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)
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:01:00 - [1] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:24:54 Autocannon Issues Before we begin This is a thread about autocannons vs autocannons. It has nothing to do with artillery, blasters, rails, beams, pulses or missiles. I don't care how ***** hard your megathron is to fit - this thread has nothing to do with it. I don't care if Tachs are getting a damage boost - this thread has nothing to do with it. I do care that artillery suck, but again this thread has nothing to do with it. If you want to discuss these issues work out the numbers yourself and make your own *** thread instead of derailing anything and everything about Minmatar. And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. Introduction At the moment, there is alomost zero reason to take 200mm, 425mm or 800mm autocannons into PVP. When reloading is taken into account, they do almost exactly the same damage as the next tier down (150mm, 220mm, Dual 650mm respectivly). This is becuase that although on the surface the top-tier autocannons do more damage, they can only hold half the ammo of the next size down and have far worse ROF. The extra 10 seconds spent reloading pretty much kills the extra damage they do, and the increased optimal range on the top-tier autocannons is useless, as autocannons are always used in their falloff. As CCP have said in the past that the best way to get them to look at things like this is providing numbers, I present some. Assuming maxed skills: Constants** Damage Skills Multiplier: 1.25 ([Size] [Class] Turret) x 1.15 (Surgical Strike) x 1.1 ([Size] [Sub-Class] Spec) = 1.58125 ROF Skills Multiplier: 0.9 (Gunnery) x 0.8 (Rapid Firing) = 0.72 Reloading Time: 10 seconds 150mm Autocannon II on a Rifter, with EMP S Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.25 (Rifter) x 1.58125 (damage skills) = 3.91359375 Damage Per Shot: 3.91359375 (Damage Mod) x 11 (EMP S damage) = 43.04953125 Rate of Fire: 2.25 (base) x 0.72 (rof skills) = 1.62 Number of Shots: 0.8 (capacity) / 0.01 (EMP S) = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 1.62 (rate of fire) x 80 (number of shots) + 10 (Reloading Time) = 139.6 seconds Damage per Magazine: 80 (number of shots) x 43.04953125 (damage per shot) = 3443.9625 Damage Per Second: 3443.9625 (damage per magazine) / 139.6 (magazine firing time) = 24.670218481375358166189111747851 DPS 200mm Autocannon II on a Rifter, with EMP S Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.25 x 1.58125 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 11 = 50.224453125 Rate of Fire: 2.5 (base) x 0.72 = 1.8 Number of Shots: 0.4 / 0.01 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 1.8 x 40 + 10 = 82 seconds Damage per magazine: 40 x 50.224453125 = 2008.978125 Damage Per Second: 2008.978125 / 82 = 24.499733231707317073170731707317 DPS As you can see, the 150mm Autocannon II actually does marginally more normalized DPS than the 200mm Autocannon II, and that's with better tracking and much lower fitting requirements. The Rifter was chosen as it is seen as the Minmatar's main tech1 combat frigate, and has a damage bonus. I should point out that the situation is the same with any minmatar frigate with only a damage bonus (and not a ROF bonus) - the medium-tier autocannons do more normalized damage than the top-tier ones. Now onto the cruiser guns. I have chosen the Rupture for this so you can see the effects of the double bonus (+25% damage, -25% rate of fire).
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:02:00 - [2] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:42:57 Dual 650mm Autocannon II on a Typhoon, with EMP L Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.58125 = 3.130875 Damage Per Shot: 3.130875 x 44 = 137.7585 Rate of Fire: 5.06 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Typhoon) = 2.7324 Number of Shots: 8 / 0.1 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 2.7324 x 80 + 10 = 228.592 Damage per magazine: 80 x 137.7585 = 11020.68 Damage per second: 11020.68 / 228.592 = 48.211135997760201581857632813047 DPS 800mm Autocannon II on a Typhoon, with EMP L Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.58125 = 3.6526875 Damage Per Shot: 3.6526875 x 44 = 160.71825 Rate of Fire: 5.63 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 = 3.0402 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.1 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 3.0402 x 40 + 10 = 131.608 Damage per magazine: 40 x 160.71825 = 6428.73 Damage per second: 6428.73 / 131.608 = 48.847562458209227402589508236581 DPS Again, less than 1 dps in it. Dual 650mm Autocannon II on a Tempest, with EMP L Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.58125 x 1.25 (Tempest) = 3.91359375 Damage Per Shot: 3.91359375 x 44 = 172.198125 Rate of Fire: 5.06 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Tempest) = 2.7324 Number of Shots: 8 / 0.1 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 2.7324 x 80 + 10 = 228.592 Damage per magazine: 80 x 172.198125 = 13775.85 Damage per second: 13775.85 / 228.592 = 60.263919997200251977322041016309 DPS 800mm Autocannon II on a Tempest, with EMP L Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.58125 x 1.25 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 44 = 200.8978125 Rate of Fire: 5.63 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 = 3.0402 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.1 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 3.0402 x 40 + 10 = 131.608 Damage per magazine: 40 x 200.8978125 = 8035.9125 Damage per second: 8035.9125 / 131.608 = 61.059453072761534253236885295727 DPS Less than 1 dps in it again. As you can see, the top-tier autocannons have some serious issues that need to be worked out. Besides for NPCing far from home, there are no reasons to fit them.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:02:00 - [3] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:43:22 Comparison Chart (Rounded to 2DP) 150mm II Rifter: 24.67 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 24.5 DPS 220mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 220mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS D650mm II Typhoon: 48.21 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 48.85 DPS D650mm II Tempest: 60.26 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 61.06 DPS Solutions? 1) Increase the magazine size of the top-tier autocannons to match that of the medium-tier ones. The guns are balenced between themsleves besides this issue, which is screwing up everything. 2) (Originally by Xuthas) Decrease the reload time for projectiles to 5 seconds to allow them to spend less time reloading, and also to let them change ammo types quicker. I will add more as they are given in this thread. Now, lets try and get some intelligent discussion going, and the spelling police can stay the hell away from this one too.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:02:00 - [4] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 21:24:39 220mm Autocannon II on a Rupture, with EMP M Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.25 (Rupture) x 1.58125 = 3.91359375 Damage Per Shot: 3.91359375 x 22 = 86.0990625 Rate of Fire: 3.38 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Rupture) = 1.8252 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.05 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 1.8252 x 80 + 10 = 156.016 seconds Damage per magazine: 80 x 86.0990625 = 6887.925 Damage Per Second: 6887.925 / 156.016 = 44.148837298738590913752435647626 DPS 425mm Autocannon II on a Rupture, with EMP M Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.25 x 1.58125 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 22 = 100.44890625 Rate of Fire: 3.75 x 0.75 x 0.72 = 2.025 Number of Shots: 2 / 0.05 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 2.025 x 40 + 10 = 91 seconds Damage per magazine: 40 x 100.44890625 = 4017.95625 Damage Per Second: 4017.95625 / 91 = 44.153365384615384615384615384615 DPS Yes, the 425mms do 0.01 more DPS than the 220mms. OK, lets see what a sole ROF bonus does to the cruiser autocannons... 220mm Autocannon II on a Stabber, with EMP M Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.58125 = 3.130875 Damage Per Shot: 3.130875 x 22 = 68.87925 Rate of Fire: 3.38 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Stabber) = 1.8252 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.05 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 1.8252 x 80 + 10 = 156.016 seconds Damage per magazine: 80 x 68.87925 = 5510.34 Damage per second: 5510.34 / 156.016 = 35.319069838990872731001948518101 DPS 425mm Autocannon II on a Stabber, with EMP M Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.58125 = 3.6526875 Damage Per Shot: 3.6526875 x 22 = 80.359125 Rate of Fire: 3.75 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 = 2.025 Number of Shots: 2 (capacity) / 0.05 (EMP M) = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 2.025 x 40 + 10 = 91 seconds Damage per magazine: 40 x 80.359125 = 3214.365 Damage per second: 3214.365 / 91 = 35.322692307692307692307692307692 DPS Again, the 425mms out damage the the 220mms by under 1 dps.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:03:00 - [5] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:45:04 ok, lets try out some of the suggestions. Key White: Original Value Yellow: Double the Top-Tier Magazine Size Red: 5 Second Reload Time (all tiers) Turret DPS (Rounded to 2DP) 150mm II Rifter: 24.67 DPS 150mm II Rifter: 26.57 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 24.5 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 26.09 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 27.90 DPS 220mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 220mm II Rupture: 47.17 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 46.72 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 49.60 DPS 220mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS 220mm II Stabber: 37.74 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 37.38 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 39.68 DPS D650mm II Typhoon: 48.21 DPS D650mm II Typhoon: 50.42 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 48.85 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 50.78 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 52.86 DPS D650mm II Tempest: 60.26 DPS D650mm II Tempest: 63.02 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 61.06 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 63.47 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 66.08 DPS
Anjerrai Meloanis	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:10:00 - [6] Edited by: Anjerrai Meloanis on 16/03/2006 18:11:38 This is basically the only thing i dislike about minmatar ships. We should get 10% damage per level not 5% rof and 5% damage. At least that way reloading would just be a side effect of doing lots more short-time damage. Also, didnt they make interceptors have 10% damage per level because the rof was bad for cpu load? I have a 1.3sec rof with autocannons on my Sleipnir lol.. uh.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:13:00 - [7] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 18:21:47 ok, it should all be sorted now
Anjerrai Meloanis	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:17:00 - [8] Dont suppose you could add the bottom tier guns for each as well? Also this issue seems relevant in prospect to artillery as they have the same issues with reloading. uh.
Vestalia Gaea	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:19:00 - [9] This post suits my decision making of whether to go for Minmatar to PvP or not, as i am very inclined to, but Minmatar seem to have more than a few problems with weaponry and DPS, hopefully CCP will fix it. And nice post, sorry i can't add to the discussion i'm an AC noob 'A disorderly mob is no more an army than a heap of building materials is a house.'
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:23:00 - [10] Originally by: Anjerrai Meloanis Dont suppose you could add the bottom tier guns for each as well? I would, but they do not suffer from this issue. The problem is only between the middle and top tier autocannons Quote: Also this issue seems relevant in prospect to artillery as they have the same issues with reloading. true - I am working on an artillery thread now (and compared to other weapons), but it will take a while to finish
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:28:00 - [11] awesome compiliation Sarmaul, i knew those issues beforehand but seeing them so neatly listed and documented made me cry again i'll try to think up some constructive comments but for now: i agree with the increases in clipsize but is that enough? Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Xuthas	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:39:00 - [12] I propose they change the reload time on projectile weapons to 5 sec. This would increase the dps of the largest autocannons slightly over the course of a fight. This would also help the minmatar change dmg types faster. Projectile weapons have the lowest dmg ammo and the lowest dps and try to make up for it in versatility of dmg types. This change would fix the AC problem and make projectile weapons even more in line with minmatar style of fighting(versatility over dps).
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 18:39:00 - [13] thank you Tiuwaz I've added a comparison chart so people can see all the numbers without having to scroll up and down
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:24:00 - [14] Originally by: Xuthas I propose they change the reload time on projectile weapons to 5 sec. This would increase the dps of the largest autocannons slightly over the course of a fight. This would also help the minmatar change dmg types faster. Projectile weapons have the lowest dmg ammo and the lowest dps and try to make up for it in versatility of dmg types. This change would fix the AC problem and make projectile weapons even more in line with minmatar style of fighting(versatility over dps). added
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:30:00 - [15] another possibilty would be to increase the falloff of top tier AC's by 10-25%, that would be an indirect dmg bonus aswell as strengthen the minnie approach of choosing the range this would be in junction with a clipsize increase i think i'd like that better than a straight dps boost Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Hakera	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:31:00 - [16] imo i have always used the medium turret of the ac range, ie the 150mm, 220mm & duel 650mm. For me it's the comprimise of fitting req's and ammo need against the lower range and dps that seem to make the top range ac's too hard to fit and the lowest range ones, chew too much ammo mainly. A clip size increase would be welcome without altering too much.
keepiru	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:33:00 - [17] Wow, thats certainly very conclusive. Good work man. ---------------- Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief. Barricades a speciality! Last stands on request.
Dark Eulogy	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:37:00 - [18] 5 second reload would be great
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 19:39:00 - [19] I'm going to knock up some figures for the increased clip size and 5 second reload (and both combined) to see what happens
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:18:00 - [20] Originally by: Sarmaul I'm going to knock up some figures for the increased clip size and 5 second reload (and both combined) to see what happens dont forget the artillery thread <3 Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Ms Muffins	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:22:00 - [21] Excellent work. Only one anal correction, everwhere you use the word "clip" you should use the word "magazine". They are actually two very different things.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:24:00 - [22] omg new numbers are up, and thank god notepad has find and replace :)
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:29:00 - [23] Originally by: Tiuwaz Originally by: Sarmaul I'm going to knock up some figures for the increased clip size and 5 second reload (and both combined) to see what happens dont forget the artillery thread <3 by "a while to finish", I mean tomorrow :)
Elaine Threepwood	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:39:00 - [24] Originally by: Sarmaul 800mm Autocannon II on a Tempest, with EMP L Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.58125 x 1.25 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 44 = 200.8978125 Rate of Fire: 5.63 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 = 3.0402 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.1 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 3.0402 x 40 + 10 = 121.608 Damage per magazine: 40 x 200.8978125 = 8035.9125 Damage per second: 8035.9125 / 121.608 = 66.08045934477994868758634300375 DPS Finally, a comparison that has more than 1 dps in it. oops magazine firing time: 3.0402 x 40 + 10 = 131.608 gives a dps of 61.05 bit closer to the dual 650 damage, and explains why your damage went down when you doubled clip size...
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:41:00 - [25] Originally by: Elaine Threepwood stuff lol thanks
Zysco	Posted - 2006.03.16 20:50:00 - [26] nice work man. PS why are u in a nubcorp ? callon > I don't like traveling much, i think its cause my father used to beat me with a globe. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=300438New vid: "we're back
Testicular Testes	Posted - 2006.03.16 21:17:00 - [27] Quote: Yes, 220mms on a Stabber out-damage 425mms on a Rupture. The other way around. Your math shows it, but the commentary must have been done retroactively or while stoned, or both. Its also worth mentioning that while you're using less than your 40 rounds of largest guns in your class, you'll be doing ballpark of 3% more than the medium variant. Conversely, for fights that last another 10 seconds after that the medium sizes pull ahead significantly. All I really have to add here is large ACs are screwed, the impact of reloading is small compared to the fact that they do piddly extra anyway and the range bonuses being irrelevant (falloff being the selling point, like you said).
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 21:22:00 - [28] Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 21:26:11 Originally by: Testicular Testes Quote: Yes, 220mms on a Stabber out-damage 425mms on a Rupture. The other way around. Your math shows it, but the commentary must have been done retroactively or while stoned, or both. I forgot to delete that - it was when I was comparing something else and forgot to change the text. It's completely irrelivent to the topic. Originally by: Zysco PS why are u in a nubcorp ? Not enough time to play atm - this was knocked up between computer crashes on my development machine
gron alt	Posted - 2006.03.16 22:04:00 - [29] Originally by: Sarmaul And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. yarrrrr, didnt notice my lack of posts sarm? i left the game few weeks back. anyways good luck with ur boost the arts campain
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.16 22:05:00 - [30] Originally by: gron alt Originally by: Sarmaul And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. yarrrrr, didnt notice my lack of posts sarm? i left the game few weeks back. anyways good luck with ur boost the arts campain how come?
