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) |
Rawls Canardly
Phoenix Confederation
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 23:49:00 -
[1501] - Quote
I concur with the fact that buffer mods need a boost in requirements. Its far too easy to fit large anything on a cruiser. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 03:30:00 -
[1502] - Quote
I was wondering why that rebirth name seemed so familiar. you guys are those terrible mercs that quote prices for jobs you probably couldnt even begin let alone accomplish
lol |
Rebirth Mining Director
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 11:48:00 -
[1503] - Quote
Zarak1 Kenpach1 wrote:I was wondering why that rebirth name seemed so familiar. you guys are those terrible mercs that quote prices for jobs you probably couldnt even begin let alone accomplish
lol Yes, that's us! Tell your friends! Director of The God Squad's mining division. Now recruiting Orca pilots! |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
135
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 12:41:00 -
[1504] - Quote
This Zarak seems like a smart guy. Vote him for president! //sarcasm "Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
97
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 13:16:00 -
[1505] - Quote
I agree it is weird a 1600mm plate cost 1/5th of a Large Armor Repairer, however I find it hard to see how cruisers and battlecruisers have too many hitpoints when most of them crumble in a very short time under fire from just 1-3 similar fitted enemies. At least pilots now have enough survivability to react on his surroundings. Something active repairing have trouble with atm. Currently buffertanks offer a valid game-play enjoyed by all players. Buffertanks are not overpowered because active reps are worse, it's Active tanks that need love because they don't offer the same enjoyable game-play like buffertanks (except with faction mods, drugs and implants in specific bonused ships)
Reducing the hitpoints given by extenders and plates will dramatically reduce the living time of most ships even if they already die fast in a typical engagement effectively reversing what CCP have accomplished with recent HP boosts. Increasing fitting requirements would make people fit smaller plates which makes sense with their names, but then you will have the same problem as above with ships unable to stay alive for more than a brief amount of time.
Yes, it's stupid that we use medium extenders on frigates, large extenders on cruisers and don't have XL extenders for battleships, but less hitpoints or bigger fitting requirements will ruin the working buffer-gameplay we have now instead of bringing active reps up to date.
Obviously I would love for shield extenders to be renamed properly and maybe removing micro extenders in return for implementing an XL extender for battleships. Plates could also easily be without 50mm and 100mm plates and make good use of 3200mm plates.
Again, with the amount of dps ships have today I believe these solid changes will help the game much more than just nerfing plates and extenders
Pinky |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
651
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 13:42:00 -
[1506] - Quote
You can downgrade your guns anytime, which kinda is the very point of upping requirements. Fitting choices instead of no-brainers.
Also, not all players enjoy overtanked EVE. So speak for yourself. Current active tanks do offer valid gameplay. Buffer offers overtank which takes forever to chew through. Fon Revedhort for CSM 7 |
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
135
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 13:59:00 -
[1507] - Quote
I agree. When it takes over 3 minutes of sustained blaster fire on a trimarked BC something is a touch wrong, tbh. Reduced buffertanks would honestly allow for more hit and run style favored by stealthy pilots.
And honestly, it's not so much the plates and extenders as it is the 3x rigs. (Trimarks and CDFEs) "Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."
"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
651
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:06:00 -
[1508] - Quote
Not only stealthy loners, it promotes small-scale PvP in general. Being unable to kill anything before a crapload of reinforcements arrives is the reason why it's so safe to blob up and so unreasonable to fly in small numbers. Fon Revedhort for CSM 7 |
tEcHnOkRaT
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:09:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:I agree it is weird a 1600mm plate cost 1/5th of a Large Armor Repairer, however I find it hard to see how cruisers and battlecruisers have too many hitpoints when most of them crumble in a very short time under fire from just 1-3 similar fitted enemies. At least pilots now have enough survivability to react on his surroundings. Something active repairing have trouble with atm. Currently buffertanks offer a valid game-play enjoyed by all players. Buffertanks are not overpowered because active reps are worse, it's Active tanks that need love because they don't offer the same enjoyable game-play like buffertanks (except with faction mods, drugs and implants in specific bonused ships)
Reducing the hitpoints given by extenders and plates will dramatically reduce the living time of most ships even if they already die fast in a typical engagement effectively reversing what CCP have accomplished with recent HP boosts. Increasing fitting requirements would make people fit smaller plates which makes sense with their names, but then you will have the same problem as above with ships unable to stay alive for more than a brief amount of time.
