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)
Gort	Posted - 2005.12.08 20:28:00 - [31] 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.... signed Gort Makeup artist for the dead
Keylah	Posted - 2005.12.08 21:25:00 - [32] Signed
Mercade	Posted - 2005.12.08 22:59:00 - [33] Wierda. You're great. Good to see replies to different perspectives on your original thread. I agree with your concerns and I am not a minmatar user so I imagine there could indeed be a problem there. Perhaps on a case basis there should be an improvement of certain weapon classes. I was thinking about it, and thinking man it would be kewl if reload/rate of fire/ammo switches could be brought together more interestingly. Right now what is dynamic is: Rate of fire What is static is: reload and ammo switch time. What if the differences between weapons could be changed more. Not sure how to balance it all out but what if: Projectiles: Howitzers. Low firing rate as they are slide load single shell barrels. 1 shell capacity in exchange for near instant ammo switch or reload rate. Autocannon. Extreme firing rate. Extreme capacity cannisters for extended firing periods. Penalty to reload and ammo switch time meaning 15 seconds, but a 50% boost to current capacity of magazines. etc. Just an idea, if different style weapons got benefits but also changes here. COding possibility, no idea. 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.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2005.12.08 23:08:00 - [34] Originally by: Mercade 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 not double damage, it's guns being able to store double the ammo Originally by: Chowdown We camp a lot Originally by: Skape Gote Did you know that an anagram of Curse Alliance is "anal circus eel". Just FYI.
GFLTorque	Posted - 2005.12.08 23:12:00 - [35] As always who can argue with the logic of Weirda? Signed. in Weirda speak: GFLTorque thinks mag size should be increased for ammo clips.
Abog Piyv	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:15:00 - [36] I say give the bs's a 50% boost in cargobay.
NickWest	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:17:00 - [37] It's been said but I'll say it again, it's a magazine not a clip. In terms of firearms a "clip" is a tool that is used to quickly load non-detatchable box magazines. In terms of ships (naval vessels) there is no such thing as a "clip", only a magazine. Crazy gun owning Americans like me know about these things
Ante	Posted - 2005.12.09 03:19:00 - [38] I'd be against increase of magazine size. Minmatar weapons carrying little ammo per reload sounds like a byproduct of the tactics their ships are designed for - hit and run, not slugging a battle out until one or the other dies.
VossKarr	Posted - 2005.12.09 03:25:00 - [39] Originally by: Ante I'd be against increase of magazine size. Minmatar weapons carrying little ammo per reload sounds like a byproduct of the tactics their ships are designed for - hit and run, not slugging a battle out until one or the other dies. In RmR, that tactic is getting the nerfbat. For 1400 Tempest it will be - hit and run... with your tail between your legs.
Ante	Posted - 2005.12.09 03:32:00 - [40] Originally by: VossKarr Originally by: Ante I'd be against increase of magazine size. Minmatar weapons carrying little ammo per reload sounds like a byproduct of the tactics their ships are designed for - hit and run, not slugging a battle out until one or the other dies. In RmR, that tactic is getting the nerfbat. For 1400 Tempest it will be - hit and run... with your tail between your legs. I don't quite believe that. It seems to me that with our constantly increasing population it's more like - 3x 1400 tempests drop out of warp, unload a couple barrages, then run. Solo play is getting nerfed a little is all, it is a multiple-player game don't forget.

MysticNZ	Posted - 2005.12.09 03:33:00 - [41] IMO I don't understand the give everything 2x hp thing... I think it's going to unbalance the whole game and well... make pvp boring... Just my 2c. Originally by: Nyphur I'm hungry and naked. That answer your question?
VossKarr	Posted - 2005.12.09 04:01:00 - [42] Originally by: Ante Originally by: VossKarr Originally by: Ante I'd be against increase of magazine size. Minmatar weapons carrying little ammo per reload sounds like a byproduct of the tactics their ships are designed for - hit and run, not slugging a battle out until one or the other dies. In RmR, that tactic is getting the nerfbat. For 1400 Tempest it will be - hit and run... with your tail between your legs. I don't quite believe that. It seems to me that with our constantly increasing population it's more like - 3x 1400 tempests drop out of warp, unload a couple barrages, then run. Solo play is getting nerfed a little is all, it is a multiple-player game don't forget. In RmR, it will be quite easy to tank a couple of volleys from 3 Tempests in, say, a Raven. Have you actually been to SiSi and flown a 1400 Tempest there?
patteSatan	Posted - 2005.12.09 04:32:00 - [43] Originally by: MysticNZ IMO I don't understand the give everything 2x hp thing... I think it's going to unbalance the whole game and well... make pvp boring... Just my 2c. Yes!! Make pvp boring!!!