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.17 01:21:00 - [31] while i like the 5 sec relod time idea, it would be a rather fundamental change and would also improve tiers that are largely fine, also the benfeits gained still dont make the top tier worth fitting over the 2nd tier this idea is worth discussing in overall balancing minmatar against the other races but as a tool for balancing the top tier against the other tiers, it is not that good (still like the idea ^^) the doubling of the clip size provides a small boost, but doesnt really make them worth fitting over the 2nd tier in my eyes Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Kai Lae	Posted - 2006.03.17 01:29:00 - [32] Boost magazine size. This is actually a projectile issue in the overall sense, since the arty need the same thing. Of course, you could also reduce the size of the ammo, which might be easier to do.
gron alt	Posted - 2006.03.17 01:34:00 - [33] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: gron alt Originally by: Sarmaul And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. yarrrrr, didnt notice my lack of posts sarm? i left the game few weeks back. anyways good luck with ur boost the arts campain how come? game got a tad too boring and repetitive for me was in the same ship with the same setup doing the same thing for nearly 9months, and the general eve population sucks at pvp so wining 99/100 encounters got boring too. And THB thinking about AC vs Blasters vs pulse and getting to play with each a lot before I left gotta say AC do share some of the **** traits of blasters. You got crappy damage and more so because well none of you mini pilots really trained t2 drones and got good drone skills. Talking about close range weapons on the ships each one has a sweet spot atm imo Tempest: AC/2L nos/armor tank/ew great for the solo and under 7vs7 [thatÆs bs only donÆt count support] Gedden: mega pulse ./ armor tank/ drones great for 3vs3 to like 250vs250 Megathron: blasters/armor tank/ drones uber for the 5vs5-10vs10 where its highest DPS means that u are really hurting the other side until of course you get locked and insta-die Imo at the moment its not too bad, kinda took me to leave the game to figure it out. But gedden seems on par with the tempest, each one having strengths the other does [temp easy to setup, nice tank, nice ew in mids, no cap guns, choose dmg type, speed, sig] [ gedden lots of optimal, can align, more damage, more drone bay, mwd/ab not required Mega [best damage, good tracking, good drone bay] Anyways I might be back for kail or when ever it is they are bringing out tier 3BS, til then you guys got 1 less galante supporter to deal with :P
Octavio Santillian	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:01:00 - [34] Kudos to Sarmaul for an extremely thorough and focused post.
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.17 02:01:00 - [35] Sarmaul, very.. very well done. ♥ --------------
Elrich Zann	Posted - 2006.03.17 03:28:00 - [36] Excellent post and discussion Sarmaul. The 5 second reload may upset the balance with other BS's too much, but the larger mag seems to be rather harmless. The numbers don't lie, you hardly ever see top tier AC's being used.
Lygos	Posted - 2006.03.17 06:19:00 - [37] I could see increasing clip size (or decrease ammo size) for a token amount of cap used. Otherwise your rounds have to pack more explosive to move the recoil loading mechanism. Eunoia: The persistent suspicion that the universe is secretly conspiring to quietly improve one's life.
fmercury	Posted - 2006.03.17 07:21:00 - [38] Why not just give them a better damage mod?
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2006.03.17 07:58:00 - [39] Nice topic and very well writen Sarmaul. I learned a bit about autocannons. Now I am a total ignorant about guns (except rails) as I am a Caldari missile user. So I appologize if I screw this up for lack of information. As I understand, projectile ammo has various size ? I mean you fit different number of emp than e.g. depleted uranium in the same gun right ? Then what about making all the projectile ammo in one size class the same volume ? I think hybrid ammo works this way and with similar clip size reductions from lower to higher caliber guns and there are no problems. Now the deciding factor is reload time, so we need to make the guns fire longer on one magazine. This can be done by increasing clip size AND/OR changing ammo volume. ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well ...
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.17 09:14:00 - [40] oooo we have tux looking at the forum atm :) any chance you could tell us if this is by design (the autocannons, not you looking at the forum), and if so, WHY?!!?!? ta
Sentille	Posted - 2006.03.17 10:50:00 - [41] great post as usual Sarmaul. which of the figures you have presented shows both the increased magazine size and 5 sec reload? If its the red figures then the 2dps general improvement still to my mind doesn't warrant using the top tier guns due to fitting requirements they have. 4 x 220mm II's on a rupture will mean 440 grid and 88 cpu 4 x 425mm II's on a rupture will mean 616 grid and 100 cpu an additional 176 grid and 12 cpu for 8dps (using 4 guns) and the rupture only has 860 grid to start with (yes I know eng 5 etc etc, can't do the maths for all that sorry) I would propose a little love for top tier auto's in a number of areas to see if the sum makes them better overall. e.g. (using the 425mm example) reduce fitting to 140 grid and 24 cpu (from 154/25) reduce ROF from 3.75 to 3.55 increase dmg mod from 2.31 to 2.5 make tracking slightly better, currently 0.1056 increase the falloff from 8000m (same as 220mm btw) to 9000m tbh I'm not sure what difference this would make in real terms but I feel improving the gun overall would be better than just a big hit on dmg mod or ROF for example. bigger mags ftw for sure!
Aba Tor	Posted - 2006.03.17 10:56:00 - [42] Great work!! Caldari missile user in the process of skilling for autocannon minmatar here :) and maybe by the time i finish my skills for ac and min ships the changes will be in effect :P... fingers crossed. I see a general problem with autocannons: very high rof that depletes ammo stock fast, maybe an increase in dmg mod across the board to autos and a decrease in rof could prove effective without imbalancing. ... A wise man never plays TAG with a RINO
Brute Helmet	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:26:00 - [43] Edited by: Brute Helmet on 17/03/2006 11:27:28 Very comprehensive, Sarmaul. Another suggestion is just to up the damage mod of the top tier autos by 5-10% making them worthwhile that way. Autocannons eat way to much ammo as it is. I run through many thousands of rounds per hour while NPC:ing in my Muninn.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:29:00 - [44] Edited by: Nafri on 17/03/2006 11:29:46 funny afterall that thy boost Tachyons cause the reason to fit them was too small anyway, just increase the DPS on the bigger autocannons by 5-10%
Goberth Ludwig	Posted - 2006.03.17 11:47:00 - [45] Originally by: keepiru Wow, thats certainly very conclusive. Good work man. agreed, wtg sarmaul - Gob (my nubie attempt at a forum sig, bare with me plz :p)
Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2006.03.17 12:11:00 - [46] Very good Samual, certainly made me realise a few things I have not before about autocannons, the high level ones do indeed appear to be pointless to fit, at least for pvp. However, I have no idea why this is, i mean surely they (devs) must know about it? - Rise.
Dark Eulogy	Posted - 2006.03.17 12:14:00 - [47] switching from emp to fusion for shield to armor faster would be extremely practical even if it doesnt show up on the numbers as being so... i rarely drain a whole clip with my dual 180s but the 10 secs to switch is often a killer
Necroth	Posted - 2006.03.17 13:38:00 - [48] i can take down a battlecruiser with 4 220mm and 4x80 bullets... i think you're not supposed to take in count the reloading time during a fight, maybe in a big battle but even in a 2v1 or 1v1 you never have to empty your magazine before dying or killing the opponenet. dont try to kill somone in more than 3mins :p fit damage mods, no tnank, kill fast or die -------- Necroth
Grimpak	Posted - 2006.03.17 13:59:00 - [49] Originally by: keepiru Wow, thats certainly very conclusive. Good work man. indeed it is, and I totally agree with the clip size increase proposed to the top-tier AC's, since it's more than explained that that's the only problem with them. ---------------- Originally by: Abdalion Shoot him ingame if you don't like this person. If you do like him, go mine veldspar with him.
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.03.17 14:27:00 - [50] Good post sarmaul.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.03.17 14:27:00 - [51] Wow, you werent kidding when you said daddy of all whine threads - you have even more free time than I do :) My proposals to fix autocannons are still along these lines: Smaller ammo size -> Better than larger clip size as also lets us carry more ammo, which we really need too. Less RoF, more Damage per shot -> Alleviates ammo problems further. Also, imo, should be arranged to increase the overall base DPS of autocannons by around 5%-7.5% (these numbers are from last time I looked at AC DPS compared with others) There used to be a sig here, but I got bored of it.
Shamis Orzoz	Posted - 2006.03.17 14:31:00 - [52] If I put 3-4 dmg mods on a 800mm T2 tempest and load them with hail, there will be no reloading required. The other big advantage of using the bigger guns is that you use less ammo, which is nice when using t2 ammo. I wouldn't complain if they got boosted, but there are much bigger problems to worry about in eve. Shamis
PointStore	Posted - 2006.03.17 14:35:00 - [53] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz If I put 3-4 dmg mods on a 800mm T2 tempest and load them with hail, there will be no reloading required. The other big advantage of using the bigger guns is that you use less ammo, which is nice when using t2 ammo. I wouldn't complain if they got boosted, but there are much bigger problems to worry about in eve. Shamis couldnt agree more
Admiral IceBlock	Posted - 2006.03.17 14:36:00 - [54] Originally by: gron alt Originally by: Sarmaul And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. yarrrrr, didnt notice my lack of posts sarm? i left the game few weeks back. anyways good luck with ur boost the arts campain thats sad, i would recruit you any day, top notch player :) "We brake for nobody"
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.03.17 15:01:00 - [55] Originally by: gron alt Originally by: Sarmaul And that goes triple for Gronsak and his band of merry alts. yarrrrr, didnt notice my lack of posts sarm? i left the game few weeks back. anyways good luck with ur boost the arts campain WOOT! No, but seriously, good players leaving the game is never good :S Come back and argue with me. There used to be a sig here, but I got bored of it.
Soyemia	Posted - 2006.03.17 15:08:00 - [56] All minmatars are doomed :(. We can't never get as good stuffs as others :(. Maybe CCP should demonlish minmatars or put text that I put on other thread.
Zeno Kang	Posted - 2006.03.17 15:51:00 - [57] How about a new logistical rapid-reloader module with a new gunnery skill that reduces reload times by 10% per level and/or increases the magazine size by 5% per level?
Smartacus	Posted - 2006.03.17 16:22:00 - [58] How about. CCP gets rid of RELOADING in any way, shape or form. No reloading what so ever for any race. I mean c'mon we are flying highly advanced spaceships in freakin space. Yet i need to reload my gun Just get rid of it. Will solve a lot of these underpowered guns.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.03.17 16:24:00 - [59] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 17/03/2006 16:25:24 @Gron ... you obviously haven't played in the right systems. Come to Catch and give it a try. Its like the wild west out here and suprisingly enough... the outlaws are pretty organized. You don't need to leave us... Kay is very sad @Sarm... Good post. I think the bigger clip on 800mm would be good. Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Uther Doull	Posted - 2006.03.17 16:27:00 - [60] Edited by: Uther Doull on 17/03/2006 16:28:20 that would just be another skill that every1 has at 5 Originally by: Smartacus How about. CCP gets rid of RELOADING in any way, shape or form. No reloading what so ever for any race. I mean c'mon we are flying highly advanced spaceships in freakin space. Yet i need to reload my gun Just get rid of it. Will solve a lot of these underpowered guns. hmm, that's a really good idea actually
ParMizaN	Posted - 2006.03.17 16:36:00 - [61] I think the 5 sec reload thing on projectiles would be a nice, acceptable boost, though i must admit i havnt fired a projectile weapon in all my time in eve. Phenomena of ironies, cast the litany aside How intelligible, blessed be the forgetful I Luv Teh Parm!!1 - Imaran
Montero	Posted - 2006.03.17 16:36:00 - [62] nicely hammered home. haven't got much time to think about it atm (not going to college for 2 weeks ftl) but how about increasing the damage mod of the high tiers and reducing the ROF proportionatly. this would reduce some of the clip size issues without effecting the overall dps of the gun for firing one clip. JUST GET THE **** OFF MY SIG, K?
Kyo Kuno	Posted - 2006.03.17 16:44:00 - [63] Edited by: Kyo Kuno on 17/03/2006 16:45:34 Originally by: Smartacus How about. CCP gets rid of RELOADING in any way, shape or form. No reloading what so ever for any race. I mean c'mon we are flying highly advanced spaceships in freakin space. Yet i need to reload my gun Just get rid of it. Will solve a lot of these underpowered guns. I've always wondered why this was too! I mean wouldn't the future hold some kind of ammo rack? Machinery would automatically put more ammo into the "clip" of the turret once it gets low. The delay between firing another missile is the time where a new missile is loaded into the missile launcher.
TuRtLe HeAd	Posted - 2006.03.17 16:47:00 - [64] See I agree that its like that in the long run, however, I do prefer the inital kick I get from the 200mm variants and 800mm variants. I'd rather Kill something quickly with the intial extra damage. Long engagments in minmatar vessels isn't practical as a rule of thumb as the HP's just dont marry up. I've tested this theory many a time and for ratting I would always favour the model down to the higher teir , But as far as PvP is concerned I've always taken the higher tier (Except when it comes to cruisers [220's over 425's]) I.e I'd rather get 3 hits of 50 in than 5 x hits of 30. Pureley because For me, the initial damage can determine the outcome of the fight. So Agreed it is an issue that needs resolving, but as for No point using them for PvP. I've used them nonstop for 2 years and not noticed a problem yet. Bottom line is theres a lot of room for improvment in this area. Preferably with a damage output increase. not with a magazine change. Nice post as well dude Sarmaul , Very well executed ! What I've said is my opinion ONLY. It works for me And I don't have a problem with it. If anyone disagrees with what I've said thats up to them, But Like I said, its an OPINION.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.17 18:52:00 - [65] bumpage - spread the love/hate/knowledge/isk
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.03.17 18:55:00 - [66] This thread shall not pass ,ermm die :D
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.17 21:34:00 - [67] as some ppl argued that reloading in a fight isnt common, i'd like to ask you Sarmaul ,if possible, to provide us with dps numbers for 30 sec 60 sec 120 sec of fighting I'd also want to add for the others, that for balancing reason you have to take reloading into account. you cant balance a cannon for 10 sec of shooting in a gank. Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Kldraina	Posted - 2006.03.17 22:26:00 - [68] If you increase the DPS of the bigger autocannons, it potentially disrupts the balance of the minmatar ships (as compared to the other races). Also, I think it would be nice to have some variety besides just damage increases. Perhaps what is really needed is for the bigger autocannons to have increased falloff (instead of increased optimal). That could introduce a reason to use the bigger ones over the smaller ones, without increasing the damage potential of Minmatar ships.
dabster	Posted - 2006.03.17 22:42:00 - [69] Awsome summarypost Sarm, I would love to want to fly Tempys more often ___________________________ Brutors Rule! My Eve-vids; Click.
Ras Blumin	Posted - 2006.03.17 22:43:00 - [70] Edited by: Ras Blumin on 17/03/2006 22:43:59 Originally by: Kldraina If you increase the DPS of the bigger autocannons, it potentially disrupts the balance of the minmatar ships (as compared to the other races). Also, I think it would be nice to have some variety besides just damage increases. Perhaps what is really needed is for the bigger autocannons to have increased falloff (instead of increased optimal). That could introduce a reason to use the bigger ones over the smaller ones, without increasing the damage potential of Minmatar ships. Would it really be so horrible of minmatards were outdamaged less by the other races? edit - btw nicely put together sarm A dirty job - Released 2006.01.02
Isonkon Serikain	Posted - 2006.03.17 22:55:00 - [71] to calculate a reasonable damage increase for 800's, why not calculate a mean DOT increase between dual heavy pulse and mega pulse, ion blaster and neutron blaster, etc. and apply the same percentage increase to the midcaliber AC to get the DOT of the largest AC. Ison's notches
gron alt	Posted - 2006.03.17 23:01:00 - [72] Originally by: Isonkon Serikain to calculate a reasonable damage increase for 800's, why not calculate a mean DOT increase between dual heavy pulse and mega pulse, ion blaster and neutron blaster, etc. and apply the same percentage increase to the midcaliber AC to get the DOT of the largest AC. because then they would oinly get a 2% boost? the problem or advantage depending on how you look at it is that all the AC have the same falloff [ie look at 650s vs 800 and that last one 450s?] the difference is a very tiny optimal meaning that fitting a larger gun doesnt actually give you more range. the DPS increase from ions --> neutrons if you take relaod into account is like a 3-4% increase iirc
Ravenal	Posted - 2006.03.18 00:05:00 - [73] great post - a pointer which doesnt really matter: (higher tier): - more room in cargo for ammo or other stuff - less tracking dps might be fine but yeah, strange that the BIGGER guns have less ammo capacity... plus bigger guns should be used to shoot bigger ships which again means more shield and armor and stuff... which should mean more dps as a trade off for tracking. . -Fate is what you make of it. -Make your own fate using T2 items produced by The Fated
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.18 18:08:00 - [74] fix my ******* guns
Khadur	Posted - 2006.03.18 18:18:00 - [75] Very good work <3 sarmual
Soyemia	Posted - 2006.03.18 18:34:00 - [76] Originally by: Sarmaul fix my ******* guns me too! I had today quarrel with corp CEO. I yelled how minmatars are so big underdogs that are always at disadvantege. HE said: Tempest is great fleet ship, so what!? It doesn't really matter to me if it is good flet ship. I mostly solo and small gangs. Cyclone SUCK solo compared to other BC:s. Just because other shieldtank BC (ferox) has 6 meds. That makes that I must sacrifice my meds to tank and have no any tacling gear to my ship. Artillerys are badly broken. If you use artys you MUST outclass enemy. With such alpha like artillerys and low DOT. No any cruiser vs. cruiser/BC vs. BC/BS vs. BS fight last so little time that alpha would be any good. And if you fit rails you dont need to sacrifice tank. With artys you need. Why we have only 3 ships what can propely fit shieldtank? We have better resists in shield, but we can't use those resists. And I too use all my "secondary" slots for nos:s. I don't want to use missiles expesially when we have more gun HP:s than missile ones. As gallente you need to learn armor tank/drones/hybrids. As minmatar you need to learn: drones/projectiles/missiles/armor tank/shield tank. SO double as much training. As Caldari you need to learn: Shield tank/missiles as Amarr you need learn: armor tank/lasers. So as minmatar 3 ties more training. So with lessers skilponts we always have HUGE disadvantage. Now I fly only ships that have more turrets than missiles. SO I use those useless missile slots for nos:s. I can't just simply have with 2,4m SP all those. I have poor gunnery/poor drones/poor shield tank/poor armor tank. I need to learn all those! But amarr/caldari/gallente already have decent skills at their specialized skills. So I almoust always lose expect I outclass enemy/be much older than enemy. That is why I belive minmatars suck. And they suck very badly with low SP. I hate you CCP
Wulfgard	Posted - 2006.03.18 18:50:00 - [77] True, minmatars suck with arty in solo or small gang (altho 5 T2 1400s Tempests can instapop about anything). The AC Tempest is still a very good option for close range pvp, but not for pve. My biggest disappointment with CCP is the ammo consumption of ACs and the fact that 800s arent a viable choice due to powergride problems (even on the Machariel you are hardpressed to fit 6 800s and a solid tank). Also Hail T2 Ammo has way to many malus compared to other races ammo.
Soyemia	Posted - 2006.03.18 18:56:00 - [78] It doens't warm me much that they suck in small gangs or solo. They are not viable choice for pirating. They are not viable choice for anything expect fleets. I dont want to fight in fleets. We should have ships that doesn't suck in small gangs/fleets. And every other race has good fleet ships too, so minmatars aren't really good at anything, they are more likely bad at everything.
Sun Ra	Posted - 2006.03.19 15:37:00 - [79] Edited by: Sun Ra on 19/03/2006 15:38:31 Originally by: Shamis Orzoz If I put 3-4 dmg mods on a 800mm T2 tempest and load them with hail, there will be no reloading required. The other big advantage of using the bigger guns is that you use less ammo, which is nice when using t2 ammo. I wouldn't complain if they got boosted, but there are much bigger problems to worry about in eve. Shamis Same could be said for dual 650 tho :P main changes to the top tier ac need is extra fall off as you go up a tier as range isnt important, slighly larger clip and maybe a slight damage boost Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas'
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.03.19 15:43:00 - [80] excellent thread - i'm a pure caldari monkey (me and the rest of eve ), but the figures you put forward show clear problems. fixeh! sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy Yo ho ho and a bottle of BReeEEEEeee.... - Jacques ARRRRRRchambault Stop spamming with "QFT" >:\|. - Teblin
Kcel Chim	Posted - 2006.03.19 17:40:00 - [81] excellent thread. i agree with testys proposals to improve the situation and i advertised the very same ideas half a year ago... one can still hope one day they might have a look.
Farwinter	Posted - 2006.03.19 18:19:00 - [82] Excellent post and investigation, very impressed. Let's hope this gets a glance from the powers that be.
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.19 20:48:00 - [83] plz fix them o/ Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.19 22:13:00 - [84] Allow me to interject with a bit of logical reasoning not commonly found in this thread because of all the biased views. Now to start off, I'm not saying change it one way or another, so you can feel safe in reading this thoroughly. What I am saying is people should not be crying for a boost to this-and-that simply because of a minor issue, which might not even be a problem with the math. We are far past the point where kicking up a damage mod is the best option for tweaking weapons. The issue here as far as I can tell is that the benefits of fitting a larger weapon over a medium sized weapon in the same class becomes marginal or literally non-existant over the course of several reloads. Can you claim that this is somehow broken? Even though you sacrifice considerable amount of fitting power in using them, you can't say that they do not provide advantages over their smaller brethren. For one, the larger weapons obviously have a higher damage mod, and higher optimal range. That means better single volley damage, and theoretically longer engagement zone. The reason why this "benefit" does not warrant the sacrifices you make (at least not for some people) can be blamed on the racial characteristics of Minmatar fighting style. Minmatar love their insta-*****kill shots, and obscene wreckings, which make hit and run tactics more viable for ships larger than a frigate. They also have a characteristically crappy magazine size, forcing them to load frequently so prolonged slugfests are not possible. They also have characteristically huge falloff ranges on their weapons, allowing them the freedom to move around a bit more than your typical laser user could. These three things are irrelevant for close range weapons, simply because of the scale issues.. - For guns which are more or less EVE's equivalent of a machinegun, are you really going to get wreckings which could be labelled as "obscene"? - For guns which have falloff three times bigger than their optimal, is a boost to optimal by one or two kilometres really going to matter? If you consider a fight which has a long duration where reloads are a factor, as Sarmaul here is suggesting, the answer is: the guns are pointless. If you consider a fight which does not require you to empty out an entire clip, would the largest guns be superior? The answer is yes. Now, I'm not going to quote any Devs or documents because the fact is they probably aren't Gods of fairness and balance considering other weapon systems. What I will say is, how does this not directly match Minmatar combat style? Throughout the years the various numbers, tweaks and boosts have been based on what their style should be. If you want a weapon that is linearly better simply due to fitting cost, its only taking one step closer to making all guns identical, save for damage types dealt. Personally, I don't think combat lasts long enough for this to be a "serious concern" for Minmatar pilots. I've flown Minmatar ships, and I've had to worry about my ammo far less than I would on Amarr ships, which need constant babysitting to maintain as close to your optimal as possible. Of course, small things like that tend to get ignored in favor of mathematical proof, even though the impact could be quite severe. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
madaluap	Posted - 2006.03.19 22:51:00 - [85] Edited by: madaluap on 19/03/2006 22:51:34 Originally by: Sarmaul Edited by: Sarmaul on 16/03/2006 20:43:22 Comparison Chart (Rounded to 2DP) 150mm II Rifter: 24.67 DPS 200mm II Rifter: 24.5 DPS 220mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 425mm II Rupture: 44.15 DPS 220mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS 425mm II Stabber: 35.32 DPS D650mm II Typhoon: 48.21 DPS 800mm II Typhoon: 48.85 DPS D650mm II Tempest: 60.26 DPS 800mm II Tempest: 61.06 DPS Solutions? 1) Increase the magazine size of the top-tier autocannons to match that of the medium-tier ones. The guns are balenced between themsleves besides this issue, which is screwing up everything. 2) (Originally by Xuthas) Decrease the reload time for projectiles to 5 seconds to allow them to spend less time reloading, and also to let them change ammo types quicker. first of all you say you dont want to hear about other weapons, but you have to in order to balance stuff. what does 5% extra damage mean if you have nothing to compare it with. increasing the ammo clip i agree on, also there should be more damage difference between ac. but 5 sec reload time? ammar needs to reload a lot = 1 sec minmatar have extreme falloff and can hit far into there optimal, so they need to reload the least. gallente have medium optimal, medium falloff so they need to reload less than ammar, but more than mini. yes you are right gall needs to get that 5 sec reload time offcourse this is not the case on blasters. I know what you are going to say now, but we have multicoloured dmg we neeeeed to use it, yes that 5 sec sounds sweet, but it would just make ac a bit too sweet. imagine a raven pilot whining that he wants a 3 sec reload time because he has multicoloured dmg AND incase he gets jammed he needs to load in fof fast. _________________________________________________
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.19 22:57:00 - [86] dc, I do you the reply you deserve when I have the time to work out some more figures Originally by: madaluap first of all you say you dont want to hear about other weapons, but you have to in order to balance stuff. what does 5% extra damage mean if you have nothing to compare it with. That just to try and stop the thread from getting derailed :). regarding the reload times - they are just ideas to try and boost the dps, much like increasing the ammo clip. It would also allow minmatar to actually utalize more than just EMP in fights. one of the minmatar bonuses is that you can do all damage types. however, you basically have to pick the right ammo at the start of the fight or waste 10 seconds reloading. again, I don't have the answers, I'm just trying some of the suggestions.
madaluap	Posted - 2006.03.19 23:01:00 - [87] Edited by: madaluap on 19/03/2006 23:05:11 Originally by: Sarmaul dc, I do you the reply you deserve when I have the time to work out some more figures Originally by: madaluap first of all you say you dont want to hear about other weapons, but you have to in order to balance stuff. what does 5% extra damage mean if you have nothing to compare it with. That just to try and stop the thread from getting derailed :). regarding the reload times - they are just ideas to try and boost the dps, much like increasing the ammo clip. It would also allow minmatar to actually utalize more than just EMP in fights. one of the minmatar bonuses is that you can do all damage types. however, you basically have to pick the right ammo at the start of the fight or waste 10 seconds reloading. again, I don't have the answers, I'm just trying some of the suggestions. yeh i do get youre derailing argument, after a while everyone comes in and before you know it the topic is all about tachyon vs rails, while it started as a AC thread i personally think both minmatar and gallente should get 5 sec instant = lasers 5 sec = bullets 10 sec = missiles agree, lets strike a deal here /edit: found a ubertypo, damn you allready qouted meh _________________________________________________
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.19 23:02:00 - [88] Originally by: madaluap Originally by: Sarmaul dc, I do you the reply you deserve when I have the time to work out some more figures Originally by: madaluap first of all you say you dont want to hear about other weapons, but you have to in order to balance stuff. what does 5% extra damage mean if you have nothing to compare it with. That just to try and stop the thread from getting derailed :). regarding the reload times - they are just ideas to try and boost the dps, much like increasing the ammo clip. It would also allow minmatar to actually utalize more than just EMP in fights. one of the minmatar bonuses is that you can do all damage types. however, you basically have to pick the right ammo at the start of the fight or waste 10 seconds reloading. again, I don't have the answers, I'm just trying some of the suggestions. yeh i do get youre derailing argument, after a while everyone comes in and before you know it the topic is all about tachyon vs rails, while it started as a AC thread i personally think bought minmatar and gallente should get 5 sec instant = lasers 5 sec = bullets 10 sec = missiles agree, lets strike a deal here sounds good to me - gallente can switch range quicker and minny can switch damage quicker. unfortunatly I'm not a dev :)
Selim	Posted - 2006.03.19 23:15:00 - [89] I like the 5 second reload thing. Would also help when you want to change ammotypes mid-fight. Which is rare, I'll admit, but it should be an option. ____________ Originally by: hired goon Imagine if you were having sex but the girl turned into Margaret Thatcher just as you were approaching climax. That's why we hate WCS.
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:12:00 - [90] You still don't get my point, you shouldn't be working out 'figures' because its not a mathematical problem you are facing - its all about interpretation of how something should work, and whether the numbers don't support that. There is nothing in all of your posts to suggest anything wrong with autocannons. Comparing numbers is at best an example of how a ship might perform, but in reality its a combination of little things that add up to victory. Everyone knows Minmatar guns have the worst tracking, worst damage over time, worst ammo capacity, ships have traditionally weaker tanks, and often aren't on par with others in the EW department. Using math I can tell you that Minmatar are underpowered. Using math I can prove you're fat, or that beetles fart explosives on Neptune. The narrow view of such calculations do not explain why Minmatar ships continue to kick other ships ass. Pure DPS calculations are the equivalent of gradeschool poetry, and you might as well be rehearsing "My cat went scat in the hat, oh snap." Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Swamp Ziro	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:18:00 - [91] Edited by: Swamp Ziro on 20/03/2006 00:20:14 Originally by: DigitalCommunist You still don't get my point, you shouldn't be working out 'figures' because its not a mathematical problem you are facing - its all about interpretation of how something should work, and whether the numbers don't support that. There is nothing in all of your posts to suggest anything wrong with autocannons. Comparing numbers is at best an example of how a ship might perform, but in reality its a combination of little things that add up to victory. Everyone knows Minmatar guns have the worst tracking, worst damage over time, worst ammo capacity, ships have traditionally weaker tanks, and often aren't on par with others in the EW department. Using math I can tell you that Minmatar are underpowered. Using math I can prove you're fat, or that beetles fart explosives on Neptune. The narrow view of such calculations do not explain why Minmatar ships continue to kick other ships ass. Pure DPS calculations are the equivalent of gradeschool poetry, and you might as well be rehearsing "My cat went scat in the hat, oh snap." You would think that if there wasn't a problem apparent in the gameplay, he wouldn't have noticed at all, and therefore not have done the math needed to explore it... Also, there is something that suggests that something is wrong with autocannons. It's the discrepancy between 3 types of mm in a same size, and their efficiency. It's not linear, nor exponential, it seems to be random. (125's being worse than 150's, then 150's being slightly better than 200's..