Yes, it's stupid that we use medium extenders on frigates, large extenders on cruisers and don't have XL extenders for battleships, but less hitpoints or bigger fitting requirements will ruin the working buffer-gameplay we have now instead of bringing active reps up to date.
Obviously I would love for shield extenders to be renamed properly and maybe removing micro extenders in return for implementing an XL extender for battleships. Plates could also easily be without 50mm and 100mm plates and make good use of 3200mm plates.
Again, with the amount of dps ships have today I believe these solid changes will help the game much more than just nerfing plates and extenders
Pinky
there is no need to remove anything and frigs using a medium shield extender ?
camon dont make up numbers a frigate has about 40 powergrid a medium shield extender about 28
there is no need to change buffer passive tank
and active armor could use a buff as it heals only half of shield boosters and armor tank guns use cap exept a few minmatar ships that are being armor tanked
and yes projektiles are too good to be true as they dont need any cap and outperferm other turrets and if needed can change damage typesbut the usability of it isnt that big and its expensive cuz u need to use faction ammo and loose some dps |
tEcHnOkRaT
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:11:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Not only stealthy loners, it promotes small-scale PvP in general. Being unable to kill anything before a crapload of reinforcements arrives is the reason why it's so safe to blob up and so unreasonable to fly in small numbers.
if u wont to have duels u have to arrange them !!!! |
|
thoth rothschild
First Aid Emergency Service
67
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:19:00 -
[1511] - Quote
i think there are some flaws in the examples.
To get a better view of the case a question. Is it the passive tanking plates for example or the remote repair power of logi's which do bring us to this problem. Blobing up fleets are using alpha weapons to reduce the chance a that a logi is fast enougth to react. There will always be hughe fleets. There will alwaays be a min / max calculation.
The more problematic points in current warefare are.
- Slots needed to create a sufficient active tank with shield vs armor. - Requirement costs of passive tanking modules. - Tanking modules do give a FIXED value instead of a scaling value. A static valkue is bad design. - Is there a chance for combining some values like resists on reppers and reducede logi effect to shift some values. - What can be done to reduce the need of alpha. - Is alpha overpowered ? - is range overrated ? Or do current warefare tactics favor certain conditions.
We are not here to make a statement towards ccp like "Change x that the effect will be Y" We can show certain synergies and ref3elct all effects something will have on the game. The decisions are not made by us. So let'S stop flaming each other and instead bring up some new ideas.
New ideas are needed and no number switching :p
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
97
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:34:00 -
[1512] - Quote
Medium shield extender on a frigate? That is pretty standard even on Rifters and Merlins... MAPC 4TW Downgrading guns works for minmatar ships, but many other ships will have problems with this aproach. And you don't enjoy other pilots being able to react on your attack? I feel sorry for your lack of empathy - The boost on hitpoints have definately helped Eve into a more tactical adventure instead of being 10 seconds of wtf followed by an explosion... This is an MMORPG - If you want to blow up people without having to play with his friends you will need to work for it. And if it takes 3 minutes to kill a single plated battlecruisers with Trimarks something must be wrong with your dps?
Pinky
|
Kahz Niverrah
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:35:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:You can downgrade your guns anytime, which kinda is the very point of upping requirements. Fitting choices instead of no-brainers. While I agree with the sentiment here, the problem is that right now amarr ships, particularly cruiser and battle cruiser size ships, already have to make this decision. Fitting heavy pulses and a decent tank is very difficult on some ships, impossible on the rest. We're forced to choose between a downsized tank, or fit smaller guns... but I think that's a good thing.
