Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 66 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Zizeria
Globaltech Industries Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 14:46:00 -
[931] - Quote
In the real world the US navy is developing rail guns to replace standard ship based deck guns because of there greater range, and damage. The ammount of kinetic energy a rail gun can impart is stagering when compaired to more traditional weapon systems, to the point where the shell has no need for an explosive payload. In reality rails should have superior damage and range to any naval gun that uses a chemical propellant. The curent disadvantages are power requirements and ROF due to the cap charge time, as well as increced maintenance requirements from magnitic forces inflicting high amounts of stress on the rails.
So in short I guess I want to say rails should hands down out DMG arty, with greater range at the expence of powergrid and ROF.
-Z |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
203
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 15:28:00 -
[932] - Quote
I can fit full rack of 1400 Arty on my Tornado but I can't fit more than 4 425mm Rail Gun II on my Talos...
So? |
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 15:29:00 -
[933] - Quote
Zizeria wrote:In the real world the US navy is developing rail guns to replace standard ship based deck guns because of there greater range, and damage. The ammount of kinetic energy a rail gun can impart is stagering when compaired to more traditional weapon systems, to the point where the shell has no need for an explosive payload. In reality rails should have superior damage and range to any naval gun that uses a chemical propellant. The curent disadvantages are power requirements and ROF due to the cap charge time, as well as increced maintenance requirements from magnitic forces inflicting high amounts of stress on the rails.
So in short I guess I want to say rails should hands down out DMG arty, with greater range at the expence of powergrid and ROF.
-Z
Heh,
If you expected this game to reflect any sort of realism, you're several years late.
"21st century" railguns are getting outmatched by a weapons platform that is several centuries old in addition to another weapons platform which was invented in 1960. Mankind hasn't even invented the "blaster" yet, but rest assured it's getting its ass kicked in EVE by antiquated technologies, too.
Kinda humorous, no? |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 15:39:00 -
[934] - Quote
Magosian wrote:Heh, If you expected this game to reflect any sort of realism, you're several years late. "21st century" railguns are getting outmatched by a weapons platform that is several centuries old in addition to another weapons platform which was invented in 1960. Mankind hasn't even invented the "blaster" yet, but rest assured it's getting its ass kicked in EVE by antiquated technologies, too. Kinda humorous, no?
oh so my Trireme with 20 archers fitted will be able to beat supercarriers?
|
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:05:00 -
[935] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Magosian wrote:Heh, If you expected this game to reflect any sort of realism, you're several years late. "21st century" railguns are getting outmatched by a weapons platform that is several centuries old in addition to another weapons platform which was invented in 1960. Mankind hasn't even invented the "blaster" yet, but rest assured it's getting its ass kicked in EVE by antiquated technologies, too. Kinda humorous, no? oh so my Trireme with 20 archers fitted will be able to beat supercarriers?
So long as the arbitrary power creep exists, coupled with a slow counter-balancing process, I'd say it's possible. |
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:14:00 -
[936] - Quote
I'm finding it pretty funny that CCP didn't go overboard with this boost. Blasters dont have their "TE's". Speed and damge will not be the answer and I'll go into why that is later because I cant be arsed now. |
Miriiah
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:50:00 -
[937] - Quote
Atleast make Null 50% optimal/falloff bonus before this patch goes live? |
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:50:00 -
[938] - Quote
Please don't, we don't want to hear some drake/minmatar pilot tell us how to fix blasters by making them a poor mans version of AC canes. |
mate teahupoo
Sudden Buggery
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:54:00 -
[939] - Quote
I have not been following up with this that much, so this might have been asked already. If you are going to do this"
Tracking Speed Increase: All blaster turrets: +20% to Tracking speed"
Then will you buff up TD's to account for the extra 20% we have unaccounted for? |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:58:00 -
[940] - Quote
why would they? the reasoning for the improvement was that their tracking was shite for the range they are doing damage at anyways.
tracking disruptors still work as intended and two of these on a blasterboat will still put its tracking way below where it was pre buff |
|
mate teahupoo
Sudden Buggery
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:04:00 -
[941] - Quote
that is true if I were in a ship using two TD's... but if I am not, then what? |
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:04:00 -
[942] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Please don't, we don't want to hear some drake/minmatar pilot tell us how to fix blasters by making them a poor mans version of AC canes.