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:25:00 - [92] If the problem was so apparent, don't you think more people would have noticed like.. a year ago, when projectiles were revisited? One person doing calculations is the mark of nitpicking and bias, bias because he is specifically excluding other weapons from comparison. Obviously he wants projectiles "made better", and its safe to say he will be benefiting from any such changes. If you don't look at anything else, its not really a valid attempt to "balance".. is it? And this may come as a surprise to you, but other guns work in the same way. The closest comparison of autocannons in blasters. Do the math and you will see that Neutrons are marginally better than Ions, and Ions are greatly superior to Electrons. That suggests continuity, my homie. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Vishnej	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:26:00 - [93] Edited by: Vishnej on 20/03/2006 00:26:40 Originally by: DigitalCommunist You still don't get my point, you shouldn't be working out 'figures' because its not a mathematical problem you are facing - its all about interpretation of how something should work, and whether the numbers don't support that. There is nothing in all of your posts to suggest anything wrong with autocannons. Comparing numbers is at best an example of how a ship might perform, but in reality its a combination of little things that add up to victory. Everyone knows Minmatar guns have the worst tracking, worst damage over time, worst ammo capacity, ships have traditionally weaker tanks, and often aren't on par with others in the EW department. Using math I can tell you that Minmatar are underpowered. Using math I can prove you're fat, or that beetles fart explosives on Neptune. The narrow view of such calculations do not explain why Minmatar ships continue to kick other ships ass. Pure DPS calculations are the equivalent of gradeschool poetry, and you might as well be rehearsing "My cat went scat in the hat, oh snap." He was pretty clear that this isn't about other guns. Autocannons fit well into the rest of the turrets, easily beating out blasters on the whole because blasters take much more cap and much more fitting reqs, when all other stats are comparable. They're what a shortrange gun SHOULD be. On the other hand, there's no reason whatsoever to fit the largest-in-class autos over the middle or lowest. They have the same range worse tracking roughly the same damage over time higher fitting reqs. They need a small boost. IMO: Give them a bit lower RoF(call it 5%) to compensate, but keep the reloading time the same. Autocannons are physical/chemical weapons that need to be loaded with magazines of ammunition. Keep reloading time as a significant factor in their use, but allow them to pound out those shells in a slightly shorter time, raising overall DoT. Blasters will be fixed independantly, autocannons should not be touched other than giving a reason to use the largest weaponry. Contribute to the Eve Wiki
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:33:00 - [94] Originally by: Vishnej On the other hand, there's no reason whatsoever to fit the largest-in-class autos over the middle or lowest. They have the same range worse tracking roughly the same damage over time higher fitting reqs. They need a small boost. Man, still don't get it. Every gun works that way. Its called diminishing returns. It even works for other things like skillpoints. If their superiority over the next sized gun was very obvious, the choice to fit them would be too. The only real difference with autocannons is that over time, your marginal benefits amount to pretty much zero. You should be lucky that it doesn't go into the negative, cause I can just as easily argue for that. Yet people got upset when Tachyons had the same issue and were boosted, ignoring the fact that both grid and cap requirements were massively larger over their Mega Beam counterpart. If you really wanted to follow the same line of logic as the Tachyon vs Megabeam boost, you should say that 800mm require a cap use increase, and we both know that doesn't hold up in the court of reasoning. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Swamp Ziro	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:34:00 - [95] Edited by: Swamp Ziro on 20/03/2006 00:35:00 Originally by: DigitalCommunist If the problem was so apparent, don't you think more people would have noticed like.. a year ago, when projectiles were revisited? One person doing calculations is the mark of nitpicking and bias, bias because he is specifically excluding other weapons from comparison. Obviously he wants projectiles "made better", and its safe to say he will be benefiting from any such changes. If you don't look at anything else, its not really a valid attempt to "balance".. is it? And this may come as a surprise to you, but other guns work in the same way. The closest comparison of autocannons in blasters. Do the math and you will see that Neutrons are marginally better than Ions, and Ions are greatly superior to Electrons. That suggests continuity, my homie. In fact, it really seems like "negative" returns, and that doesnt make any sense at all. Diminishing I can understand, but negative is completely ... wrong. Because you just dont do it. You pretend the next step never existed and you're all the better for it. So, you think that having something clearly better in every respect, or almost every respect than something else is right? Between types of AC's currently, and through those maths, you can see that 220mm's are better than 450mm's in everything. You could argue that 450mm's have a niche in really short engagemens, but then you could also aruge that their fitting reqs offset this. So why even have 450mm's in game? I don't know if it is that way with blasters, or rails. Is it?
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:37:00 - [96] Originally by: Swamp Ziro You could argue that 450mm's have a niche in really short engagemens, but then you could also aruge that their fitting reqs offset this. So why even have 450mm's in game? BOOM HEADSHOT. And for a lower propaganda version of "really short engagements", it could be rewritten as "fights which dont require a reload" - which is 90% of EVE atm. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Swamp Ziro	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:50:00 - [97] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Originally by: Swamp Ziro You could argue that 450mm's have a niche in really short engagemens, but then you could also aruge that their fitting reqs offset this. So why even have 450mm's in game? BOOM HEADSHOT. And for a lower propaganda version of "really short engagements", it could be rewritten as "fights which dont require a reload" - which is 90% of EVE atm. 90% of pvp eve maybe.. But ok, what you're saying is true In pve tho, every fight lasts more than a reload. So in PVE, 450mm's might as well not exist? Is that how it is with blasters too?
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.20 00:52:00 - [98] Edited by: Tiuwaz on 20/03/2006 00:53:15 from personal experience in short engagements the higher tier isnt worth fitting (speaking for small/med here little experience with large ac in pvp) the dmg increase i get from 200's or from 425's are marginal at best and i hit alot less with them overall i do worse dmg with the highest tier this only relates to pvp, in pve its a bit different story, there they are worth fitting (unless i would have to change my setup for them) (why are they worth fitting? same dmg but less ammo) Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.20 01:01:00 - [99] Thats two conflicting stories right there. One guy says they're better for pvp but worse for pve. The other says they're worse for pvp but better for pve. If you minnie pilots are gonna gang up on me, you're gonna need more teamwork But anyways, it further illustrates my point. Its all a matter of preference, opinion and interpretation. Just because you can argue it one way or the other don't make you right, even if you're not wrong. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.20 01:06:00 - [100] Edited by: Tiuwaz on 20/03/2006 01:06:43 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Thats two conflicting stories right there. One guy says they're better for pvp but worse for pve. The other says they're worse for pvp but better for pve. If you minnie pilots are gonna gang up on me, you're gonna need more teamwork But anyways, it further illustrates my point. Its all a matter of preference, opinion and interpretation. Just because you can argue it one way or the other don't make you right, even if you're not wrong. >_> top tier can be better in short engagements but only if you have very low transversal, i fly rather fast ships and transversal is rarly low for me in pvp (arent minnie about fast ships?) in pve they can be worht fitting, why? because they use less ammo and its alot easier to maintain a low transversal in pve are they worth fitting if you have to compromise in your ship setup to get them? no, in that aspect they arent worth fitting Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.20 01:17:00 - [101] i dont want the highest tier to have some uber dps or instadeath ability >_> i just want a reason for fitting them as it stands both in pvp and pve i equip the 2nd tier guns nearly all of the time, the highest tier guns only sometimes in pve when i want to save ammo. i am doing so not because of some pretty calculations but as a consequence from my experiences with them Sarmauls calcs only show in concrete way, what most minnie pilots experience. Oh and CCP stated that they want numbers. Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Swamp Ziro	Posted - 2006.03.20 02:03:00 - [102] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Thats two conflicting stories right there. One guy says they're better for pvp but worse for pve. The other says they're worse for pvp but better for pve. If you minnie pilots are gonna gang up on me, you're gonna need more teamwork That's rude you know >_> I am talking to you and you talk to me, you don't talk to me and a bunch of other people =/ We don't have to be of the same opinion because we're minmatar! Anyway, I didn't read what he said, but from my understanding of the thing, what I say is valid. I'm not very sure because math is kinda a "here be dragons" for me, but still, the "better in every respect, in longer than reload fights" is a given. And that makes 450mm's inferior in pve. So.. ?
Lunarfury	Posted - 2006.03.20 02:14:00 - [103] AC should have clear range increase as the size of the cal. goes up. That would be enough reason to use higher cal. guns. I also think AC should have their reload time removed. It should be able to fire as long as they have ammo in cargo. Keep the ammo switch time to 10s if one wants to switch ammo. Artillery clip should also be removed. Artillery shell reloads between fire. Large AC used today all have ammo belt with a few thousand rounds in it. Those Russian 130mm twin barrel artillery can fire up to 150 rounds per minutes none stop for 30 minutes. Don't know why AC in the future uses ammo clip.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.20 12:51:00 - [104] when I get my monitor fixed on my computer (currently browsing the EVE-O forums in a public library) I shall resume spammage
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.03.20 13:08:00 - [105] Originally by: Sarmaul when I get my monitor fixed on my computer (currently browsing the EVE-O forums in a public library) I shall resume spammage Hardcore. There used to be a sig here, but I got bored of it.
Sarmaul's Slave	Posted - 2006.03.20 13:15:00 - [106] Originally by: Testy Mctest Originally by: Sarmaul when I get my monitor fixed on my computer (currently browsing the EVE-O forums in a public library) I shall resume spammage Hardcore. I should add that I'm also shopping for a new monitor at the same time
Goldwing	Posted - 2006.03.21 20:17:00 - [107] I'm certain I'll get hammered for this since I'm a Minmatar pilot arguing against an increase in power, but what the heck... I should start by noting that Sarmaul is addressing an issue, and randomly tossing out ideas. It's a brainstorming, so bashing those ideas isn't a bad thing, but he's not an idiot for bringing them up. However, DC has the right of it on this one. The "balance" issues exist in all fields. For instance, we could all get into an obnoxious row about missiles vs. turrets, but in the end, it comes down to keeping things interesting. The Minmatar aren't powerful in long engagements by comparison to other races, nor should they be. Our history is hit and run and fight by the seat of your gun-covered trash can. We fly in, smack something hard enough to make it afraid, and then run away. The speed bonus we get isn't about drawn out fighting, it's about closing quickly, and then running just as fast. If you want people who sit behind walls and take it in the face for a small eternity, look to the Amarr. Perhaps more than any other group they can sustain long, drawn out fights. The Minmatar fight Amarrians all the time, and if you're up against a group that can hold out in a fight for ages and overpowers you in the long stretch, you learn to fight in bursts. When you see an Apocolypse jump in at 120km you get worried, but might stick it out. When you see a Tempest jump in at 120km, you jump out. And need I mention that every interceptor pilot fears a fight with a Wolf more than just about any other comperable ship? Sure, we don't rule on all fronts, but we have a niche. For the record, I use all the different sizes of guns depending on what I'm out to accomplish. If I want to go into a long battle in deadspace somewhere, I grab out small autocannons. When I'm going PvP hunting in a Wolf, I vary between autocannons and artillery guns, but I always take on the largest ones. Why? Because I'm not going to get into a 3 minute fight as a Minmatar pilot. I'm going to get into a 20 second fight and hope it only lasts one volley. I guess it comes down to specialization. We fliers of the grand scrap heaps we call ships hit hard, and move fast, but only briefly. If that's not your style, learn how to use other ships and fly them in their area of specialization. That's the joy of the verse berks, you can do anything, and no one can stop you, not even the Gods.
Kaeten	Posted - 2006.03.21 20:22:00 - [108] Originally by: DigitalCommunist If the problem was so apparent, don't you think more people would have noticed like.. a year ago, when projectiles were revisited? One person doing calculations is the mark of nitpicking and bias, bias because he is specifically excluding other weapons from comparison. Obviously he wants projectiles "made better", and its safe to say he will be benefiting from any such changes. If you don't look at anything else, its not really a valid attempt to "balance".. is it? And this may come as a surprise to you, but other guns work in the same way. The closest comparison of autocannons in blasters. Do the math and you will see that Neutrons are marginally better than Ions, and Ions are greatly superior to Electrons. That suggests continuity, my homie. I have to admit with this Second image removed, please only use one image in your signature - Petwraith ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=259621
Kaeten	Posted - 2006.03.21 20:23:00 - [109] Originally by: Vishnej He was pretty clear that this isn't about other guns. This ain't really fair if you think about it properly, boosting 1 race and leaving the rest is hardly balancing the game? Second image removed, please only use one image in your signature - Petwraith ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=259621
Wrayeth	Posted - 2006.03.21 20:30:00 - [110] I support this thread. /signed While they're at it, it'd be cool to actually have a graphic for large AC's beyond muzzle and impact flashes - watching an AC fight is boring as hell, which is a direct contrast to any other short range weapon system in EVE. -Wrayeth
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.03.21 21:08:00 - [111] Originally by: Kaeten Originally by: DigitalCommunist If the problem was so apparent, don't you think more people would have noticed like.. a year ago, when projectiles were revisited? One person doing calculations is the mark of nitpicking and bias, bias because he is specifically excluding other weapons from comparison. Obviously he wants projectiles "made better", and its safe to say he will be benefiting from any such changes. If you don't look at anything else, its not really a valid attempt to "balance".. is it? And this may come as a surprise to you, but other guns work in the same way. The closest comparison of autocannons in blasters. Do the math and you will see that Neutrons are marginally better than Ions, and Ions are greatly superior to Electrons. That suggests continuity, my homie. I have to admit with this Well i don¦t agree with digi because when they "fixed" the projectilles ,if i remember correcttly,thomb only fixed the 1400 arties. Off course you can say: "well that means that the rest was good then and doenst need fixing",yes it WAS not now ,the game evolves and so the rest guns,modules = balance. S= are you guys telling me that blasters didnt needed love?And they were working properlly?And tachs?And missiles?