Until the hybrid buff, hybrid ships had to make this choice too. Now, less so, but still to some extent. Minmatar ships can leisurely fit their biggest guns, full tank, mwd, and whatever other utility mods they want with little concern for fitting. Increasing the fitting requirements for plates and extenders would hurt the ships that already have to make this fitting decision. Instead, I think it would be more effective to rebalance the ships that can fit things too easily. I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
651
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:51:00 -
[1514] - Quote
tEcHnOkRaT wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Not only stealthy loners, it promotes small-scale PvP in general. Being unable to kill anything before a crapload of reinforcements arrives is the reason why it's so safe to blob up and so unreasonable to fly in small numbers. if u wont to have duels u have to arrange them !!!! If you want to look persuasive, post with your main. Fon Revedhort for CSM 7 |
m3talc0re X
SandStorm. The Babylon Consortium
70
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 14:52:00 -
[1515] - Quote
I was going to reply some ideas in this thread, but decided it would be better in a separate thread in Features & Ideas. It discusses balancing issues between weapons by fixing the fundamental flaws of the ships that use them. Solving most of the balance issues of the weapons themselves.
Thread here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=558939 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
651
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 15:10:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Kahz Niverrah wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:You can downgrade your guns anytime, which kinda is the very point of upping requirements. Fitting choices instead of no-brainers. While I agree with the sentiment here, the problem is that right now amarr ships, particularly cruiser and battle cruiser size ships, already have to make this decision. Fitting heavy pulses and a decent tank is very difficult on some ships, impossible on the rest. We're forced to choose between a downsized tank, or fit smaller guns... but I think that's a good thing. Until the hybrid buff, hybrid ships had to make this choice too. Now, less so, but still to some extent. Minmatar ships can leisurely fit their biggest guns, full tank, mwd, and whatever other utility mods they want with little concern for fitting. Increasing the fitting requirements for plates and extenders would hurt the ships that already have to make this fitting decision. Instead, I think it would be more effective to rebalance the ships that can fit things too easily. Cruisers are irrelevant at least since tier2 BC release, so it makes no sense to mention them in the first place. Battleships are unaffected at all - it's always possible to use several plates plus top-tier guns, while the very idea of having CPU and grid is giving players something to think about while compromising between various goals.
I don't see how increasing PG requirements can hit amarr the most, given they already have biggest grid among all races. MWD, cap booster, plates, neuts etc. eat up the same amount of grid, thus the bigger is their % in grid usage, the better it is for Amarr. Besides, the whole issue is not that relevant anyway since it's dependant on exact values.
Fon Revedhort for CSM 7 |
Kahz Niverrah
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 15:14:00 -
[1517] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Cruisers are irrelevant at least since tier2 BC release, so it makes no sense to mention them in the first place. I disagree with this. Faction cruisers and HACS are certainly included in my statement and are very relevant.
Fon Revedhort wrote:Battleships are unaffected at all - it's always possible to use several plates plus top-tier guns, while the very idea of having CPU and grid is giving players something to think about while compromising between various goals. Again, I disagree. Please go test your theory on an Armageddon. Don't forget a MWD and heavy cap booster for those hungry lasers.
Fon Revedhort wrote:I don't see how increasing PG requirements can hit amarr the most, given they already have biggest grid among all races. It hits them the hardest because lasers have, far and away, the highest fitting requirements of any weapons system. Also, Amarr usually need to fit cap boosters - another high powergrid module, more then any other race.
Also, I didn't mean to come across like I was saying Amarr are underpowered and in need of a buff. I think we're doing ok, and I love my Amarr ships. I was just trying to illustrate some of the problems with increasing fitting cost on some modules instead of balancing the ships that make fitting too easy. I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
tEcHnOkRaT
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 15:43:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Kahz Niverrah wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Cruisers are irrelevant at least since tier2 BC release, so it makes no sense to mention them in the first place. I disagree with this. Faction cruisers and HACS are certainly included in my statement and are very relevant. Fon Revedhort wrote:Battleships are unaffected at all - it's always possible to use several plates plus top-tier guns, while the very idea of having CPU and grid is giving players something to think about while compromising between various goals. Again, I disagree. Please go test your theory on an Armageddon. Don't forget a MWD and heavy cap booster for those hungry lasers. Fon Revedhort wrote:I don't see how increasing PG requirements can hit amarr the most, given they already have biggest grid among all races. It hits them the hardest because lasers have, far and away, the highest fitting requirements of any weapons system. Also, Amarr usually need to fit cap boosters - another high powergrid module, more then any other race. Also, I didn't mean to come across like I was saying Amarr are underpowered and in need of a buff. I think we're doing ok, and I love my Amarr ships. I was just trying to illustrate some of the problems with increasing fitting cost on some modules instead of balancing the ships that make fitting too easy.
indeed |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
651
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 19:24:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Kahz Niverrah wrote:It hits them the hardest because lasers have, far and away, the highest fitting requirements of any weapons system. For some weird reason you cut my quote and then got what you deserved - missed the point entirely.
If fitting essential mods uses, say, 1% of grid, then the rest of it goes for guns and it's literally impossible to avoid fitting the largest ones. If fitting those mods uses, say, 50, then it's kind of hard to do that.
For instance.
1) a plate requires 500 MWs Ship A has 2k MWs, after fitting a plate there's 1500 MWs left for fitting guns etc. Ship B has 1.5k MWs, 1000 is left after the plate
2) a plate requires 1000 Ship A has now 1k left Ship B - merely 500
3) lol-case: a plate uses 1500 MWs Ship A has 500 spare MWs and still can fit something like quad light beam lasers Ship B can not fit anything, despite its racial guns being easier to fit themsevles
As for capbooster, it has to be fitted regardless, so it's irrelevant. Fon Revedhort for CSM 7 |
Kahz Niverrah
Viziam Amarr Empire
182
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 19:28:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:For some weird reason you cut my quote and then got what you deserved - missed the point entirely. No, I got what you're saying the first time around. I still disagree. If they make changes to the fitting of modules, all ships will need to be rebalanced since it will break ships that are fine now. Instead I suggest they just rebalance the worst offenders like the hurricane that have no-compromise fitting options.
I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main. |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
651
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 19:32:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Stuff like Canes and Drakes is to fixed regardless, to be quite honest Fon Revedhort for CSM 7 |
m0cking bird
Doomheim
95
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 20:10:00 -
[1522] - Quote
History Son!:
As long as the community will not support a increase in medium and to a lesser extent large blaster range. Most Gal ships will never be considered viable. Solo or 2 - 4 pilot engagements are not done by the mojority of pilots ingame. So having ships focused for that purpose seems ********. You know, when most Amarr or Min ships can do the same and more. Even in the past. The most used Gal ships were ships that could be used in fleets with rail-gun (rail-gun-Megathron, Lachesis, Onieros, Arazu, rail-gun-Deimos). Blaster Megathrons had the same issues they do now. Pulse lasers were just better compared to all other turrets. So there was never a time since 2007 were they were useful comparatively. Every battleship could use 90% stasis webifier, but some had better projected and applied damage and considerably more velocity. So even the time blaster ships were considered the most viable. Pulse lasers were considered superior. However, the one turret most pilots considered blasters were superior to @ that time was projectiles.
Why? @ the time. Most projectile ships were limited to being effective in warp scrambler range. Certain ships like the Vagabond, sliepnir, Huginn and Muninn could use Min ships superior velocity. The Tempest was also and still able to out manoeuvre less mobile ships in a armour or shield variant.
So other than those specific ships. Every other Min ship operated under warp scrambler range. Min ships had superior mobility compared to Cal, Amarr and Gal. However even if the could out run every other ship in a specific class. Auto-cannons could only viably operate under warp scrambler range. Min had damage selection. However the ammunition was not as focused as it is now. Projectiles did not use capacitor then and pulse lasers were still considered supiroer. Even close range.Gal ships have always had a significant advantage in terms of defense in every class and damage. Not to mention most @ the time had nice graphs on the difference in damage of a Megathron compared to a Tempest. You know, to prove auto-cannons were not viable @ all. Gal ships could do everything most Min ships could, but better...
So what change? The changes in projectile damage was only 5 - 7%. The slight increase in base falloff of mid and high tier auto-cannons was slight. More focused damage ammunition did not yeild that much of a difference. Many had pretty graphs @ the time. Suggesting the changes were a "Joke". At-least in that regard they were correct. At-least to a certain extent... All the changes so far amounted to a significant increase in projectile applied damage under warp scambler range (once you factior in more focused damage and slight base falloff increase). Still, it didn't change much. Although artillery became overpowered compared to other long range turrets. At-least under 100km. Auto-cannons remained the same and apparently long range fleet engagements was becoming obsolete. (The stars seemed to align for the Minmatar race)
Then CCP listen to a handful in the community who suggested changes to tracking enhancers. Which was to help artillery. That was all it took. You could effectively take away all other changes, with the exception of base increase to autocannon falloff and you would have what we have now.
Min were now viable in fleet engagements (Gal were left behind as the only race that operated and focused close range only). Something primarily limited only to long range battleships and 3 - 4 T2 ships. Before, Min ships couldn't superior mobility because, what would that matter if auto-cannons could only work close range (This is what those pushing for increase Gal velocity don't seem to understand)? Using shield setups would increase mobility, but @ a cost of significant reduction in defence. Autocannons could only work close range @ the time. A armour plate would yield more effective hit-points, while maintaining most of a ships damage (Hurricane) and minmatar ships still had a advantage in velocity.
CCP did not intend for auto-cannons to be used outside of warp scrambler range @ the time of the projectile changes. CCP did intend to make artillery more effective in terms of range, compared to rail-gun and beam laser @ the time. The changes to tracking enhancers was intended to increase artillery, but not autocannons. Funny thing is. For the crowd that wanted ballance. The game was more balanced then than it is now. You had 2 races focused for close range engagements (Min and Gal) and 2 races focused for fleet engagements (Caldari and Amarr). Now it's just Gal focused for close range engagements and the other races for close range and fleet engagements.
Serious question. What would happen if CCP increased medium and larger blaster range? Everything else would remain the same. CCP just decided to introduce a significant increase to tracking computers. The values would be close to autocannons in terms or projected and applied damage, but with a balance of optimal and falloff. Min ships would still be more mobile and Gal would still be able to use armour. This is what pulse lasers are able to do @ the moment, but alot more viable. Being able to kite a single Gal ship would become very difficult, if not impossible and Min would still be able to disengage.
In one go the whole issue surrounding blaster would be solved. Or! CCP should just nerf medium and large autocanons falloff. So tracking enhancers will not effect those values as much. Bringing Minmatar back down to Gal engagement ranges. The other option is insane damage output, but that would be game breaking. I can already think of amusing ways to abuse such a weapon. Most of the other suggestions including the "just increase speed" crowd will not work. It sounds great and I'm for it. If only to show Gal ships would still be last choice given Min, Armarr or Cal are not available. Coupling speed with range would be another matter...
-proxyyyy |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 20:33:00 -
[1523] - Quote
m0cking bird wrote:History Son!:
As long as the community will not support a increase in medium and to a lesser extent large blaster range. Most Gal ships will never be considered viable. Solo or 2 - 4 pilot engagements are not done by the mojority of pilots ingame. So having ships focused for that purpose seems ********. You know, when most Amarr or Min ships can do the same and more. Even in the past. The most used Gal ships were ships that could be used in fleets with rail-gun (rail-gun-Megathron, Lachesis, Onieros, Arazu, rail-gun-Deimos). Blaster Megathrons had the same issues they do now. Pulse lasers were just better compared to all other turrets. So there was never a time since 2007 were they were useful comparatively. Every battleship could use 90% stasis webifier, but some had better projected and applied damage and considerably more velocity. So even the time blaster ships were considered the most viable. Pulse lasers were considered superior. However, the one turret most pilots considered blasters were superior to @ that time was projectiles.
Why? @ the time. Most projectile ships were limited to being effective in warp scrambler range. Certain ships like the Vagabond, sliepnir, Huginn and Muninn could use Min ships superior velocity. The Tempest was also and still able to out manoeuvre less mobile ships in a armour or shield variant.
So other than those specific ships. Every other Min ship operated under warp scrambler range. Min ships had superior mobility compared to Cal, Amarr and Gal. However even if the could out run every other ship in a specific class. Auto-cannons could only viably operate under warp scrambler range. Min had damage selection. However the ammunition was not as focused as it is now. Projectiles did not use capacitor then and pulse lasers were still considered supiroer. Even close range.Gal ships have always had a significant advantage in terms of defense in every class and damage. Not to mention most @ the time had nice graphs on the difference in damage of a Megathron compared to a Tempest. You know, to prove auto-cannons were not viable @ all. Gal ships could do everything most Min ships could, but better...
So what change? The changes in projectile damage was only 5 - 7%. The slight increase in base falloff of mid and high tier auto-cannons was slight. More focused damage ammunition did not yeild that much of a difference. Many had pretty graphs @ the time. Suggesting the changes were a "Joke". At-least in that regard they were correct. At-least to a certain extent... All the changes so far amounted to a significant increase in projectile applied damage under warp scambler range (once you factior in more focused damage and slight base falloff increase). Still, it didn't change much. Although artillery became overpowered compared to other long range turrets. At-least under 100km. Auto-cannons remained the same and apparently long range fleet engagements was becoming obsolete. (The stars seemed to align for the Minmatar race)
Then CCP listen to a handful in the community who suggested changes to tracking enhancers. Which was to help artillery. That was all it took. You could effectively take away all other changes, with the exception of base increase to autocannon falloff and you would have what we have now.
Min were now viable in fleet engagements (Gal were left behind as the only race that operated and focused close range only). Something primarily limited only to long range battleships and 3 - 4 T2 ships. Before, Min ships couldn't superior mobility because, what would that matter if auto-cannons could only work close range (This is what those pushing for increase Gal velocity don't seem to understand)? Using shield setups would increase mobility, but @ a cost of significant reduction in defence. Autocannons could only work close range @ the time. A armour plate would yield more effective hit-points, while maintaining most of a ships damage (Hurricane) and minmatar ships still had a advantage in velocity.
CCP did not intend for auto-cannons to be used outside of warp scrambler range @ the time of the projectile changes. CCP did intend to make artillery more effective in terms of range, compared to rail-gun and beam laser @ the time. The changes to tracking enhancers was intended to increase artillery, but not autocannons. Funny thing is. For the crowd that wanted ballance. The game was more balanced then than it is now. You had 2 races focused for close range engagements (Min and Gal) and 2 races focused for fleet engagements (Caldari and Amarr). Now it's just Gal focused for close range engagements and the other races for close range and fleet engagements.
Serious question. What would happen if CCP increased medium and larger blaster range? Everything else would remain the same. CCP just decided to introduce a significant increase to tracking computers. The values would be close to autocannons in terms or projected and applied damage, but with a balance of optimal and falloff. Min ships would still be more mobile and Gal would still be able to use armour. This is what pulse lasers are able to do @ the moment, but alot more viable. Being able to kite a single Gal ship would become very difficult, if not impossible and Min would still be able to disengage.
In one go the whole issue surrounding blaster would be solved. Or! CCP should just nerf medium and large autocanons falloff. So tracking enhancers will not effect those values as much. Bringing Minmatar back down to Gal engagement ranges. The other option is insane damage output, but that would be game breaking. I can already think of amusing ways to abuse such a weapon. Most of the other suggestions including the "just increase speed" crowd will not work. It sounds great and I'm for it. If only to show Gal ships would still be last choice given Min, Armarr or Cal are not available. Coupling speed with range would be another matter...
-proxyyyy
+1
|
Rebirth Mining Director
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 20:51:00 -
[1524] - Quote
m0cking bird wrote:GIANT WALL OF TEXT You know, you could have just said nerf winmatar. I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with you. Director of The God Squad's mining division. Now recruiting Orca pilots! |
Rutuli
Vangers.
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 06:03:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Might be out of topic, but after a few anoying fights against serpentis, i realized that dampeners arent just to shut down target capabilty and shoot something without getting shooted, its also a good tactic to force the enemy to enter into blaster range |
tEcHnOkRaT
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 07:12:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Rutuli wrote:Might be out of topic, but after a few anoying fights against serpentis, i realized that dampeners arent just to shut down target capabilty and shoot something without getting shooted, its also a good tactic to force the enemy to enter into blaster range
would u enter into blaster range and leave ur optimal compfortzone with ewar on u and most likely more ewar when u close in if u had the chance to simply retreat ??
dont be smarter then u can handle :D |
Rutuli
Vangers.
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 07:31:00 -
[1527] - Quote
tEcHnOkRaT wrote:Rutuli wrote:Might be out of topic, but after a few anoying fights against serpentis, i realized that dampeners arent just to shut down target capabilty and shoot something without getting shooted, its also a good tactic to force the enemy to enter into blaster range would u enter into blaster range and leave ur optimal compfortzone with ewar on u and most likely more ewar when u close in if u had the chance to simply retreat ?? dont be smarter then u can handle :D
The point its you can rush into close range, so blaster can actually work, without losing half of your hp inthe way when you are being kited. I know dampeners are actually useless since you need a pair in a ship with bonuses for it to get a good result and you still exposed vs multiple targets. But it fit gallente doctrine someway...
Pd: sry for the bad english, its 4:30am here and im at work QQ |
tEcHnOkRaT
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 07:45:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Rutuli wrote:tEcHnOkRaT wrote:Rutuli wrote:Might be out of topic, but after a few anoying fights against serpentis, i realized that dampeners arent just to shut down target capabilty and shoot something without getting shooted, its also a good tactic to force the enemy to enter into blaster range would u enter into blaster range and leave ur optimal compfortzone with ewar on u and most likely more ewar when u close in if u had the chance to simply retreat ?? dont be smarter then u can handle :D The point its you can rush into close range, so blaster can actually work, without losing half of your hp inthe way when you are being kited. I know dampeners are actually useless since you need a pair in a ship with bonuses for it to get a good result and you still exposed vs multiple targets. But it fit gallente doctrine someway... Pd: sry for the bad english, its 4:30am here and im at work QQ
as u already said its useless. and fallowing this "gallente doctrine" of urs, open the market window and look for another ship when u rush at this oponent :) , cuz most likely he will be faster then u are
and as i can predict ur argumant by fitting some speed mods, the rest of ur tank is lost as well |
Rutuli
Vangers.
4
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 08:02:00 -
[1529] - Quote
I know it doesnt work,im trying to trow some ideas of how make blasters usable without just asking for speed, range and basicly just changing the whole deal to turn blasters into ACs and gallente ships into speed devils. |
tEcHnOkRaT
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 11:43:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Rutuli wrote:I know it doesnt work,im trying to trow some ideas of how make blasters usable without just asking for speed, range and basicly just changing the whole deal to turn blasters into ACs and gallente ships into speed devils.
whats wrong about making the galente similar to minmatar ?
camon just step outside ur shell and start using ur head its not there to prevent the rain from falling in ur throat and this rock paper scisors thinking was nice when pc games just started
imagine if USA would use a military doctrinbe or a weapon system that is far behind the russians or chinese one wouldnt they try to adapt it and improve it ? or reinvent a new one that can best counter therese ?
and the current galente way dosnt work for years now. so u think they wouldnt try to adapt ? that an openminded democratic society would keep things as they are even if they dont work ? dont u think they would try at first to copy that what is working and later improve and change it, to best counterattack ?
i dont wont a game like wow i wont my games as complex as chess on roids |
|
|
|
|
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 |