Did you just!? Oh HELLZ NO!
Clearly you french are pretty rude! |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:07:00 -
[943] - Quote
Not sure where the scare mongering came from about Blasters having too good tracking.
Just tried engaging a Dramiel in a Talos Got level 5 BC so max tracking from the ship, fitted an extra tracking enhanser, also had Web, Scram and Painter fitted. Still couldn't scratch the thing. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:07:00 -
[944] - Quote
then its tracking is back to the pre buff stats approx and all you have to do is orbit them. problem solved |
mate teahupoo
Sudden Buggery
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:14:00 -
[945] - Quote
Like i said, I have not been following this too much, nor been on the test server to try it out. Thanks for the clarification. |
Charles Edisson
Isk Incorporated
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:18:00 -
[946] - Quote
I kind of think AC as a concept is flawed, because of all the weapons in the game they have the shortest optiman so they have good tracking. This makes it so you can not get inside their guns. They also have stupid fall off giving them longer maximum range. I think someone has had their cake and been eating it for soo long that Mini ships should be slowed down a fair bit due to their fat pilots.
Still not seeing anything that will make me use my galle toon for any combat. |
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:39:00 -
[947] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:Please don't, we don't want to hear some drake/minmatar pilot tell us how to fix blasters by making them a poor mans version of AC canes.
Eh, please do if you ask me. I don't much care about them. They still get cap-free turrets and faster ships. The least a hybrid pilot should get is a fighting chance. |
Archare
SKEET ELITE
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:52:00 -
[948] - Quote
mate teahupoo wrote:Like i said, I have not been following this too much, nor been on the test server to try it out. Thanks for the clarification.
Before the changes tracking on blasters were over all either about the same or worse than AC's. After the changes they will track slightly better than their AC counterpart
Small weapons
AC 125mm II vs Light Electron II's (TQ) vs Light Electron II's (Sisi) 0.4170 vs 0.3650 vs 0.4380 goes from -13% tracking to 5% more relative tracking than AC's
AC 150mm II vs Light Ion II's (TQ) vs Light Ion II's (Sisi) 0.3620 vs 0.3360 vs 0.4032 Goes from -7% to 11% more relative tracking
AC 200mm II vs Light Neutron II's (TQ) vs Light Neutron II's (Sisi) 0.3150 vs 0.3165 vs 0.3798 Goes from 0.01% to 20.01% more
The relative difference in tracking of medium and larger sized weapons is the same. Keep in mind however this is only off the base stats of the respective weapon systems and does not factor in player skill training, or ship fittings and bonuses which further magnify any differences.
|
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 17:53:00 -
[949] - Quote
I still say they need a mwd bonus to enable Gallente ships to get into engagement range... |
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 18:01:00 -
[950] - Quote
Rawls Canardly wrote:I still say they need a mwd bonus to enable Gallente ships to get into engagement range...
I would rather not give up other ship bonuses for this one to be applied. Cap becomes an indomitable nightmare for active-tanking Gallente ships who also need cap for everything else, especially guns. This also doesn't do anything for railguns.
Hybrids need to be fixed. This is a hybrid balancing thread, not a MWD buff thread. |
|
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 18:21:00 -
[951] - Quote
RankWeaponsKills 1425mm AutoCannon II17151 2Heavy Missile Launcher II15148 3200mm AutoCannon II8269 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II7542 5150mm Light AutoCannon II7447 61400mm Howitzer Artillery II7137 7Mega Pulse Laser II6446 8Heavy Pulse Laser II6307 9720mm Howitzer Artillery II6252 10125mm Gatling AutoCannon II4791 11'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher4363 12800mm Repeating Artillery II3156 13Focused Medium Pulse Laser II1831 14Light Neutron Blaster II1763 15Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I1703 161400mm Prototype I Siege Cannon1703 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II1661 18650mm Artillery Cannon II1522 191400mm 'Scout' Artillery I1497 20Dual 180mm AutoCannon II1374
Not sure why this hasn't been posted earlier, we had the ship version so we might as well have the weapon version too.