Imhotep Khem	Posted - 2006.03.21 21:23:00 - [112] The T2 800s dish out mean damage. I rarely reload in a fight, especially when using ammo smaller than EMP, like PP or Fusion. If you don't reload then this thread does not even apply. The problem I see is you drop a small bit of DPS going to smaller gun, but you save TONS of MW and thus your tank gets MUCH better. The MW you put into that bigger gun are much better placed in other modules. However, T2 800s sure do go nicely on a gank fitting. ____ If your not dyin' your not tryin'.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.03.21 21:31:00 - [113] Originally by: DigitalCommunist If you really wanted to follow the same line of logic as the Tachyon vs Megabeam boost, you should say that 800mm require a cap use increase, and we both know that doesn't hold up in the court of reasoning. Not disagreeing overall, but that's a bad example given the other races have no counterpart to the tach. Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command
Isonkon Serikain	Posted - 2006.03.21 21:51:00 - [114] from my experience I get the idea that neutrons are still worth fitting over ions... Whereas the difference in autocannons is much less significant. I see that in the stups used all the time. There are plenty of neutron based setups... Ison's notches
Theron Gyrow	Posted - 2006.03.21 21:55:00 - [115] Originally by: DigitalCommunist And this may come as a surprise to you, but other guns work in the same way. The closest comparison of autocannons in blasters. Do the math and you will see that Neutrons are marginally better than Ions, and Ions are greatly superior to Electrons. That suggests continuity, my homie. Electron -> ion: +7% DoT. Ion -> neutron: +6.5% DoT. Reloading not counted, but it's rare for a blaster fight to last over 3 minutes. Also, neutrons gain quite a bit of range and falloff compared to ions, so there is would be reasons to fit them if you just could fit them. -- Gradient's forum
Voculus	Posted - 2006.03.21 22:50:00 - [116] Wow! Thanks for the info, Sarmaul. I'd been using 425s on my Cyclone this whole time, but the numbers surely don't lie. Gonna step down to 220s and see how that works.
LordAmarus	Posted - 2006.03.21 23:47:00 - [117] tottaly agree on topic. thats mainly why i just use the guns with the lowest fitting requirements. although you might lose firepower if you don't need to reload, but for longer/ extended gunfights, this reload time kills you. witth the "better "guns you do more dmg over a short time frame but in the end they gimp your setup because the relaod tottaly screws up dps over time best exemple i had was a fight in rupture vs brutix. i was suing 425 and took his shield down like a train so no probs here after 4-5 shots in his armor i reload. by this time he has full armor and a tiny shield back. so here i go 2 shots for the shield, rest voor the armor, and wow does his armor shrink! and then it happens. reload.... by time i fire again , oh great his armor is back to 100% while his drones are slowly eating me up, change target to drones , kill drone per drone aim brutix again... BY THIS TIME ANY ALLIES HE HAS WILL HAVE JUMPED AND KILLED YOU 50 times -_- seriously there rly needs to be some improvement
Calcium	Posted - 2006.03.22 00:31:00 - [118] Has someone written up another weapon type to compare this difference. FYI I have been paying attention, just seeking some information to build an arguement so please let it form and not stomp it. If there is a difference in AC vs. ? then lets take a look at ? in the same light to further prove the point that something needs doing to ACs. If the difference is only marginal (1-5%) compared to the other weapon types then its not worth looking at. I am only interested in the figures denoting the difference between calibre ranges DPS's
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 00:42:00 - [119] Edited by: Sarmaul on 22/03/2006 00:43:37 Originally by: DigitalCommunist If the problem was so apparent, don't you think more people would have noticed like.. a year ago, when projectiles were revisited? This has certainly been known ever since naughty boy released his DPS spreadsheet and we could clearly see that they did equal damage over time. Originally by: DigitalCommunist One person doing calculations is the mark of nitpicking and bias, bias because he is specifically excluding other weapons from comparison. AFAIK, I am the only person sad enough to actually work out the exact numbers and make a post about it. If you care to look through the various minmatar threads on these forums you'll see various people (myself, NB, drunkenone, weirda and god knows who else) raising the issue over and over again. As for excluding other weapons from comparison, that was because 1) I didn't have the time to work out all the figures (I now have done so, and it's only fueled the cause) 2) The moment somebody tries to boost a certain weapon system, someone comes in and derails the thread and it turns into Lasers vs Hybrids 3) This is an issue about the top-tier autocannons doing exactly the same DPS as the middle-tier, an issue which no other guns have to deal with. Originally by: DigitalCommunist Obviously he wants projectiles "made better", and its safe to say he will be benefiting from any such changes. If you don't look at anything else, its not really a valid attempt to "balance".. is it? If this were the case, I would be asking for a boost to projectile DPS across the board which I'm not (not in this thread anyway). You are correct that I, along with everyone else who uses autocannons would benefit from having the top-tier dps increased. This is because at the moment we are not benefiting at all! By your reasoning, anyone who posts a "boost xxx because of yyy" should be ignored and dismissed as trying to get an unfair boost? *****s mate, and you know it. Originally by:** DigitalCommunist And this may come as a surprise to you, but other guns work in the same way. The closest comparison of autocannons in blasters. Do the math and you will see that Neutrons are marginally better than Ions, and Ions are greatly superior to Electrons. That suggests continuity, my homie. And you just proved my point - Neutrons are marginally better than Ions (on average 5.85% better), while Ions are superior (not greatly) to Electrons (on average 6.84% better). Projectiles? The middle-tier are on average 6.0% better than the low tier, and the top-tier are *0.27%* better than the middle tier. Do you consider 0.27% damage worth the extra CPU, extra PG, worse tracking and higher reload times, where as neutrons get 5.85% more DPS for the same penalties? No. Originally by: DigitalCommunist Every gun works that way. Its called diminishing returns. It even works for other things like skillpoints. If their superiority over the next sized gun was very obvious, the choice to fit them would be too. Actually, every guns gets a substantial boost from the size down, besides top-tier autocannons. If every gun should work this way, then top-tier projectiles are broken and need fixing.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 00:44:00 - [120] Originally by: DigitalCommunist The only real difference with autocannons is that over time, your marginal benefits amount to pretty much zero. You should be lucky that it doesn't go into the negative, cause I can just as easily argue for that. Then I suppose you agree that if top-tier projectiles should do less damage than middle-tier projectiles, we also apply the same to blasters and lasers? The benefits of fitting bigger guns always has been increased DPS at the expense of tracking and higher fitting requirements, as can be seen by looking at every gun besides top-tier projectiles. Guns that don't follow this pattern are boosted, as can be seen with Tachs. Why should it be any different for top-tier autocannons? Tuxford said himself that there isn't enough of a reason to fit Tachs over Mega Beams, and the same situation definatly applies here too. Originally by: DigitalCommunist BOOM HEADSHOT. Actually, I believe that was the sound of you shooting yourself in the foot. Originally by: DigitalCommunist And for a lower propaganda version of "really short engagements", it could be rewritten as "fights which dont require a reload" - which is 90% of EVE atm. In which case, Tachs didn't need a boost as they are already the ultimate gank weapon. BOOM FOOTSHOT. Originally by: DigitalCommunist But anyways, it further illustrates my point. Its all a matter of preference, opinion and interpretation. Just because you can argue it one way or the other don't make you right, even if you're not wrong. Everything is a matter of preference. You will still find people take tachs in their current form into PVP, much like some people still take top-tier autocannons into PVP, dispite the current benefits for fitting either being almost zero.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 00:45:00 - [121] Edited by: Sarmaul on 22/03/2006 00:47:25 Conclusions Autocannons get the smallest DPS boost from bottom-middle teirs (ignore the lasers - it's simply an anomoly due to only the frigate guns having 3 tiers), they also get the smallest average DPS boost from middle-top tiers (if you can call 0.27% a boost). As lasers are missing a tier they get a massive % boost between the bottom tier and top tier, while blasters get a faily equal % boost between all 3 tiers of guns. So, top-tier blasters and pulses get an even larger alpha strike AND more DPS, while autocannons only get a slightly higher alpha strike and equal DPS as the tier below. To top it all off, the top-tier frigate autocannons do LESS DPS than the middle-tier. Could you imagine your Ion Blasters out-damaging your Neutron Blasters? No you couldn't, so why is it like this for autocannons? Fair? Balanced? Right? Like **** is it. and on that note, I just realised it's 12:45am and I have work in the morning.
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.22 00:53:00 - [122] I'd bang Sarmaul if he were a hot chick, he is the sexy! Seriously tough, thanks for doing all those numbers, you are doing excellent work. Lets pray we get atleast a "they are being looked at" like blasters from the devs . Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Ras Blumin	Posted - 2006.03.22 00:56:00 - [123] Now all you need to do is compare the guns vs hardened / unhardened / plated targets A dirty job - Released 2006.01.02
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 00:57:00 - [124] Originally by: Ras Blumin Now all you need to do is compare the guns vs hardened / unhardened / plated targets die
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.22 00:58:00 - [125] Originally by: Ras Blumin Now all you need to do is compare the guns vs hardened / unhardened / plated targets Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Ras Blumin	Posted - 2006.03.22 01:01:00 - [126] A dirty job - Released 2006.01.02
Imhotep Khem	Posted - 2006.03.22 02:43:00 - [127] Alpha Strike is passe. Best we talk about wrecking shots if anything. And they don't mean much considering the higher ROF of the small gun. I still don't like how you extrapolate to infinity. I'd prefer if you say, 'fights lasting over x seconds.' Basically the MW/HP ratio is whacked out. And to the Cyclone pilot using the 425s, best to stick with them because else you will have tons of MW left over and nothing good to do with it. ____ If your not dyin' your not tryin'.
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.22 04:51:00 - [128] Well sir, your numbers are very pretty. But the metaphor applicable to them is an angry wife beating a pork chop to death with a meat mallet long after its been 'tenderized'. I get what the numbers say, top tier not very good compared to the middle tier, this requiring a boost. What I'm saying is "can you prove this isn't intentional?". You can't, the only way you can even attempt is to compare them with other weapons (which you've already done), going against your original statement. Maybe that foot-shooting is entirely on your end, cause my arguments are still standing strong. But since you won't back down from the idea that Minmatar weapons should fall in line with the patterns presented by others.. and require 'fixing', allow me to present to you options: - reducing the dps of middle tier autocannons - increasing damage modifier of top tier, but also increasing rof (for no dps change) - lowering falloff on first and second tier autocannons considerably - increasing the fitting requirements of first and second tier autocannons to be closer to top tier Any one of these changes would bring them in line with the patterns you oh-so-badly want. You have the option of tweaking dps so its linear, without increasing it. You have the option of making alpha strikes and larger single hits more apparent, without increasing dps. You have the option of making range increase more apparent, without increasing dps. You have the option of making the fitting requirements marginally larger than middle-tier to match their marginally larger performance.. without increasing dps. And all this, according to your "flaws" presented, would put autocannons back on track to fairness. Would you like me to call your life insurance agent now, or later? Can't imagine many fans of Minmatar would be pleased with your analysis then. I stated quite clearly, there is a big fat limit to how far you can boost things before you have to start nerfing others. We are way past it. If you are a true patriot of balance, you will agree with one or more of the above proposals Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Damien Vox	Posted - 2006.03.22 04:57:00 - [129] Edited by: Damien Vox on 22/03/2006 04:58:10 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Well sir, your numbers are very pretty. But the metaphor applicable to them is an angry wife beating a pork chop to death with a meat mallet long after its been 'tenderized'. I get what the numbers say, top tier not very good compared to the middle tier, this requiring a boost. What I'm saying is "can you prove this isn't intentional?". You can't, the only way you can even attempt is to compare them with other weapons (which you've already done), going against your original statement. Maybe that foot-shooting is entirely on your end, cause my arguments are still standing strong. But since you won't back down from the idea that Minmatar weapons should fall in line with the patterns presented by others.. and require 'fixing', allow me to present to you options: - reducing the dps of middle tier autocannons - increasing damage modifier of top tier, but also increasing rof (for no dps change) - lowering falloff on first and second tier autocannons considerably - increasing the fitting requirements of first and second tier autocannons to be closer to top tier Any one of these changes would bring them in line with the patterns you oh-so-badly want. You have the option of tweaking dps so its linear, without increasing it. You have the option of making alpha strikes and larger single hits more apparent, without increasing dps. You have the option of making range increase more apparent, without increasing dps. You have the option of making the fitting requirements marginally larger than middle-tier to match their marginally larger performance.. without increasing dps. And all this, according to your "flaws" presented, would put autocannons back on track to fairness. Would you like me to call your life insurance agent now, or later? Can't imagine many fans of Minmatar would be pleased with your analysis then. I stated quite clearly, there is a big fat limit to how far you can boost things before you have to start nerfing others. We are way past it. If you are a true patriot of balance, you will agree with one or more of the above proposals All I can say is no thank you. Keep them the way they are. I'll sacrifice my ROF on the top tier AC's since they are a damage AC rather then one that provides tanking AND damage. I use my 150 II's for that. 200mm II's should be used for pure damage or close to it. Load them up with gryo II's and they'll preform how they probably should, 150 II's do the same damage as can be seen AND you get a tank. I'll take the ability to swap out like that.
Ras Blumin	Posted - 2006.03.22 06:23:00 - [130] Originally by: DigitalCommunist What I'm saying is "can you prove this isn't intentional?". Can you prove that fitting a mega with t2 blasters + dual rep tank being a *** wasn't intentional? Whatever the answer, do you think the current situation is balanced? What would you use as basis for the argument that blasters are unbalanced? Can you prove that the fact that top tier AC's do basicly the same dps as mid tier AC's is intentinal? Coz if you can't, how the hell are you gonna prove that it isn't. As far as I can see, your argument is that it was intended for top tier AC's to be better at ganking ** and nothing else, and that this justifies the higher fitting reqs, but you have no way of proving it is intentional. A dirty job - Released 2006.01.02
Damien Vox	Posted - 2006.03.22 06:34:00 - [131] Edited by: Damien Vox on 22/03/2006 06:34:58 But you can't really disprove him either...this whole subject is a matter opinons of what some people think vs other people opinions vs the devs, etc etc.
XR Havoc	Posted - 2006.03.22 07:22:00 - [132] Nice work Sarmaul, thanks for all your effort!
Theron Gyrow	Posted - 2006.03.22 07:36:00 - [133] Originally by: DigitalCommunist What I'm saying is "can you prove this isn't intentional?". Digi, I would have expected better of you. -- Gradient's forum
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.22 07:39:00 - [134] Originally by: DigitalCommunist What I'm saying is "can you prove this isn't intentional?". by that definition all player input about implemented mechanics are worthless because the devs rarly state what was "intentional" and what not Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 08:13:00 - [135] Originally by: Tiuwaz Originally by: DigitalCommunist What I'm saying is "can you prove this isn't intentional?". by that definition all player input about implemented mechanics are worthless because the devs rarly state what was "intentional" and what not pretty much qft. how did we know that the huge fitting and cap requirements on blasters weren't intentional? because when people posted about it eventally a dev took notice and they are now being looked at. how do we know that heavy missiles weren't supposed to have such bad dps? when people posted about it and eventually a dev took notice and they eventually got boosted. how do we know that top-tier autocannons are supposed to do the same dps as the next size down? I've posted about it, all we need to is get a dev responce and we'll know the answer. see a pattern forming here?
Yzman Shhan	Posted - 2006.03.22 08:20:00 - [136] Edited by: Yzman Shhan on 22/03/2006 08:20:35 Great work Sarmaul! Blasters already outdamage pretty much everything so they should be hard to sustain full time. If the length of a fight is generally so low, why even bother looking at them? Tachs are getting boosted because they are not really worth fitting, why isn't this reasoning applicable to autocannons too? Now get yer ass working on the arty thread you promised days ago Sarm :D -- No sig ftw!
