|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
1
   |
Posted - 2013.04.02 09:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
I believe to nerf the TE is a mistake.
Where is the problem ?
The problem is more with the medium autocanon.
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 9600)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 8800)
If you change this data, you don't need to adjust the TE.
I propose
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 5000)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 4400)
The main problem is more than the gun than the module.
Also perhaps that will be a great idea to split the ammo.
Ammo for weapon short range and ammo for weapon long range. That will be more easy to make some good balancing after that. |
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:AspiB'elt wrote:I believe to nerf the TE is a mistake.
Where is the problem ?
The problem is more with the medium autocanon.
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 9600)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 8800)
If you change this data, you don't need to adjust the TE.
I propose
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 5000)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 4400)
The main problem is more than the gun than the module.
Also perhaps that will be a great idea to split the ammo.
Ammo for weapon short range and ammo for weapon long range. That will be more easy to make some good balancing after that. Nope. The autocannosn are intended to have superior falloff than blasters. Significantly Superior. The problem is the module itself! A module that increases so massively any ship capability with almost no cost up to the point that it becomes a serius reason why not even think on armor tanking is something in need of a nerf! Its is so clearly the TE problem that you see amarr ships shield tankign so they can use TE!
They are no problem with that. In Amarr in shield you don't have tanking because you have only 3 or 4 medium slot. Increase your range without tanking and without speed. It's no a problem.
In this case the autocannon keep a better falloff then Gallente but you decrease massively the range of the optimal + 2*falloff.
The problem is simply in this equation optimal + 2* falloff (the falloff for the medium autocannon it's too high ). it's also for this reason than minmatar use only the short range ammo.
Now if you spit the ammo in two short range ammo and long range ammo (autocannon and artillery don't use same ammo).
You can make some very interesting modification (this value is only for exemple).
First range :
Autocannon EMP same damage optimal 0 (before -50 %)
Second range :
Autocannon Titanium sabot same damage, tracking + 20 % and falloff + 30 %
third range :
Autocannon nuclear same damage, tracking + 5 % + 50 optimal + 50 % falloff
|
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 11:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Claire Raynor wrote:AspiB'elt wrote:I believe to nerf the TE is a mistake.
Where is the problem ?
The problem is more with the medium autocanon.
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 9600)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 8800)
If you change this data, you don't need to adjust the TE.
I propose
425 mm T2 (optimal 2400, falloff 5000)
220 mm T2 (optimal 2160, falloff 4400)
The main problem is more than the gun than the module.
Also perhaps that will be a great idea to split the ammo.
Ammo for weapon short range and ammo for weapon long range. That will be more easy to make some good balancing after that. You do realise you've just suggested that ACs should have the same falloff - less opptimal - and significantly less DPS than blasters - and that would be balanced how?
They have more range then gallente but less than laser. They make less dps than gallente but more then amarr.
The minmatar have also the smallest signature. And about tanking it's about the same then gallente. But minmatar have more speed and more agility. |
|
|
| |
|