So hybrids do make it into the top 20 based on this data - but it's a very poor showing and includes not a single large weapon system. Projectiles are dominant in every imaginable way making up 63% of all kills; lasers are evenly represented but for a much smaller 15% of kills; missiles are absent as the small versions (which prove ineffective despite rocket fixes previously added) but still manage to make up 18% of the kills from torpedoes - almost certainly from stealth bomber kills- and the heavy missiles from drakes; Railguns make no appearance with blasters totalling a whopping 3% from small and mediums to account for hybrids; Drones are entirely absent.
Yet again, another fine example of the lacking nature of hybrids and the limited nature of missiles whilst clearly illustrating the ridiculous dominance of projectiles in every possible arena of PvP. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 18:26:00 -
[952] - Quote
Dont be silly projectiles are not op it just looks that way. Yeah from every possible angle:P |
Luc Aideron
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:09:00 -
[953] - Quote
I think that this is an amazing and well considered thread! CCP is lucky to have so much good advice to draw from. I don't usually engage the forums but I just want to put my vote toward CCP take this discussion seriously. Rebalancing hybrids is a start and your recent move back towards internet spaceships is why I came back. I canceled my eve subscription several months ago because I felt like eve was half-finished and the development of so many other products made me feel like eve was going to ever get the treatment that it really deserved.
As soon as heard about hybrids getting worked on my ears perked up and I signed back up. That one thing alone! Now that I'm back and I've managed to consider the changes you've made, I don't think it's enough. I know some of the devs posted that they going to continue looking at what needs to be done and this is a good start. I wouldn't want you to go and do something you didn't consider well. Several people posting on this thread have thought up whole entire ways of re-think hybrids; I don't think I could re-explain or contribute anything better.
Every race has a role please help us by figuring out what that is supposed to be. For instance, when some one posted about having the ewar compliment the tanking and the tanking compliment the range and the optimal and the strategy for fitting a ship matches ship's bonus. They got some great ideas. Make us work for eve, don't just give a away gank, but make our work have a great reward which is being able to do well the thing that were supposed to do!
Every other race just seems so well defined and interesting. (Many of which have been brought up in this tread) Amarr, Caldari, and Minmatar all have such distinct roles and have so many well-thought out parts to playing them. I just want Galliente to be that interesting. I thought that we were drone boats and blasters, but the pay off for that is a bit more fractured than you realize. To really succeed in eve all you need autocannons and a nano shield fit. I want it to be more interesting than that.
Gallente has such beautiful ships, that's what made me fall in love with them. Some one at CCP obviously really cared about what they were doing with them, but some where along the line that was lost. I'll give you one example: I love the Myrmidon, but it's a fool's battlecruiser. You can trick it out like hurricane, sure. But it's nothing when compared to the Eve-kill numbers of the Drake and the Hurricane, even the Harby breaks into the top twenty sometimes, but not the Myrmidon. I realize not everyone can be on top of the list, but why can't it be balanced?
Eve is hard work. I mean really hard, but in a good way. Training all these skills, learning all these mechanics, making spreadsheets, teaching myself pvp, throwing away piles of isk on ship after ship is amazingly hard work. There so many talented pilots with nearly infinite creativity and intelligence and it just sucks when things don't come together with the mechanism your using whether it's ship fitting, faction warfare or whatever.
I mean I get it eve's a big game and you've got a lot to do. All I want is to be the pilot that you promised me I could be. I'll pay for it, I'll wait for it, but please just let me know that it will be there. |
Cheekything
Black Lance Executive Outcomes
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:10:00 -
[954] - Quote
CCP your still missing out one of the most important problems range.
Currently the close range blasters are still terrible compared to their counterparts.
(using max skills)
Heavy Pulse + Close Range T2 Ammo = 7.5/5 Heavy Pulse + Long Range T2 Ammo = 23/5
Best Optimal Ok falloff
425MM Autocannons + Close Range T2 Ammo = 1.5/6 425MM Autocannons + Long Range T2 Ammo = 3/18
Best Falloff low optimal (however note many minmatar ships get a falloff bonus)
Heavy Neutron Blaster + Close Range T2 Ammo = 3.4/3.1 Heavy Neutron Blaster + Long Range T2 Ammo = 5.6/7.8
Low in both.