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.22 08:37:00 - [137] I can say its intentional because it holds true to the basic fighting style of the entire Minmatar race. Short term gains over long term gains. Short term DPS over long term DPS. It doesn't actually ruin the purpose of the weapon and you've admitted that much. Who are you to say that this is wrong? You're only complaining because you don't think the benefits are too small and the guns not worth fitting. Obviously people will disagree with you, even though they've seen the math. But you are still too frightened of the possibility that maybe middle-tier autocannons deserve a nerf. You are trying to make Minmatar guns follow the same pattern of other weapons, so by all means lets. This can be done without increasing DPS. So lets hear your answer.. would you be satisfied with a nerf to your middle autocannons if such a nerf restored the proper "pattern"? To quote myself: Quote: - reducing the dps of middle tier autocannons - increasing damage modifier of top tier, but also increasing rof (for no dps change) - lowering falloff on first and second tier autocannons considerably - increasing the fitting requirements of first and second tier autocannons to be closer to top tier Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.22 08:46:00 - [138] Originally by: DigitalCommunist You are trying to make Minmatar guns follow the same pattern of other weapons, so by all means lets. This can be done without increasing DPS. So lets hear your answer.. would you be satisfied with a nerf to your middle autocannons if such a nerf restored the proper "pattern"? first provide some data that the medium tier AC'S are in need nerfing, if you can prove or atleast make a point about that, then you can argue that the top tier is oke and the medium tier is the problem. If you cant do that it becomes obvious thte problem lies in the top tier Originally by: DigitalCommunist I can say its intentional because it holds true to the basic fighting style of the entire Minmatar race. Short term gains over long term gains. Short term DPS over long term DPS. That holds true for Artillery, but AC's on the contrary are absolutely about DPS. This is manifested in their low Dmg and high ROF Attributes Secondly this is your own Interpretion again. By your own earlier words you cant prove what is intentional and what not. Unless you are a secret Dev or got a Brain Scanner on one of the Devs its purely speculation of your part. And my opinion about AC's in their current form is that they were purely made for dps and not high dmg in short time. Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Ras Blumin	Posted - 2006.03.22 08:53:00 - [139] Edited by: Ras Blumin on 22/03/2006 08:53:08 Originally by: Tiuwaz Originally by: DigitalCommunist I can say its intentional because it holds true to the basic fighting style of the entire Minmatar race. Short term gains over long term gains. Short term DPS over long term DPS. That holds true for Artillery, but AC's on the contrary are absolutely about DPS. This is manifested in their low Dmg and high ROF Attributes You'll do more dps until you reload with high tier ac's, which is what DC is referring to. I'd personally feel shafted if any min gun gets nerfed, as we're already at the bottom of the dps chain :-\| .. A dirty job - Released 2006.01.02
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.22 09:01:00 - [140] Originally by: Tiuwaz Originally by: DigitalCommunist You are trying to make Minmatar guns follow the same pattern of other weapons, so by all means lets. This can be done without increasing DPS. So lets hear your answer.. would you be satisfied with a nerf to your middle autocannons if such a nerf restored the proper "pattern"? first provide some data that the medium tier AC'S are in need nerfing, if you can prove or atleast make a point about that, then you can argue that the top tier is oke and the medium tier is the problem. If you cant do that it becomes obvious thte problem lies in the top tier rofl, are you seriously oblivious to this entire thread to be making a statement like that? Sarmaul's entire argument is that they don't follow a pattern. Mine states that if he wants his pattern so badly, he can have it at the expense of medium-tier autocannons. You're not willing to go for that? Tough. Because theres two ways to go about this. One leads to greater overall damage, the other doesn't. I frankly don't care if the whining over something as subjective as marginal benefits leads to tweaks or not. I do care if your tweaks end up continuing the idiotic cycle which led us to crappy combat times in the first place. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.22 09:09:00 - [141] Edited by: Tiuwaz on 22/03/2006 09:10:22 Originally by: Ras Blumin Edited by: Ras Blumin on 22/03/2006 08:53:08 Originally by: Tiuwaz Originally by: DigitalCommunist I can say its intentional because it holds true to the basic fighting style of the entire Minmatar race. Short term gains over long term gains. Short term DPS over long term DPS. That holds true for Artillery, but AC's on the contrary are absolutely about DPS. This is manifested in their low Dmg and high ROF Attributes You'll do more dps until you reload with high tier ac's, which is what DC is referring to. I'd personally feel shafted if any min gun gets nerfed, as we're already at the bottom of the dps chain :-\| .. I am aware that he meant it that way. Its still a different philosophy then what i think were meant for AC's, meaning a constant dps (including reloading). He doesnt think so and hold his belief as the one it was "intended". But lets asume for one sec he is right. I would like him to make a point with calculations that for the fight of one clip size the top tiers are worth the worse tracking and increased fitting cost. That a Top tier will always do more dmg than a lower tier with a single clip is hardly brain science and if not the case soemthing had to be utterly broken. Point is, is the increase in dmg or range (600m optimal on a weapon that operates in falloff? and thats large proj) big enough to justify the worse tracking and higher fittings. DPS including reloading is here actually a very good indicator, and points heavily towards NO. (The Pattern for the other guns points towards YES) Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.03.22 09:16:00 - [142] Edited by: Testy Mctest on 22/03/2006 09:17:06 Originally by: DigitalCommunist Originally by: Tiuwaz Originally by: DigitalCommunist You are trying to make Minmatar guns follow the same pattern of other weapons, so by all means lets. This can be done without increasing DPS. So lets hear your answer.. would you be satisfied with a nerf to your middle autocannons if such a nerf restored the proper "pattern"? first provide some data that the medium tier AC'S are in need nerfing, if you can prove or atleast make a point about that, then you can argue that the top tier is oke and the medium tier is the problem. If you cant do that it becomes obvious thte problem lies in the top tier rofl, are you seriously oblivious to this entire thread to be making a statement like that? Sarmaul's entire argument is that they don't follow a pattern. Mine states that if he wants his pattern so badly, he can have it at the expense of medium-tier autocannons. You're not willing to go for that? Tough. Because theres two ways to go about this. One leads to greater overall damage, the other doesn't. I frankly don't care if the whining over something as subjective as marginal benefits leads to tweaks or not. I do care if your tweaks end up continuing the idiotic cycle which led us to crappy combat times in the first place. See, your points are all very good ones, but not based in any fact. Yes, nerfing middle tier autocannons would bring things in line with current patterns. So would nerfing Megabeams, but look what happened there :) The fact is, that all Projectiles, despite the fact that they're still well used, are inferior weapons. No matter the placebos we all swallow by watching a Tempest's big damage numbers and ships die in a volley or two, projectiles do not compare in DPS favourably to any other weapons - most projectiles are out-DPS'd by the time they've fired their third volley at the latest. And they don't make up that defect in any other depertment. Picking and choosing damage is not a bonus. Large falloff, which kills your damage and still leaves you outranged or equalled by other weapons, is not a bonus. Sarmaul's whole argument isn't about the pattern. Part of it is. The other part is about the fact that projectiles need a DPS increase / Ammo size or consumtpion change / something similar. You're evidently capable of making a reasonable argument, so please spare us the fallacious points and selective reading. You can't refute numbers. Testy's Eve Blog!
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.03.22 09:16:00 - [143] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Originally by: Tiuwaz Originally by: DigitalCommunist You are trying to make Minmatar guns follow the same pattern of other weapons, so by all means lets. This can be done without increasing DPS. So lets hear your answer.. would you be satisfied with a nerf to your middle autocannons if such a nerf restored the proper "pattern"? first provide some data that the medium tier AC'S are in need nerfing, if you can prove or atleast make a point about that, then you can argue that the top tier is oke and the medium tier is the problem. If you cant do that it becomes obvious thte problem lies in the top tier rofl, are you seriously oblivious to this entire thread to be making a statement like that? Sarmaul's entire argument is that they don't follow a pattern. Mine states that if he wants his pattern so badly, he can have it at the expense of medium-tier autocannons. You're not willing to go for that? Tough. Because theres two ways to go about this. One leads to greater overall damage, the other doesn't. I frankly don't care if the whining over something as subjective as marginal benefits leads to tweaks or not. I do care if your tweaks end up continuing the idiotic cycle which led us to crappy combat times in the first place. I am well aware about the pattern, my point is that if you think its the medium tier that has to be changed to restore the pattern, than plz come up with numbers and arguments why they should be toned down. Originally by: Oveur ****! Lets nerf it! To the nerfmobile!
Paigan	Posted - 2006.03.22 09:59:00 - [144] Originally by: Smartacus How about. CCP gets rid of RELOADING in any way, shape or form. No reloading what so ever for any race. I mean c'mon we are flying highly advanced spaceships in freakin space. Yet i need to reload my gun Just get rid of it. Will solve a lot of these underpowered guns. /signed I really can't see why they made all the (coding) effort to have guns reloading at all. It would be perfectly logical that there is a constant ammo chaining mechanism from the cargo to the weapons, or constant reaload of the local ammo buffer or whatever. Would be much less effort. Would avoid certain bugs (happy reloading error ^^) Would be more comfortable to play. And you would still have ammo that can run out. Some things are simple beyond "us mortals" ^^ -- This game is still in beta stage
Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2006.03.22 10:09:00 - [145] I agree. The Ultimate Undeniable Underdogs (tm) of EVE are actually doing some damamge. Lets nerf them so that they are pea-shooters again, otherwise those damn slaves might get ideas above their station. Guys, minmatar are meant to be the UUU(tm) of EVE, its the way it is, look at the design of them. CCP staff arent stupid, they know how they act. If they wanted them to act differently they would have by now. So hail the split HP, slots and fastest speed/worst tracking. Embrace it. Love it. Otherwise you'll just go nuts :) - Rise.
Trefnis	Posted - 2006.03.22 11:47:00 - [146] DC the situation you describe that matari philosophy is to get in, kill and get out fast, died (if it was ever the case for ac) with extenders/plates hp increas, then 25% shield/armor/hull increas, thats the problem in the past it was possible to get to ship and kill it with one magazine of 800mm guns now u can do it only if you fit 6x800mm t2 with hail, 2x sieges t2 and at least 3 gyro, and then pray he is fleet setup not plated/tanked setup cos then you wont kill him with one magazine i doubt blasters (specialy neutrons with 3 dmg mods) need to reload to kill one battleship no matter how tanked
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 12:32:00 - [147] woo whoring forums on my lunch break. anyway... Originally by: DigitalCommunist I can say its intentional because it holds true to the basic fighting style of the entire Minmatar race. Short term gains over long term gains. The thing is, there are in fact 2 different fighting styles for minmatar depending on what weapon types you are using. Artillery: One-volley, if it doesn't work run like hell. This is backed up by the massive alpha strike and very low rate of fire/dps. Autocannons: The polar opposite of artillery, autocannons are the fastest firing guns in EVE with the lowest damage modifier. Anyone with half a brain can see that you don't try and alpha-strike with autocannons, it's all about slowly chipping away at the other ship while using your faster ship speed to keep the distance. Quote: Short term DPS over long term DPS. It doesn't actually ruin the purpose of the weapon and you've admitted that much. Who are you to say that this is wrong? who are you to say that you think I am wrong? Unless you are a secret dev (in which case post with your main ;P), you have about as much of an idea of how things are "supposed" to be as I do. Quote: You're only complaining because you don't think the benefits are too small and the guns not worth fitting. Erm, what? That's exactly why I'm complaining. The benefits of the top-tiers are too small, considering the penalties you incur in return, which in my opinion (and the opinion of several others) makes them not worth fitting. Quote: Obviously people will disagree with you, even though they've seen the math. But you are still too frightened of the possibility that maybe middle-tier autocannons deserve a nerf. If you nerf the middle-tier autocannons, then you will need to nerf the smallest-tier autocannons by the same amount too, otherwise nobody will fit the middle size as the smalls will do the same dps for more tracking, less reload times and far lower fitting requirements. Funny, that's the exact situation we are in now with the middle and top tiers. Quote: You are trying to make Minmatar guns follow the same pattern of other weapons, so by all means lets. This can be done without increasing DPS. So lets hear your answer.. would you be satisfied with a nerf to your middle autocannons if such a nerf restored the proper "pattern"? 100% NO. Autocannons already do the lowest DPS - boosting the top-tiers will still cause them to be outdamaged by 90% of the other race's guns. Tachs weren't worth fitting over Mega Beams, so what did CCP do? Boost the bigger gun instead of nerf the smaller one, as the bigger gun was the issue. Heavy missiles did crap dps compared to other weapons so what did CCP do? Boost heavy missiles instead of nerfing every other weapon. It is the top-tier acs that are the problem, and the top-tier acs that need to be fixed. Quote: - reducing the dps of middle tier autocannons - increasing damage modifier of top tier, but also increasing rof (for no dps change) - lowering falloff on first and second tier autocannons considerably - increasing the fitting requirements of first and second tier autocannons to be closer to top tier So you method for balancing the top-tier guns is to nerf everything below it, guns that are working perfectly fine and that nobody has any issues with? Thank christ you're not a dev (and if you are as you seem to have this god-like knowledge, you need to be sacked). Quote: I frankly don't care if the whining over something as subjective as marginal benefits leads to tweaks or not. I do care if your tweaks end up continuing the idiotic cycle which led us to crappy combat times in the first place. Then I suggest you divert your attention to Neutrons, Tachs, Torps, and Artillery, not the guns that currently do the lowest DPS. Any other points you wish me to shoot down?
Felxia	Posted - 2006.03.22 12:49:00 - [148] this is why the devs should take care of this, because of people just thinking about their own race...
Sun Ra	Posted - 2006.03.22 13:15:00 - [149] Someone rob DC again please Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas'
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.03.22 13:48:00 - [150] Originally by: Sun Ra Someone gag DC again please I think you made a typo. sgb
Tachy	Posted - 2006.03.22 14:11:00 - [151] @DigitalCommunist: What is your point? You got no point, or I totally missed it. Maybe you can enlighten us pilots of Matari ships about our ship's strength, and how to fight correctly? Please don't leave us out in the dark. Or maybe you might cough up some reasons why Matari have the smalles number of pilots, and why Matari ships are the least used out there? Or did you miss the list from Oveur and in the EON-Magazine? You know what I mean, the #phoon+#pest<#raven list. Or maybe you know the reason why there are quite a few Minmatar ships which have better dps and tracking using non-projectile guns. Yeah, applying math sucks. Especially if it helps showing existing problems over and over and over again. These numbers and problems have been published by pilots a few times and nothing happened so far. How good the devs know their creation can (not only) be seen here: TomB illuminated --==*-- Megadon CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray
Imhotep Khem	Posted - 2006.03.22 14:44:00 - [152] If you think of the 800s not as an autocannon or as artillery but as something in between, then it makes more sense. We have been missing a midrange gun. Consider its name "Repeating Artillery." Lets make it so 800mm Repeating Artillery Optimal 14000 Falloff 25500 Tracking 0.0123 Magazine 4m3 (actually already in between) MW: 2000 (actually already in between) CPU: 39 (actually already in between) ROF: 12.095 (guess, can't figure their method) DM: 2.825 (guess, can't figure their method) The DOT is lower than either autocannon but higher than 1200. I think CCP will eventually do something. The 800s and the 1200s both need work. I think CCP is having trouble in their attempt to keep the middle guns from being all around better than the others, and they just went to far right now. ____ If your not dyin' your not tryin'.
Diana Merris	Posted - 2006.03.22 15:04:00 - [153] Edited by: Diana Merris on 22/03/2006 15:04:52 Quote: - reducing the dps of the middle tier autocannons How could that be a valid balance option when Sarmaul's numbers clearly show that they have the same percentage increase as the low -> middle tier blasters? Sarmaul, if you want to show clearer results for the lasers the quad light beam laser is acually the smallest "pulse" laser for cruisers. Only large lasers are missing the smallest pulse and have the Tachyon instead.
Sun Ra	Posted - 2006.03.22 15:08:00 - [154] Originally by: Imhotep Khem If you think of the 800s not as an autocannon or as artillery but as something in between, then it makes more sense. We have been missing a midrange gun. Consider its name "Repeating Artillery." Lets make it so 800mm Repeating Artillery Optimal 14000 Falloff 25500 Tracking 0.0123 Magazine 4m3 (actually already in between) MW: 2000 (actually already in between) CPU: 39 (actually already in between) ROF: 12.095 (guess, can't figure their method) DM: 2.825 (guess, can't figure their method) The DOT is lower than either autocannon but higher than 1200. I think CCP will eventually do something. The 800s and the 1200s both need work. I think CCP is having trouble in their attempt to keep the middle guns from being all around better than the others, and they just went to far right now. Yup something ive asked for in the past, minmatar are missing a mid range gun. Amarr and Gallente have 6 guns, Minmatar only have 5 wtf is up with that? we need a gun simlair to duel 250's this could work nice for the new phoon Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas'
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 17:17:00 - [155] Edited by: Sarmaul on 22/03/2006 17:22:30 Originally by: Diana Merris Edited by: Diana Merris on 22/03/2006 15:04:52 Quote: - reducing the dps of the middle tier autocannons How could that be a valid balance option when Sarmaul's numbers clearly show that they have the same percentage increase as the low -> middle tier blasters? Sarmaul, if you want to show clearer results for the lasers the quad light beam laser is acually the smallest "pulse" laser for cruisers. Only large lasers are missing the smallest pulse and have the Tachyon instead. I hate to point this out, but Quad Light Beams are Beams, not Pulses (unless I'm missing something)
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 17:21:00 - [156] Originally by: Felxia this is why the devs should take care of this, because of people just thinking about their own race... if you can tell me how this applies to pulse lasers or blasters I would love to hear it. both of these 2 weapon types get an increased alpha-strike and increased dps for every tier, while projectiles don't get the increased dps over the middle tier. if it was an issue other races had to deal with it would be in this thread. it isn't, so it isn't. Originally by: Sun Ra Originally by: Imhotep Khem If you think of the 800s not as an autocannon or as artillery but as something in between, then it makes more sense. We have been missing a midrange gun. Consider its name "Repeating Artillery." Lets make it so 800mm Repeating Artillery Optimal 14000 Falloff 25500 Tracking 0.0123 Magazine 4m3 (actually already in between) MW: 2000 (actually already in between) CPU: 39 (actually already in between) ROF: 12.095 (guess, can't figure their method) DM: 2.825 (guess, can't figure their method) The DOT is lower than either autocannon but higher than 1200. I think CCP will eventually do something. The 800s and the 1200s both need work. I think CCP is having trouble in their attempt to keep the middle guns from being all around better than the others, and they just went to far right now. Yup something ive asked for in the past, minmatar are missing a mid range gun. Amarr and Gallente have 6 guns, Minmatar only have 5 wtf is up with that? we need a gun simlair to duel 250's this could work nice for the new phoon that's all very well, but by turning 800mms into this new gun we will still only have 5 guns. And you would also need to do the same for 425mm autocannons and 200mm autocannons. You'll also notice that the Dual 650mms are called repeating artillery - shall we turn those into full artillery guns too?
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.22 18:24:00 - [157] AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE! Before page 10 too, nice. Its no longer about making the guns fit the predictable pattern you claimed to desire so badly, since I've pointed out that can be done with a nerf. Its about getting autocannons boosted just because "they suck at DPS" in general. I figured that much out just by reading your title, and it always strikes me as hilarious when so many people will go /signed! without even reading the body of your post. Hmmmm, why is that? They wouldn't dare speak up if autocannons were the most overpowered gun in the game. They might even write you off as a traitor for turning them into the Balance Police. But since they're not, you remain to be their armchair hero. You might be angry with me for playing Devil's advocate but at least I'm honest about what I don't like. This post is nothing but a covert manipulation attempt, jumping on a minor issue (if it can even be called that) and riding it hard enough that you get a damage boost. If you really thought autocannons having poor dps was broken, ant not something you simply dislike about the guns, you would of made at least some arguments of why they should all be boosted. You didn't. You know as well as I do that they're not broken thats why you'd settle for anything. Thats why you'd all settle. points finger accusingly Well maybe the truth won't set you free, but it will definitely loosen up that Glaive collar. You no longer have to play mind games with the devs, feel free to provide all the evidence on general autocannon inferiority you like. For someone who loves his math so much, you should be aware of inclusion. If you can prove everything needs a boost, you can definitely prove that the top-tiers need a boost. Till then, to the nerfmobile we go! Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Xeios	Posted - 2006.03.22 18:40:00 - [158] I dont even use min but DC if u really want to hypothetically nerf auto's then go ahead. Now to maintain balance lets also nerf blasters. Im sure ud have no problems with that at all would u? You do so claim to love balance.
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:14:00 - [159] Originally by: DigitalCommunist AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE! Before page 10 too, nice. Its no longer about making the guns fit the predictable pattern you claimed to desire so badly, since I've pointed out that can be done with a nerf. Its about getting autocannons boosted just because "they suck at DPS" in general. I figured that much out just by reading your title, and it always strikes me as hilarious when so many people will go /signed! without even reading the body of your post. Hmmmm, why is that? They wouldn't dare speak up if autocannons were the most overpowered gun in the game. They might even write you off as a traitor for turning them into the Balance Police. But since they're not, you remain to be their armchair hero. You might be angry with me for playing Devil's advocate but at least I'm honest about what I don't like. This post is nothing but a covert manipulation attempt, jumping on a minor issue (if it can even be called that) and riding it hard enough that you get a damage boost. If you really thought autocannons having poor dps was broken, ant not something you simply dislike about the guns, you would of made at least some arguments of why they should all be boosted. You didn't. You know as well as I do that they're not broken thats why you'd settle for anything. Thats why you'd all settle. points finger accusingly Well maybe the truth won't set you free, but it will definitely loosen up that Glaive collar. You no longer have to play mind games with the devs, feel free to provide all the evidence on general autocannon inferiority you like. For someone who loves his math so much, you should be aware of inclusion. If you can prove everything needs a boost, you can definitely prove that the top-tiers need a boost. Till then, to the nerfmobile we go! No matter what you write there remain 2 irrefutable points. 1) Minmatar autocannon dps sucks compared to the other races. 2) the difference between fitting mid range acs and top range acs is minimal at best. The numbers support both these points, I'm glad other people have more free time than me. :) Ergo, we can only come to one conclusion - top tier autocannons need a boost, otherwise they are modules with no point. Reducing the capabilities of middle and low tier acs would indeed bring them into line and make top tier autocannons useful, however by referring you to point 1 above, we can see why this would be bad. Why is this difficult to understand? sgb
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:16:00 - [160] I warped out of my lvl4 mission just for this post :) Originally by: DigitalCommunist AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE! have I ever been distruthful through-out this entire thread? Every attempt I have is through increasing the top tier autocannons dps so it does slightly more dps than the middle tier autocannons. I: did not ask for all autocannons to be boosted, *not ask for all projectiles* to be boosted (that would imply artillery too). In fact, I even said that 90% of the other guns in EVE would still out damage them, even with the boost. Originally by:** DigitalCommunist Its no longer about making the guns fit the predictable pattern you claimed to desire so badly, since I've pointed out that can be done with a nerf. A nerf that is not needed. Low-Tier autocannons are balanced with the other weapon systems, and the higher autocannons. Middle-Tier autocannons are balanced with the other weapon systems, and the higher and lower autocannons. Top-Tier autocannons are not balanced with the lower autocannons and other weapon systems. Why nerf the guns that are fine, when the guns that are not fine need boosting? Mega Beams could have been nerfed to make tachs useful but they weren't. Why? Because tachs were the problem, so they were boosted. The same situation applies to middle and top-tier autocannons, so why nerf the guns that are fine when the guns that need fixing need a boost? If you nerf the guns that are fine, then you are still left with a set of guns that need boosting. Originally by: DigitalCommunist Its about getting autocannons boosted just because "they suck at DPS" in general. I figured that much out just by reading your title, and it always strikes me as hilarious when so many people will go /signed! without even reading the body of your post. Complete, total, and utter *****s. As I said before, if I wanted all autocannons boosted, I would be asking for a dps increase for all autocannons. I am instead asking for top-tier autocannons to be boosted by what, 5%?, to make them progress in line with all other weapon systems. They will still be out-damaged by other race's guns, and 2/3 of autocannons will do the same DPS as before. Originally by:** DigitalCommunist Hmmmm, why is that? They wouldn't dare speak up if autocannons were the most overpowered gun in the game. They might even write you off as a traitor for turning them into the Balance Police. I take it you haven't seen some of the blaster people asking for more dps? No. You're trolling (devil's advocate my arse) one thread. Projectile users know full well they will always have the lowest DPS. However, that doesn't means your guns need to be imbalanced between themselves. Originally by: DigitalCommunist You might be angry with me for playing Devil's advocate but at least I'm honest about what I don't like. Actually the only thing I remember saying you didn't like was gank warfare, in which case, as I have started before, autocannons are the least of your worries.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:16:00 - [161] Originally by: DigitalCommunist This post is nothing but a covert manipulation attempt, jumping on a minor issue (if it can even be called that) and riding it hard enough that you get a damage boost. If you really thought autocannons having poor dps was broken, ant not something you simply dislike about the guns, you would of made at least some arguments of why they should all be boosted. You didn't. You know as well as I do that they're not broken thats why you'd settle for anything. Thats why you'd all settle. points finger accusingly Oh my god you can be so ***** stupid sometimes I feel stupider after reading some of your posts. 1) There is nothing covert about it. I want top-tier autocannon DPS boosted so it is higher than the middle-tier DPS. I have said that in almost every post I have made. That's bull #1 disproved. 2) If I thought all autocannons were broken, I would be arguing for a boost to all autocannons/ I don't think all autocannons are broken, only the top-tiers (which have the same dps as the middle-tier, a situation that no other gun type is in), which is why I am asking for a boost to only top-tier autocannons, not all autocannons. Bull #2 disproved. 3) Do you know what was even more of a minor issue? Tachs and mega beams. Guess what, the devs fixed it as in their eyes it was imbalanced. Originally by:** DigitalCommunist You no longer have to play mind games with the devs, feel free to provide all the evidence on general autocannon inferiority you like. For someone who loves his math so much, you should be aware of inclusion. If you can prove everything needs a boost, you can definitely prove that the top-tiers need a boost. There is only one person playing mind-games in this thread and I'm quoting him. Keep making an arse of yourself and trying to twist my words and motives - no one is buying it besides your slightly inflated ego. Keanu Reeves was a far better devils advocate than you, and he's the worst ******* actor of all time.
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:20:00 - [162] It's too long to quote, but QFT anyway...
Lexor SLice	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:24:00 - [163] Originally by: Sarmaul There is only one person playing mind-games in this thread and I'm quoting him. Keep making an arse of yourself and trying to twist my words and motives - no one is buying it besides your slightly inflated ego. Keanu Reeves was a far better devils advocate than you, and he's the worst ******* actor of all time. BWHAHAHAA!!, even i gotta say, thats pretty funny. ____________________________________________
Lexor SLice	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:24:00 - [164] Originally by: Sarmaul There is only one person playing mind-games in this thread and I'm quoting him. Keep making an arse of yourself and trying to twist my words and motives - no one is buying it besides your slightly inflated ego. Keanu Reeves was a far better devils advocate than you, and he's the worst ******* actor of all time. ____________________________________________
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:37:00 - [165] Too funny, i'm waiting for the comeback... /me grabs pop corn. Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
Luviera Silverwave	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:39:00 - [166] I'm Shocked! Sarmaul, I can only thank you for starting this topic and push it in the spot light. At first, I read the post and it didn't do me that much, thinking "It would not surprise me, if the other races have the same issue with there weapons". But the update you added on page 5, showing the damage from other weapons made me think again. That last update, also got me playing with 220mm instead of 425mm that I've bin using all the time, till now. Out with the 425mm and in with 220mm, until things change and I hope the will change. Thx Sarmaul and lets hope for some dev feedback on this issue. Spec's: Windows XP Professional AMD Athlon(TM) XP 3000+, MMX, 3DNow Memory: 1536MB RAM DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c NVIDIA 6800 Ultra 256.0 MB at 1280*1024 Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty
Soyemia	Posted - 2006.03.22 19:46:00 - [167] LEts make situation to you why top tier should be boosted: Emagine that your ion balsters out damage your electrons? Electrons have badder tracking and lower DPS than ions. Even higher reqs to fit Do you now understand?
chillz	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:07:00 - [168] I'd just like to sign whatever Sarmaul said. Top tier autos need fixing. ----------------------------------- A gun and a packet of sandwiches. "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter S Thompson
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:07:00 - [169] Originally by: Soyemia LEts make situation to you why top tier should be boosted: Emagine that your ion balsters out damage your electrons? Electrons have badder tracking and lower DPS than ions. Even higher reqs to fit Do you now understand? even I don't understand that
Lexor SLice	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:09:00 - [170] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Soyemia LEts make situation to you why top tier should be boosted: Emagine that your ion balsters out damage your electrons? Electrons have badder tracking and lower DPS than ions. Even higher reqs to fit Do you now understand? even I don't understand that lmao me neither, i would like to see top tier AC's boosted though, sarmaul's on the right track, for a nubbin's ____________________________________________
Isonkon Serikain	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:11:00 - [171] Clearly DC doesn't want to see a boost on the AC's... I think Sarmaul's got the right idea. To use the blaster product line as an example, pilots can choose to fit ions and a tank, electrons and a heavy tank, or neutrons and a gank setup... thats the general idea that all blaster setups can follow. Each configuration has pros and cons when you look at DPS and tankability. Meanwhile, AC users have one less option... There is clearly no point in fitting the largest AC as it brings no distinct advantage at ALL. I dont think that would be an intentional thing, sorry DC. I think the logical progression would be to raise the large ac's DPS by 6% and increase clip size. Ison's notches
DigitalCommunist	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:26:00 - [172] My thats a lot of ranting, somebody hasn't had their Vitocookie this morning! You keep hammering the same point over and over as if it requires simplification so that even poor dumb digi "gets it". Writing a lot might confuse the stupid, but your message is still the same no matter how many times you say it. I fully understand the math, and I fully understand your motives for wanting it tweaked. I just don't agree with them, because they screw up the game. You want damage increase of the guns, I say its not necessary. I've shown you why, you don't agree. Its that simple. 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? Everyone wants longer fights, but is unwilling to restrain themselves from making demands when it comes to their weapons. In the end, the only way you don't come off as a hypocrit is if you think combat needs to be shorter, or is perfectly fine the way it is. Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame.
