, no -25% ammo means artillery will suck at its intended range. If you're not going to boost the ammo to 12, please make it only be -25% range.
Re'kiru	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:15:00 - [70] When I first looked over everything lastnight (having been told my a corp mate it made Amarr even more powerful) I was not in a good mindset and thought the changes sucked but looking over them again they look alright. Being a Minmatar I struggle to find an ammo that hits well in the 1400 sometimes due to tracking (finding a 0 transverse blows) so could you add some tracking bonusese to ammo? It is an off the wall and probably futile question but one I must ask. Overall very well done btw. I do agree with the people asking for shorter reload times, Amarr needing some downside on the ammo front though.
Gierling	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:21:00 - [71] Hammer, if the middle range ammo isn't generally used you could consider adding a dedicated midrange weapon to each class. Like particle beams for hybrid, Rifles or guns for projectile (oddly neither a autocannon or a howitzer is technically a gun), and EMP burst cannons for Energy. Or you could give energy a neat Electron flux cannon, with accompanying lightningbolt style fire effects... make it a close range gun and move pulses to middle range. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Seraph Demon	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:37:00 - [72] Best idea ever: mid-range projectile ammo types give tracking bonuses (to offset them from their short and long-range counterparts)
Niki Silver	Posted - 2005.03.03 21:57:00 - [73] Originally by: CCP Hammer I'm thinking about trying the long range hybrid ammo with more kinetic bias. What are people's thoughts on that? Well I read the other thread about mega pulses and the smile on my face quickly turned to a frown after reading this one. Hammer it doesn't matter what you do with the long range hybrid. It's rarely going to be used. Long range is not the Gallente way. And if we are talking hybrids, then we are talking Gallente. A hybrid user vs a projectile user has one small advantage, tracking. Tiny bit more on the turret itself, and the Megathron bonus. Only way to take advantage of this is to close the range and try to out track the opponent. Long range hybrid ammo has no place in that scheme. I do like the idea of grouping the ammo into 3 range groups but I do not like the idea that laser's are exempt of this. All or none please. If the laser's are keeping multiple range groups because of fall off - then adjust the fall off. If turrets and their ammunition are to be grouped into 3 range categories then for that to be balanced ALL turrets must be included. I do not like the bias towards Thermal, for the same reasons everyone else has posted. I also do not like the damage and cap reduction distrubition a whole lot. The chart in Dionysos Davinci's post above looks better. Though I would flip it upside down and put the kinetic bias in the short range rather then the long. I know that makes less sense from a Physics perspective then having the kinetic bias at the long range. But given a choice between thermal bias or kinetic bias, I'll take the kinetic. As said 100 times already by everyone else - everyone tanks thermal. I dunno about all the hybrid users in the game but I would venture to say that most use short range ammo, with some using mid range ammo, and the rest using something inbetween. Long range hybrid ammo is refinery food. Hammer please explain something, because it makes no logical sense to me. Why does normal projectile ammunition do 3 damage types while hybrid does only 2? That makes absoulutely no sense. Anyway... My suggestion for hybrid ammo devided into 3 different ranges would be a very even mix: 2 Long range ammos, 1 biased Kinetic, 1 biased Thermal. 3 Mid range ammos, 1 biased Kinetic, 1 biased Thermal, 1 balanced. 2 Short range ammos, 1 biased Kinetic, 1 biased Thermal. Now - that distribution makes it so that there is not a balanced ammo for long or short. As a short range user wanting balance, I would load half my guns with one type and half my guns with the other, making my Kinetic/Thermal balanced. Long range users could do the same thing, and mid range users have the balanced ammo or a bias either way. This distribution allows the user to decide his/her own damage type bias and not be restricted / forced to use one or the other. As far as wich ones should get the cap bonus goes. Either a scientific point of view with Kinetic using less cap then thermal, or a more balanced one, giving cap reduction to the biased types and normal cap use to the balanced types. Seriously though, hybrid cap issues are with the turrets themselves, not the ammo. Cap bonus ammunition helps, but even using high cap bonus ammunition, Gallente still has cap issues. Speaking of Gallente cap issues, it's going to be pretty hard to fit many different types of ammunition in the cargo hold with booster charges hogging up all the space. Since an armor tanking, hybrid turret using, micro warp driving Megathron without a cap booster is a dead Megathron. Ammunition volume for all types, projectile, hybrid, focus crystals, even missiles, should be reduced. Summary: 3 range groups = Good idea, but lasers must be included to make it fair to ALL turrets. Forcing hybrid users into a Thermal damage bias is a bad thing. Let us decide for ourselves. Cap issues with hybrid needs to be adressed at the turret level, not the ammo level. Ammunition volume should be reduced (Off topic yet related - Cap booster charge volume should be reduced as well) Please consider a more balanced bias distribution such as my own suggestion or the one made by Dionysos Davinci above. No offense but the distribution in the chart in the blog is pretty ugly, because there is to much Thermal bias. Niki
Gierling	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:05:00 - [74] I use rails on Gallente ships. Odd, I see them quite often, heck even the npc's have them so there goes your logic of it not being the gallente way. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Jennai	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:05:00 - [75] someone remind me why I am using hybrids? they can't switch ammo really fast. they have either crap tracking or crap range. they don't have any variance in damage types, they can only do the two most commonly tanked. they use rather large amounts of cap. and now they're going to be heavily shifted toward thermal, the most commonly tanked damage type? why should I even bother using them when everyone will just slap on their thermal hardeners?
