| 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.
|
|
|
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...
|
|
|
Torvail
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 22:41:00 -
[61]
The patch notes seemed to mention missles but no ammo size changes or clip changes =/ wth
----
Alone and slamming Quafe
Not an alt, newbie corp ftw! |
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 23:36:00 -
[62]
Yeah, It would be nice to have smaller ammo.
~Sobe
Originally by: TomB
Originally by: Darpz
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
CCP will nerf this probably, but hey, worth a try
so your saying I should of kept my mouth shut?
Yup.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |