EVE Search - Increase ALL ammo clip sizes in RMR

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Increase ALL ammo clip sizes in RMR

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Weirda	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:13:00 - [1] It have been stated inside many thread in many different way - but this needs to happen. When even dual 425s (projectile) need a reload while breaking a raven tank... that is pretty sad. Please double the clip size on all weapon system that hold ammo... or better yet - reduce the size of all ammo by half (this is preferable since we need to carry more now). thanks in advance tomb/tux... weirda love you.... _____________ Thread Killer Give Assault Ship their Missing Bonus in RMR! <END TRANSMISSION>
Kuningatar	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:14:00 - [2] /signed not can be so hard.
Parallax Error	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:15:00 - [3] As someone who has only ever used Lasers. I agree.
Kiyirari	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:17:00 - [4] /agreed Minmatar projectile weapons certianly need better ammo holding...
Forsch	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:19:00 - [5] Double cargo bay instead, so Amarr benefit as well!
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:20:00 - [6] Half all (but crystal) ammo size. Amarr really doesn't need more loot bay. Ar+es n. Greek Mythology - The god of war. v. Eve online - Expensive and useless
Adrian Steel	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:28:00 - [7] Sigh... It's not a clip, it's a magazine.
Khabok	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:34:00 - [8] Watchoo' talkin' 'bout? My gat done got a clip, yo. Magazine sumptin' got pictures in it. Oh, schnaaps! Dat's my moms minivans.. I gots to go. <hops in a Plymouth Voyager to go to soccer practice in some random suburb in Smalltown, America> ______________________________________________ "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." -Sun Tzu
slip66	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:41:00 - [9] Originally by: Ithildin Half all (but crystal) ammo size. Amarr really doesn't need more loot bay. Thats sounds pretty fair to me. /signed
Mercade	Posted - 2005.12.08 17:49:00 - [10] As I always envisioned combat being a dance between ranges and weapon types where ammo switches might occur during a battle. one ship realizing the other is stronger at range using it's speed to push the other to a bad position. I have to not sign this in hopes that they are looking for more dynamic warfare and being able to run a gun continuously through the breaking of another ships tank does not really promote anything positively in my mind. To me it would already be balanced as all but 1 race would be affected, laser users and they are balanced in they are of the greatest penalty of off range usage so they will be the most suceptible to the affects of longer warfare in general unless they can maintain their range and then cap will already be a big issue for them I would imagine. So in that I see no problem and I disagree with the change Originally by: kieron ...possible causes for an extended downtime, I think playing WoW would be close to the bottom of the list, probably between shaving cats and having dental work done w/o anethesia.

Magunus	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:05:00 - [11] Edited by: Magunus on 08/12/2005 18:12:48 Originally by: Mercade As I always envisioned combat being a dance between ranges and weapon types where ammo switches might occur during a battle. one ship realizing the other is stronger at range using it's speed to push the other to a bad position. I have to not sign this in hopes that they are looking for more dynamic warfare and being able to run a gun continuously through the breaking of another ships tank does not really promote anything positively in my mind. To me it would already be balanced as all but 1 race would be affected, laser users and they are balanced in they are of the greatest penalty of off range usage so they will be the most suceptible to the affects of longer warfare in general unless they can maintain their range and then cap will already be a big issue for them I would imagine. So in that I see no problem and I disagree with the change Wow. This just isn't right. There's something seriously wrong. This is a well reasoned and explained post which does not agree with the original poster and yet it's not a flame. C'mon, get with the program. :P Frighteningly enough, I'd never thought of that, and I think I agree. I'll have to think about it some more. However, this did bring up a question in my mind. Since combat will be lasting longer, does this mean that lasers are indirectly are being given a boost, since they don't have to reload while most other ships will probably have to (or if they do to gain range, their reload is very short)? Interesting. A new twist to the balance game. :) --- In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe'
HippoKing	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:11:00 - [12] Originally by: Forsch Double cargo bay instead, so Amarr benefit as well! i think you missed the point or your joking and i just made of a fool of me
Hippey	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:15:00 - [13] /signed give a purpose to 200mm/425mm/800mm AC's -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you do nothing to stop slavery, you do everything to support it
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:17:00 - [14] Originally by: Hippey /signed give a purpose to 200mm/425mm/800mm AC's Not to mention 1400's - those are COMPLETELY screwed by RMR. -Wrayeth Go away.
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:57:00 - [15] Agreed, it makes sense with tanking changes.
The Wizz117	Posted - 2005.12.08 18:59:00 - [16] and dont "forget" the missiles!
Dark PIne	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:03:00 - [17] Originally by: Weirda It have been stated inside many thread in many different way - but this needs to happen. When even dual 425s (projectile) need a reload while breaking a raven tank... that is pretty sad. Please double the clip size on all weapon system that hold ammo... or better yet - reduce the size of all ammo by half (this is preferable since we need to carry more now). thanks in advance tomb/tux... weirda love you.... IMHO different clip sizes and reloads should be part of the battle equation, therefore I'm basically against this idea. Maybe the clip sizes need a closer look after tanking changes, but the reload time should always play a part in a battle. No-reloads should be the unique feature of lasers only (and I'm saying this as a dedicated missile user).
myfacehurts	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:15:00 - [18] decrease ammo siz tbh
wierchas noobhunter	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:15:00 - [19] /signed
Arleonenis	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:18:00 - [20] agree