Niki Silver	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:08:00 - [76] Originally by: Gierling I use rails on Gallente ships. Odd, I see them quite often, heck even the npc's have them so there goes your logic of it not being the gallente way. I said long range is not the Gallente way, Not rails are not the gallente way. Ofcourse rails are the Gallente way - try reading next time.
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:15:00 - [77] Edited by: Dionysus Davinci on 03/03/2005 22:15:39 Originally by: Niki Silver Please consider a more balanced bias distribution such as my own suggestion or the one made by Dionysos Davinci above. No offense but the distribution in the chart in the blog is pretty ugly, because there is to much Thermal bias.Niki Actually, I got rid of range bonus for hybrid users because lets be honest. Noone useses rails except for RAT hunting and fleet battles for several reasons. 1) The long range ammo hits like **** 2) Add in slow ROF 3) Equals unable to break tanks in small action before cap runs out trying to keep your tank up to the super tank Apoc. So, just go all out and make Gallente the close range kings everyone wants them to be. Give them two short range ammos that give you a choice of kn or thm bias but with little or no cap usage bonus but regular range ammo that doesn't hit as hard but gives cap bonus for rails for when rail usuage would be apporaite. Obviously we wouldn't excel at long range, but we can be very good at close range to WTFPWN you and TRADIONTALLY remeber. Range usually wins because your hitting before they can and blasters scream this out. I also don't like range bonuses because then I have end up mount a booster to shoot and it just doesn't seem to balance out since the opt range of a rail is pretty much at the target range of a mega.
Marcus Aurelius	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:18:00 - [78] Edited by: Marcus Aurelius on 03/03/2005 22:18:40 No, long range ammo = must I dont fancy having to take out my Raven for fleetbattles cause hybrids cant do any long range damage whatsoever. and low rof ? what you on about. Hybrid rails have the best rof of all long range guns. As for tracking, get skills and tracking comps/enhancers. Fixes things in no time tbh, escpecially at long range.
Karrde CZ	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:30:00 - [79] to CCP: screw up this game even more and you won't be getting my $30/mo anymore. Oh, the ammo changes are not good imho. cheers, KCZ .............................. 2005.03.23 05:41:55combatYour 720mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Mercenary Fighter, wrecking for 879.0 damage.
Marcus Aurelius	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:37:00 - [80] Originally by: Karrde CZ to CCP: screw up this game even more and you won't be getting my $30/mo anymore. Oh, the ammo changes are not good imho. cheers, KCZ OMG buhhuuuu. Not very constructive, but I'd probably be safe assuming you dont like to not have uber pulses on your aram or apoc ? Having just ~50km range is probably not good enough for you ? Bring arguments nex time, makes it worth reading your posts.
RollinDutchMasters	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:42:00 - [81] Originally by: Karrde CZ to CCP: screw up this game even more and you won't be getting my $30/mo anymore. Oh, the ammo changes are not good imho. cheers, KCZ Dear Karrde, We dont care. We do however have your billing address, a legal team with not enough to do, and several socks full of pennies. Love, CCP Originally by: Sochin CCP has provided you with the tools you need to avoid crime. You're just too lazy/stupid to use them.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:44:00 - [82] Originally by: RollinDutchMasters Originally by: Karrde CZ to CCP: screw up this game even more and you won't be getting my $30/mo anymore. Oh, the ammo changes are not good imho. cheers, KCZ Dear Karrde, We dont care. We do however have your billing address, a legal team with not enough to do, and several socks full of pennies. Love, CCP Pennies need to be nerfed. My socks with doorknobs in does less damage at smaller ranges. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:50:00 - [83] CCP Hammer: have you examined the problem with Hybrid ammo currently having only three viable ammo types (Iron, Lead and Uranium)? I.e. why use an ammo type that does the same damage but without the capacitor bonus? -- If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please.