They need to be brought in line with their counterparts and given a -25% below their average not 25% of their average.
I feel the average ranges should be more like:
Heavy Neutron Blaster + Close Range T2 Ammo = 3.5/3.5 Heavy Neutron Blaster + Long Range T2 Ammo = 10/10
50:50 optimal and falloff and a slightly lower range than it's counterparts so that caldari gunboats have a reason to be use.
The damage issue has finally been address but we need more range.
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:21:00 -
[955] - Quote
mate teahupoo wrote:that is true if I were in a ship using two TD's... but if I am not, then what? I'll give you a hint: 'tracking' disrupters have dual purpose...
Crack on.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Hentes Zsemle
EVE Corporation 21123151
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:30:00 -
[956] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:mate teahupoo wrote:that is true if I were in a ship using two TD's... but if I am not, then what? I'll give you a hint: 'tracking' disrupters have dual purpose... Crack on.
also tracking = speed signature = area
My condolences about the phisics education in your neighbourhood.
|
Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
117
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:46:00 -
[957] - Quote
Charles Edisson wrote:Not sure where the scare mongering came from about Blasters having too good tracking.
Just tried engaging a Dramiel in a Talos Got level 5 BC so max tracking from the ship, fitted an extra tracking enhanser, also had Web, Scram and Painter fitted. Still couldn't scratch the thing.
lol |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:08:00 -
[958] - Quote
Hentes Zsemle wrote:Gabriel Karade wrote:mate teahupoo wrote:that is true if I were in a ship using two TD's... but if I am not, then what? I'll give you a hint: 'tracking' disrupters have dual purpose... Crack on. also tracking = speed signature = area My condolences about the phisics education in your neighbourhood. Come again?
Also, flaming attempts look much cooler when they've been proof read...
Edit: No seriously, I have no idea why you posted that - I was pointing out the range disruption feature of tracking disrupters to the other chap...
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:12:00 -
[959] - Quote
Would I earn the ill will of fellow forum users if I posted several long posts in this thread regarding the topic? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
46
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:28:00 -
[960] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:RankWeaponsKills 1425mm AutoCannon II17151 2Heavy Missile Launcher II15148 3200mm AutoCannon II8269 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II7542 5150mm Light AutoCannon II7447 61400mm Howitzer Artillery II7137 7Mega Pulse Laser II6446 8Heavy Pulse Laser II6307 9720mm Howitzer Artillery II6252 10125mm Gatling AutoCannon II4791 11'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher4363 12800mm Repeating Artillery II3156 13Focused Medium Pulse Laser II1831 14Light Neutron Blaster II1763 15Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I1703 161400mm Prototype I Siege Cannon1703 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II1661 18650mm Artillery Cannon II1522 191400mm 'Scout' Artillery I1497 20Dual 180mm AutoCannon II1374
Not sure why this hasn't been posted earlier, we had the ship version so we might as well have the weapon version too.
So hybrids do make it into the top 20 based on this data - but it's a very poor showing and includes not a single large weapon system. Projectiles are dominant in every imaginable way making up 63% of all kills; lasers are evenly represented but for a much smaller 15% of kills; missiles are absent as the small versions (which prove ineffective despite rocket fixes previously added) but still manage to make up 18% of the kills from torpedoes - almost certainly from stealth bomber kills- and the heavy missiles from drakes; Railguns make no appearance with blasters totalling a whopping 3% from small and mediums to account for hybrids; Drones are entirely absent.
Yet again, another fine example of the lacking nature of hybrids and the limited nature of missiles whilst clearly illustrating the ridiculous dominance of projectiles in every possible arena of PvP.
I like this info because it accounts for cross weapon fitting (artillery abaddons etc) but how does this calculate "kills" is it the killing blow? because if so, I would tend to think this stat is a bit skewed . . . additionally, I would think the top 10 would be all you need to show, because there are fewer common weapon systems than there are common ships . . . |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 66 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |