EVE Search - Autocannon Issues

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Autocannon Issues

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Azzerhoden	Posted - 2006.03.29 23:28:00 - [241] After reading through most of this thread, I have to say that I understand what DC is saying. Originally by: DigitalCommunist <snip>The whole point of your argument is one 'discrepancy' which can be solved with a nerf, and yes, past history will show that Devs would rather boost one gun than bring the rest in line. But past history is also what led us to short combat times. Do you not understand that every six months a new gun/ship/feature becomes central to the whining? Lately its been blasters, before that it was missiles, and you're hoping autocannons are next. Sorry, if I didn't agree with anyone asking for blaster damage increase (my primary weapon of choice), what makes you think I'd agree to your demands? You have an excuse for thinking this way, you're Minmatar. Your whole combat philosophy relies upon short term benefits over long term, I'm not surprised you think that way too. But it saddens me that so many people just don't care about next year, or the next two years. Most don't even play that long, and those that quit only to return find themselves relearning which guns and ships are "the best". What do you think causes Flavor of the Month (FOTM)? The goddamn pixies of Neverland? <snip> In summary, the issue isn't with the large ACs (of which I am very disappointed in), the issue is that all the other guns are now too powerful. Rather then increasing large ACs, lowering the DPS of all the other weapons would have the same effect. The sad fact is that this thinking, while possibly correct from a 'Grand Scheme' view-point, fails to take into account that there have been many changes and no rollback will restore any previous balance (if in fact, such balance ever existed). The game reality, as it exists today, is that large ACs are not balanced correctly. Reducing medium and small ACs would restore the balance between ACs, but not in the rest of the game. Slightly increasing the DPs of large ACs will bring them into more of a balance. BTW- The use of a pattern is just to show how the large ACs are out of balance. The same method could be used if their damage was to high. Now would we be complaining if they were dealing to much DPs? Of course not. That would be handled by everyone else. They would point out the single anomaly. As the single out of balance value it would be the obvious one to correct. This isn't about race story lines, wanting to have the best weapon or highest DPs, or the latest whine of the month. It's about correcting a single number that is out of balance. What was done last month or the month before is irrelevant to the current discussion. Balance is important, but this issue is out of balance, as has been pointed out with hard data, not opinions.
Soyemia	Posted - 2006.04.05 14:51:00 - [242] Artillery whine thread we need.
Jainy James	Posted - 2006.04.05 15:51:00 - [243] Originally by: Soyemia Artillery whine thread we need. check sarmaul's in-game bio - he's currently forum banned
Akip	Posted - 2006.04.05 16:58:00 - [244] Originally by: Sarmaul tux has also stated that they are going to look into autocannons and artillery in that thread too, which is why I've stopped moaning so much until I see what they decide on Great job Sarmaul... -------- Akip Your 720mm Howitzer Artillery II perfectly strikes Watch Post, wrecking for 1557.5 damage.
Sarmaul 2	Posted - 2006.04.05 23:34:00 - [245] final bump for good measure ___________________________________ Account Cancelled
Kolhell	Posted - 2006.05.01 08:06:00 - [246] nudge. regardless of whether acs are gimpy or not, there are issues in here players need to know about if they intend to use acs (such as 425s and 800s being worthless) ------------------------- bury the hatchet
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.03 14:39:00 - [247] Originally by: "Patch Notes" 200mm, 425mm and 800mm AutoCannons have a 50% higher ammunition capacity. VICTORY!!! Originally by: General Apocalypse the game is very well balanced
Haniblecter Teg	Posted - 2006.06.03 15:00:00 - [248] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: "Patch Notes" 200mm, 425mm and 800mm AutoCannons have a 50% higher ammunition capacity. VICTORY!!! Someone will ***. Someonealways *es. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever**
Gai Servos	Posted - 2006.06.03 15:02:00 - [249] ARTY THREAD!!!!!!!!!
Sniser	Posted - 2006.06.03 15:13:00 - [250] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: "Patch Notes" 200mm, 425mm and 800mm AutoCannons have a 50% higher ammunition capacity. VICTORY!!! grats :P for minmatar also for my apoc ^^
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.06.03 17:52:00 - [251] Originally by: Sniser Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: "Patch Notes" 200mm, 425mm and 800mm AutoCannons have a 50% higher ammunition capacity. VICTORY!!! grats :P for minmatar also for my apoc ^^ Bring that crapoc to catch any time. Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Brazero	Posted - 2006.06.03 17:59:00 - [252] One of the best treads I ever read, and congratz to all, great work Sarmaul. I resently bought a couple ships for Proj weapons, and I really love them both. (Cyclone and Machariel) So now would be a good time for that arty tread
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2006.06.03 18:09:00 - [253] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: "Patch Notes" 200mm, 425mm and 800mm AutoCannons have a 50% higher ammunition capacity. VICTORY!!! Im definently impressed. Its not certain that the changes were influenced by your calculations, but im happy to see the changes to autocannons in the game. Im honestly shocked about the 0-1% increase in damage for the bigger guns and im happy to see that there now finally may be a reason to use 425's again. When you are bored, i would love it if you made a new graph with the new ammo size taken into account for overall dps. And i would also like if you added battlecruisers to the list since i like the Cyclone. Only if you have the time and energy though. Good work Sarmuel --- The Eve Wiki Project
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.03 19:08:00 - [254] New Autos Curves are the same for frigs & cruiser guns too. I would've given them +60% ammo cap to get equal spacing, but you can't have it all ;). Originally by: General Apocalypse the game is very well balanced
Baalic	Posted - 2006.06.03 20:36:00 - [255] Originally by: Sarmaul New Autos Curves are the same for frigs & cruiser guns too. I would've given them +60% ammo cap to get equal spacing, but you can't have it all ;). I would give all guns of the same size category same magazine capacity. As is unless you have cpu and grid to spare in your desired setup you are better off with smaller guns. The moment you have to sacrifice anything the bigger guns still arent compelling. Even adding an unnamed gyro I pushes the normalized DPS of Dual 425s past 800s for 40% less grid, less cpu and with 20% better tracking. Fitting smaller guns should be a matter of needing the better tracking, or because you loaded up your ship with other grid guzzling mods, not because the damage increase of the bigger guns is barely noticable.
Sal Alo	Posted - 2006.06.27 14:08:00 - [256] /Signed Sarmaul for president Like a guy said, a lot of minmatar pilot switched to caldari/amarr/gallente because the unbalanced minni weapons
Black Vador	Posted - 2007.05.16 09:35:00 - [257] I didn't read all 9 pages to see if someone mentioned this , but I believe that the medium guns would come out doing more dps vs. most ships you would enounter than large ones. This is due to their miss reduction from having both a significantly lower Signature Resolution and having double the tracking speed of large turrets. Your chance to hit a target with a signature radius of 125 within 10 yards is about double when comparing a 425mm autocannon 1 to a dual 650mm repeating artillery. I understand that the chance with the Large turret would be higher vs. a battleship .. but really .. how often do you fight battleship vs battleship at autocannon range?
LukaG	Posted - 2007.05.16 10:04:00 - [258] Edited by: LukaG on 16/05/2007 10:02:48 Edited by: LukaG on 16/05/2007 10:02:33 nevermind.
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.16 10:09:00 - [259] Necro ftl READ THE DATE! sgb

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] :: 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.