Omatje	Posted - 2005.12.09 14:56:00 - [44] Originally by: GFLTorque As always who can argue with the logic of Weirda? Signed. in Weirda speak: GFLTorque thinks mag size should be increased for ammo clips. QFT I really hope they decrease the ammo size instead of increasing the volume of ammo the guns can hold. i'm a paintshop nono
Kcel Chim	Posted - 2005.12.09 15:13:00 - [45] the easiest fix would be to decrease ammo size in general. tho this might not work perfectly since not all guns might need the same increase. While 20 emp L in 1400ers sounds fine, i personally think the 650s i.e. dont need double the clipsize (otherwise they would become lasers with i.e. 220 fusion loaded) So in my personal view i would for balance reasons far more go towards a case by case decision instead of the big brush ;)
Trelennen	Posted - 2005.12.09 15:44:00 - [46] Originally by: Kcel Chim the easiest fix would be to decrease ammo size in general. tho this might not work perfectly since not all guns might need the same increase. While 20 emp L in 1400ers sounds fine, i personally think the 650s i.e. dont need double the clipsize (otherwise they would become lasers with i.e. 220 fusion loaded) So in my personal view i would for balance reasons far more go towards a case by case decision instead of the big brush ;) You can do both: first decrease the size of all ammo, and then increase the clip size of some weapons. If really arty clips are not increased, considering the longer fights, then we need its base DPS increased, as at the moment it's the lowest DPS, even without counting the time we spend reloading, and alpha strike is nerfed in RMR. I love Mercade's idea for different reload/ammo swap time for different types of weapons. This would be something really cool and would give more diversity imho. It could require quite a bunch of coding though, but that'd be cool. I like the idea of one bullet per clip but nearly instant reload for artys, and longer reload but big clips for ACs. That fits well with what they are. Originally by: DarK The cluetrain obviously doesn't stop at this station anymore...
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2005.12.09 16:12:00 - [47] Originally by: Mercade Wierda. You're great. Good to see replies to different perspectives on your original thread. I agree with your concerns and I am not a minmatar user so I imagine there could indeed be a problem there. Perhaps on a case basis there should be an improvement of certain weapon classes. I was thinking about it, and thinking man it would be kewl if reload/rate of fire/ammo switches could be brought together more interestingly. Right now what is dynamic is: Rate of fire What is static is: reload and ammo switch time. What if the differences between weapons could be changed more. Not sure how to balance it all out but what if: Projectiles: Howitzers. Low firing rate as they are slide load single shell barrels. 1 shell capacity in exchange for near instant ammo switch or reload rate. Autocannon. Extreme firing rate. Extreme capacity cannisters for extended firing periods. Penalty to reload and ammo switch time meaning 15 seconds, but a 50% boost to current capacity of magazines. etc. Just an idea, if different style weapons got benefits but also changes here. COding possibility, no idea. This man should be paid more attention. Diversity 4tw.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2005.12.09 16:19:00 - [48] 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.... /signed Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Weirda	Posted - 2005.12.09 16:23:00 - [49] Originally by: Mercade I was thinking about it, and thinking man it would be kewl if reload/rate of fire/ammo switches could be brought together more interestingly. --snip examples-- as joerd said, these ideas that you have are brilliant/great and hope to see them in some future incarnation. please post this in idea forum if you have time, it should really make it in there! _____________ Thread Killer Give Assault Ship their Missing Bonus in RMR! <END TRANSMISSION>
Tequila Slamma	Posted - 2005.12.09 16:25:00 - [50] I think I'd rather see a low-slot module that affects your reload rate. ie. Fitting Rapid Reload module reduces time taken to reload a weapon (turrets and missiles) by X% per level of skill. That way you'd be able to fit for guerilla tactics and adjust your load on the fly to adapt to the situation. Its also not as one-sided as just changing the size of the ammo magazine.

Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2005.12.09 16:39:00 - [51] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 09/12/2005 16:40:14 Originally by: Tequila Slamma I think I'd rather see a low-slot module that affects your reload rate. ie. Fitting Rapid Reload module reduces time taken to reload a weapon (turrets and missiles) by X% per level of skill. That way you'd be able to fit for guerilla tactics and adjust your load on the fly to adapt to the situation. Its also not as one-sided as just changing the size of the ammo magazine. I wouldn't like this change because of 2 ships : Cerebrus and Raven. EDIT : make that 3 ships - chalk up the Dominix on that too. Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Weirda	Posted - 2005.12.09 17:08:00 - [52] Originally by: Tequila Slamma I think I'd rather see a low-slot module that affects your reload rate. ie. Fitting Rapid Reload module reduces time taken to reload a weapon (turrets and missiles) by X% per level of skill. That way you'd be able to fit for guerilla tactics and adjust your load on the fly to adapt to the situation. Its also not as one-sided as just changing the size of the ammo magazine. weirda would rather see a skill then that option tbh... but would really really rather see Mercade's idea (different reload rates to different classes/types of weapons), since the weapon you choose have as much to do with the tactics that you want to use as fitting you hypothetical module. not to say that it isn't a good idea - just that don't like it. hate 'must have' modules that gimp you setup too much in other ways... well - don't 'hate' them per se, but there are already more 'must haves' then there are slots... _____________ Thread Killer Give Assault Ship their Missing Bonus in RMR! <END TRANSMISSION>
Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2005.12.09 17:12:00 - [53] Didnt Hammerhead say all clip sizes would be increased due to the increased tanking stuff? Im sure he did, because, well its such an obvious flaw. - - Just a simple Ultimate Undeniable Underdog.
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2005.12.09 18:18:00 - [54] It's only a flaw if you're trying to maintain the status quo :P
Riley Craven	Posted - 2005.12.09 18:23:00 - [55] I def agree that something needs to be done about ammo. I find it already strange that missle users get to fit more ammo with named launchers and gun users cant. But with the 25% boost to hp on ships people DEF need to at least be able to carry more ammo in the ship and in the magazine! Oh and while they are at it nerf the crap out of the Lens. I find it majorly hard to believe that lens dont suffer after use while crystals do. Oh and crystals are fin heavy. It makes no since for lens to be infinite, never has and never will.
Kelgen Thann	Posted - 2005.12.09 19:27:00 - [56] Siege launchers hold 15 torps, 1400 mm hold 10 charges. I think each case should be given a 50% bonus to how much a Turret holds (rounding up) and Hybrids should be given a 25% bonus to how much a turret holds. Ammo size in the hold should be decreased for Missles and Projectile ammo the most, as it stands I can only fit 1000 tops and that is it. I'm basically at 100% cargo useage at that limit.
KilROCK	Posted - 2005.12.09 19:33:00 - [57] dual 425mm II and 'break tanks' in the same sentence.. That's one odd thing....
Lygos	Posted - 2005.12.09 20:32:00 - [58] I like more reliance on charges. That includes cap charges. So I support the call for enlarged cargo bays. Cargo ships should be the best tanks in the game, though capturable and weak in all other respects. Targetting Sig Variance -- "Everything I love is combustible."
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2005.12.09 20:50:00 - [59] Ammo size reduction needs to happen, even if clip size doesnt get increased. Ammo users having to break tanks of some post-RMR ships will be having to dock to reload every few fights, which is silly. Clip increase would be nice too, though. WTB sig, 10m ISK. Must not include lame images of ships. Must be comical. Must include Minmatar-whining related comment. Kthx.
Trelennen	Posted - 2005.12.09 21:35:00 - [60] Originally by: Lygos I like more reliance on charges. That includes cap charges. So I support the call for enlarged cargo bays. Cargo ships should be the best tanks in the game, though capturable and weak in all other respects. Not bay size increase, reduced charge/ammo sizes. Else it potentialy increases a lot the loot ability. And obviously cargo bay sizes are not really linked to ammo consumption, as amarr have nearly the bigger bay, but absolutely no consumption. They don't need bigger loot bay, but ammo/charge users need to be able to store more of these in their hold. Originally by: DarK The cluetrain obviously doesn't stop at this station anymore...



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.