SengH	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:19:00 - [21] Originally by: Weirda It have been stated inside many thread in many different way - but this needs to happen. When even dual 425s (projectile) need a reload while breaking a raven tank... that is pretty sad. Please double the clip size on all weapon system that hold ammo... or better yet - reduce the size of all ammo by half (this is preferable since we need to carry more now). thanks in advance tomb/tux... weirda love you.... dual 425s use an insane ammount of ammo. Easily 900 units for just 1 reload for all your guns.
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:21:00 - [22] Edited by: Jim Steele on 08/12/2005 19:23:27 Missiles are getting a reduction in volume im sure the tempest needs some more bay since they chew through ammo same with hybrids im sure... im not sure about the clip size but ceartanly the volume of ammo except crystals need a look at. As a laser user it wont affect me but i can see that other people are getting shafted by the RMR changes. i.e. more hitpoints = more ammo needed. Author of "The Apoc Guide"
VossKarr	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:21:00 - [23] Originally by: Wrayeth Originally by: Hippey /signed give a purpose to 200mm/425mm/800mm AC's Not to mention 1400's - those are COMPLETELY screwed by RMR. QFT. Signed.
Mercade	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:49:00 - [24] I will conceede that perhaps particular guns will need slight assistance I don't think ammo needs to be DOUBLED for a 25% hitpoint increase. It's massive responsive change suggestions like this that lead to double damage being patched in DAOC after double hitpoints was made. Which did nothing but affect a massive number of unexpected areas and negated any actual progress in the right direction. Again I feel that it's fine the way it will be. Ammunition supplies should be a tactical decision. This might even incur a possible tactic of using a heavy tank front assault to deplete the ammunitions for a second wave? Originally by: kieron ...possible causes for an extended downtime, I think playing WoW would be close to the bottom of the list, probably between shaving cats and having dental work done w/o anethesia.
VossKarr	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:53:00 - [25] Originally by: Jim Steele Edited by: Jim Steele on 08/12/2005 19:23:27 Missiles are getting a reduction in volume im sure the tempest needs some more bay since they chew through ammo same with hybrids im sure... im not sure about the clip size but ceartanly the volume of ammo except crystals need a look at. As a laser user it wont affect me but i can see that other people are getting shafted by the RMR changes. i.e. more hitpoints = more ammo needed. No, the Tempest does not need "more bay", it needs proj. ammo size reduced so that it's able to fit more ammo into its weapons' magazines, AND into its cargo bay. 10 EMP L in one 1400 is freaking ridiculous. Reload times, as well as their slow RoF, will seriously mess up the howies in RMR, unless CCP does something about it.
Barak Torginn	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:55:00 - [26] Originally by: The Wizz117 and dont "forget" the missiles! For once I agree with you.
Weirda	Posted - 2005.12.08 19:59:00 - [27] actually agree with dark pine and mercade very much - the problem is with the HP increases, the different gun classes were penalized unevenly. hybrids will hold quite a bit more then projectiles, which really don't hold enough at the moment. even the smallest calibur L projectile (with the largest capacity) is not enough. the reality is - even if you achieve the right range/damage type/and all else, in many cases if you are working against a tank - or running one youself - some weapons (that allready do lower dot then others) will have to reload while their enemy will not. 2x may be too much (it is not in the case of some gun classes), but you should always ask for more then what you want! _____________ Thread Killer Give Assault Ship their Missing Bonus in RMR! <END TRANSMISSION>
Weirda	Posted - 2005.12.08 20:01:00 - [28] Originally by: Barak Torginn Originally by: The Wizz117 and dont "forget" the missiles! For once I agree with you. weirda too - original post said "all weapon system which hold ammo"... maybe not clear but missile are weapon system, and missile are ammo for said system. have not flown a pure missile boat on sisi - have the missile size reduction already made it in? _____________ Thread Killer Give Assault Ship their Missing Bonus in RMR! <END TRANSMISSION>
Antic	Posted - 2005.12.08 20:10:00 - [29] missile users have asked for this for ages. Now when turret users want the same, something might actualy happen.
VossKarr	Posted - 2005.12.08 20:21:00 - [30] Originally by: Weirda Originally by: Barak Torginn Originally by: The Wizz117 and dont "forget" the missiles! For once I agree with you. weirda too - original post said "all weapon system which hold ammo"... maybe not clear but missile are weapon system, and missile are ammo for said system. have not flown a pure missile boat on sisi - have the missile size reduction already made it in? Yeah, I think it did. My Raven on SiSi can hold 800 cruise, 600 FoF cruise, and 13 cap booster charges (<got reduced in size, too). It's pretty uber.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.