Nebulanix	Posted - 2005.03.03 22:50:00 - [84] Hammer - I started out Gallente in training and found that alot of Gallente stuff seemed quite useless unless I wanted to be an industrialist. Been flying Caldari and I like the ships of course because I get good DOT. Now with the ammo changes I might just consider the Mega as an option.. Maybe... At least it will shake the game up a bit I.E. rattle the sand box. I think the changes are ok. Should balance out how we plan pvp. Anyways.. good luck with the experiment..
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.03 23:00:00 - [85] I think ammo with thermal bias should get slight cap bonus ammo with kinetic bias shouldn't get cap bonus that's cause, thermal damage is hardened against more often than kinetic, and a slight cap boost to using thermal ammo will help offset that disadvantage 0.5 range ammo - 10 thermal 2 kinetic - 10% cap bonus - 6 thermal 6 kinetic - 5% cap bonus - 2 thermal 10 kinetic - 0% cap bonus
Niki Silver	Posted - 2005.03.03 23:03:00 - [86] Originally by: Face Lifter I think ammo with thermal bias should get slight cap bonus ammo with kinetic bias shouldn't get cap bonus that's cause, thermal damage is hardened against more often than kinetic, and a slight cap boost to using thermal ammo will help offset that disadvantage 0.5 range ammo - 10 thermal 2 kinetic - 10% cap bonus - 6 thermal 6 kinetic - 5% cap bonus - 2 thermal 10 kinetic - 0% cap bonus 5% and 10% are pretty insignifigant, maybe something more like 15% and 30%.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.03 23:43:00 - [87] No. All those 0.5 charges do same amount of raw damage, the difference between them is not significant enough to justify more than 10% cap bonus.
Riddari	Posted - 2005.03.03 23:50:00 - [88] Now there I was, rediscovering my megathron which had laid for almost a year unused. Plutonium seemed to give me sufficient damage and just the right amount of cap saving so that full tanking plus blasting plus burning the afterdrive to those multiple npc battleships meant that at 20% cap and 35% armor the big guys finally popped and I could slowly regain cap and armor. Now this change is going to make me look at my other ships because... 1) You have allready accepted that the cap usage of hybrids is a bit much and "might get looked at, might! not certain". By lowering the cap bonus for the close range ammo, you are killing my cap. My only way to compensate is to carry cap recharges in my cargo hold, but then I don't have room for my ammo! 2) By making my damage mostly thermal you are making sure that tanking is a even more no-brainer now than ever before in that the first hardener you put on is thermal, after that it gets trickier but thermal is a complete no-brainer. So my cap is now less and I am doing less damage! Totally brilliant way to nerf my megathron! I have 2.4m points in Drones and closing in on 3 million now. Drones are close range, yes I can control them up to 40-45km but the heavy drones are awfully slow and can easily be shot down as the march ever so slowly. So I go close range, Gallente style is blasters and drones (yes the rail option is there too but honestly... you need lots of rail ships to instakill or some serious tackling squad while you are far away so it's not a solo weapon). The extra cap penalty you are proposing for close range ammo totally kicks the megathron between his long exteriors. Don't mess too much with the kinetic/thermal spread and please please don't make hybrids even worse by taking more cap of them, it's not like they have a lot of it now. I can always go back to my apoc I guess... it's a shame since I was really enjoying the really up close and personal and on the edge wire act of Gallente battleships. This wire act will be harder than anything Houdini thought of with the cap changes. ¼©¼ a history
Riddari	Posted - 2005.03.03 23:53:00 - [89] Oh and I forgot. Please reduce the ammo sizes, I can't move from a station or cargo indy if I want to be able to kill npc's without making a long break to go and reload and go back. If you are taking my cap, at least give us smaller cargo sizes so I can at least carry some 800 charges (which could also do with being A LOT smaller). The recent stealth nerf of making various modules 10m3 instead of 5m3 isn't improving my mood either. Big nice shiny fork and nothing to stick it at without watching it break ¼©¼ a history
Thanit	Posted - 2005.03.03 23:54:00 - [90] Edited by: Thanit on 03/03/2005 23:55:51 Riddari, depednign on what you fight, the new Am ammo might use more cap, but could well do more damage to your sanshas... Unless ofc you fight angels, which would suck anyway with a blasterthron.

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.