Selak Zorander	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:27:00 - [173] Edited by: Selak Zorander on 22/03/2006 20:28:02 Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Soyemia LEts make situation to you why top tier should be boosted: Emagine that your ion balsters out damage your electrons? Electrons have badder tracking and lower DPS than ions. Even higher reqs to fit Do you now understand? even I don't understand that What he is saying is lets nerf the neutron blaster so that it falls into the same situation. Some shoty math I did would point to making the damage mod for a light nuetron blaster 1 be 3.3x instead of 3.5x and you run into the same situation as the autocannons. over long periods of time (anything involving one reload of the weapons) it would then put out the same DPS as the light ion blaster would while having worse tracking, and higher fitting requirements. using the same math formulas, i think a Damage mod of 2.025 on the 200mm autocannon 1 will leave the same ratio from 150mm autocannon to 200mm autocannon as there is from ion blaster to nuetron blaster. I wont even being to mention anything about the fact that the autocannon only holds half the rounds of the equivalent blaster which seems odd to me. First the 200mm autocannon fires faster, then it has the lowest DPS in game as it is a projectile weapon, and it also has to reload twice as often as a nuetron blaster. man do the minmatar weapons get the shaft on nearly every way of looking at them (of course if the database on the left has wrong stats for ammo size of capacity of guns then my numbers are off)
Copenhagen	Posted - 2006.03.22 20:27:00 - [174] Some great arguments and math in here. I was the person at the Vegas Gathering that asked TomB about giving the Phoon some love. He told us that he fly's Minmatar ships in the game. When he see's discussions like this on the forums he uses his own personal experiences with the ships to know if its a just a whine or a real problem. That goes for most/all the dev's. They love this game as much as us and they do fly real characters in the game. But with the power they have they just cant change something without taking a thousand things into consideration. Posts from players on the forums are just 1 part of those thousand things they have to look at - as explained by Oveur. Because of that we need to keep discussions like this going to better let them know what we are experiencing. I fly Minmatar just because everybody and their brother doesnt fly them. These ships really dont shine until you get a boat load of SP's. However, I do agree that the difference between the large AC's does not justify the use of the biggest caliber of AC's. The first time someone told me to use T2 220's over 425's I thought they were crazy. 425's have to be better cause they are bigger. Try them sometime and you will learn also. I would think that should be a bad thing. Why would CCP invent a gun that on paper is better than its smaller cousin, but in reality isnt? Maybe we arent using them as they intended or maybe the role they invisioned doesnt exist anymore. This goes for all ships/items in EVE.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 21:23:00 - [175] Originally by: DigitalCommunist 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. Aha! At last we have a motive! I have been waiting for you to reveal what weapons you use, and I had a good idea it would be blasters. I'm sure my disclaimer at the start of this thread was like a red-rag to a bull when you saw it. You have absolutely no idea of minmatar combat philosophy. Hell, you have no idea about minmatar in general (shall I dig up the quote where you deny that the "Matari" doesn't exist as part of the fiction of EVE, yet the headline on the news page at the time was "Matari-Gallente exodus may be underway, new study says". Go look at the current news item at the top - 24th word, first sentence. "Matari". Yet another example of the amount of *****s you talk). Anyway, back to your motive. I'm sure you would absolutely love 2/3 of autocannons to be nerfed, which would make your blasters comparitivly better. The fact that someone suggests that someone suggests that 3 autocannons should get a boost must make you tremble at the knees. Blasters are currently getting their cap and fitting requirements looked at. What will that mean? Less need for fitting mods, more room for damage mods. Hurrah, Blasters get to do top damage and gank everything twice as fast as autocannons. So, we've gone from devil's advocate, to a bit of a tosser, to gallente fanboi who wants his blasters to pwn harder than everything else so he's trying to derail an autocannon balence thread. Sad. Very, very sad. Originally by:** DigitalCommunist But it saddens me that so many people just don't care about next year, or the next two years. Honestly, what does that have to do with balancing weapon systems? This is what it has to do with it: Exactly. Stop trying to go poetic just because your weak arguments have been beaten and your motives exposed (by yourself I might add - congratulations on the self owning). Originally by: DigitalCommunist 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? I believe this is the part where you crawl up your own ******, never to see daylight again. Originally by:** DigitalCommunist Everyone wants longer fights, but is unwilling to restrain themselves from making demands when it comes to their weapons. In the end, the only way you don't come off as a hypocrit is if you think combat needs to be shorter, or is perfectly fine the way it is. LOL, says the man who doesn't want autocannons getting anywhere near the DPS of blasters (which my suggestion won't, but you don't seem to be the kind that listens). I'll tell you what, start advocating for a blaster and laser dps nerf and then I'll begin to take you seriously. Until then, stay the hell out of this thread unless you have something useful to say. Sorry I don't have such a class comment to end on like last time, but tbh nothing can make me laugh more than watching DC undo himself in the space of 5 words. Now, if we could please get back to the matter of hand?
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 21:23:00 - [176] Edited by: Sarmaul on 22/03/2006 21:25:35 I have officially given up hoping to get the bonus reward for this mission :/ Originally by: DigitalCommunist You keep hammering the same point over and over as if it requires simplification so that even poor dumb digi "gets it". That's because there is only 1 point that needs to be hammered, and you're the only one not getting it. Originally by: DigitalCommunist Writing a lot might confuse the stupid, but your message is still the same no matter how many times you say it. My god, it's almost as if I've been saying the same thing through this thread and your comments about me trying to decieve people were a load of *****s... Originally by:** DigitalCommunist I fully understand the math, and I fully understand your motives for wanting it tweaked. I just don't agree with them, because they screw up the game. You want damage increase of the guns, I say its not necessary. I've shown you why, you don't agree. Except, they don't "screw up the game" (lol btw). The only way they could "screw up the game" (I love that quote) is if 1) They DPS was equal or higher to lasers or hybrids 2) That's it As this wouldn't be the case, no form of screwing will happen to the game. Originally by: DigitalCommunist Its that simple. Yet you still can't quite grasp it. Originally by: DigitalCommunist 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. Yes it could be solved with a nerf, if a nerf was needed. Missiles got nerfed vs smaller targets. Why? Because they were overpowered. Some lasers got a nerf. Why? Because they were overpowered. Heavy missiles got boosted. Why? Because they were underpowered. Tech1 frigates and cruisers got boosted. Why? Because they were underpowered. The whole issue comes down to whether you feel that top-tier autocannons in general are overpowered or underpowered, and that will dictate your opinion on whether they need to be nerfed or boosted respectivly. Originally by: DigitalCommunist 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. Ok, it seems you need help getting this into your head. Not "autocannons", but: *TOP TIER AUTOCANNONS* If there was a way of making that blink I would have done it. YOU are the one trying to twist my words, suggesting that I want all autocannons boosted. I have been very careful with my wording through-out so that people don't think that is what I am after. If you read the replies, you will see that the vast majority of people agree that *TOP TIER AUTOCANNONS (that's 3 guns btw)* need boosting, as they do *THE SAME DPS AS MIDDLE TIER AUTOCANNONS*. Are you getting this yet? I want to: Boost top-tier autocannons so they do more damage than middle tier autocannons I don't want to: boost all autocannon dps I also don't want to: boost top-tier autocannons so they do more damage than the majority of blasters.
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.03.22 21:32:00 - [177] Originally by: Sarmaul I believe this is the part where you crawl up your own ******, never to see daylight again. Couldn't agree more. In fact this will probably be better for all parties involved, although I will miss **ing myself laughing watching sarmul rip dcs posts apart. Especially liked those big red letters in the middle of the last post. 1 gets you 5 he still won't notice them tho. sgb
Agnar Koladrov	Posted - 2006.03.22 21:38:00 - [178] Hey Sarmaul, you have made you point very clear, probs for that! And let DG just troll arround here, he`ll get tired or bored sooner or later
DeadRow	Posted - 2006.03.22 21:50:00 - [179] Edited by: DeadRow on 22/03/2006 21:51:27 tbh DC has put his agruement nice and civil, and all Sarmaul has done is slate DC and say his bitter for his HAC loss and this that and the other, tbh i think all top teir ACs need is a slight clip increase. Originally by: Eris Discordia TAKE COVER, HIDE YOUR SIGNATURE
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 21:56:00 - [180] Originally by: DeadRow tbh DC has put his agruement nice and civil, and all Sarmaul has done is slate DC and say his bitter for his HAC loss and this that and the other as for slating DC, just because he said it "nicely" doesn't make it any less of an attempt to troll or derail this thread. I don't do nice, I do blunt :)
DeadRow	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:00:00 - [181] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: DeadRow tbh DC has put his agruement nice and civil, and all Sarmaul has done is slate DC and say his bitter for his HAC loss and this that and the other as for slating DC, just because he said it "nicely" doesn't make it any less of an attempt to troll or derail this thread. I don't do nice, I do blunt :) hes hardly trying to derail it, hes putting over his point of view on how he see the AC 'problem' however u going 'OMFG STFU I didnt this and that!!!1111oneone!!11' seem to me like ur the troll :) Originally by: Eris Discordia TAKE COVER, HIDE YOUR SIGNATURE
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:02:00 - [182] Originally by: DeadRow Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: DeadRow tbh DC has put his agruement nice and civil, and all Sarmaul has done is slate DC and say his bitter for his HAC loss and this that and the other as for slating DC, just because he said it "nicely" doesn't make it any less of an attempt to troll or derail this thread. I don't do nice, I do blunt :) hes hardly trying to derail it, hes putting over his point of view on how he see the AC 'problem' however u going 'OMFG STFU I didnt this and that!!!1111oneone!!11' seem to me like ur the troll :) I can hardly troll my own thread
DeadRow	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:04:00 - [183] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: DeadRow Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: DeadRow tbh DC has put his agruement nice and civil, and all Sarmaul has done is slate DC and say his bitter for his HAC loss and this that and the other as for slating DC, just because he said it "nicely" doesn't make it any less of an attempt to troll or derail this thread. I don't do nice, I do blunt :) hes hardly trying to derail it, hes putting over his point of view on how he see the AC 'problem' however u going 'OMFG STFU I didnt this and that!!!1111oneone!!11' seem to me like ur the troll :) I can hardly troll my own thread seem to be doing a good job at the moment Originally by: Eris Discordia TAKE COVER, HIDE YOUR SIGNATURE
Hair	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:07:00 - [184] Solid argument and irrefutable numbers Sarmaul. Let's hope the devs take notice.
Wilfan Ret'nub	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:38:00 - [185] Wow - people join BoB and turn into a grade A trolls in less than a month. I wonder if they have "Forum Academy"... A few more communist proposals, digital style: Personally, I'm against DPS increase for top tier autocannons. Instead, they should just bypass shields and armor. In RL, 425mm shells simply slice through stuff that 220mm shells have problems with... Or we could make highest tier ACs use about 1,2-1,9x times more ammo per shot than those one tier lower. They have 1,2-1,9x higher caliber, don't they? That would of course mean 1,2-1,9x more base damage. Feel free to nerf (oops, rebalance) lower tiers. Another "dev intended" pattern would be achieved by simply swapping damage mod for lowest tier and highest tier ACs. That would be a refreshing change from the same old "more DPS, less tracking, higher fitting" as you go from lower tier to higher tier guns.
Wilfan Ret'nub	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:38:00 - [186] EVE Online \| EVE Insider \| Forums
Rohann	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:40:00 - [187] Edited by: Rohann on 22/03/2006 22:40:50 Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Wow - people join BoB and turn into a grade A trolls in less than a month. I wonder if they have "Forum Academy"... A few more communist proposals, digital style: Personally, I'm against DPS increase for top tier autocannons. Instead, they should just bypass shields and armor. In RL, 425mm shells simply slice through stuff that 220mm shells have problems with... Or we could make highest tier ACs use about 1,2-1,9x times more ammo per shot than those one tier lower. They have 1,2-1,9x higher caliber, don't they? That would of course mean 1,2-1,9x more base damage. Feel free to nerf (oops, rebalance) lower tiers. Another "dev intended" pattern would be achieved by simply swapping damage mod for lowest tier and highest tier ACs. That would be a refreshing change from the same old "more DPS, less tracking, higher fitting" as you go from lower tier to higher tier guns. And Omega Corp is still full of nubs like you Good post Sarmaul.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:42:00 - [188] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Wow - people join BoB and turn into a grade A trolls in less than a month. I wonder if they have "Forum Academy"... A few more communist proposals, digital style: Personally, I'm against DPS increase for top tier autocannons. Instead, they should just bypass shields and armor. In RL, 425mm shells simply slice through stuff that 220mm shells have problems with... Or we could make highest tier ACs use about 1,2-1,9x times more ammo per shot than those one tier lower. They have 1,2-1,9x higher caliber, don't they? That would of course mean 1,2-1,9x more base damage. Feel free to nerf (oops, rebalance) lower tiers. Another "dev intended" pattern would be achieved by simply swapping damage mod for lowest tier and highest tier ACs. That would be a refreshing change from the same old "more DPS, less tracking, higher fitting" as you go from lower tier to higher tier guns.
Wilfan Ret'nub	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:45:00 - [189] Originally by: Rohann And Omega Corp is still full of nubs like you I can only dream to smack one day like you. But apparently, this thread is about ACs. As a rule, posts in it should contain at least one sentence about them, don't you think?
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:49:00 - [190] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Originally by: Rohann And Omega Corp is still full of nubs like you I can only dream to smack one day like you. But apparently, this thread is about ACs. As a rule, posts in it should contain at least one sentence about them, don't you think? I believe "good post sarmaul" was on topic
Rohann	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:52:00 - [191] Edited by: Rohann on 22/03/2006 22:53:01 Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub Originally by: Rohann And Omega Corp is still full of nubs like you I can only dream to smack one day like you. But apparently, this thread is about ACs. As a rule, posts in it should contain at least one sentence about them, don't you think? Your right. Personally I think AC's are just fine and dont need any tweaking. The fact that AC can deal out all dmg types could make up for dps. Yet the OP has taken great time and effort in explaining his thoughts on the issue so I take the time to read it. Oh and how you think you can smack an entire alliance in this forum and think nobody will notice is beyond me but whatever.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.22 22:54:00 - [192] Originally by: Rohann Personally I think AC's are just fine and dont need any tweaking. they are fine (besides the top tiers which need another 5% dps so they do more damage than the middle-tier, kthx )
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.22 23:21:00 - [193] Quote: I think AC's are just fine and dont need any tweaking. The fact that AC can deal out all dmg types could make up for dps. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You can't possibly look at two completely different AC types and say that the fact that the 425mm and the 220mm ACs hitting for almost identical DPS but with the 425mms requiring more tracking skills, more PG and more CPU is something that doens't need tweaking. AC's don't need a high dps because of variable damage, I can agree with that. But the tweaks are worried about overall AC damage but the higher tier damage. There is -no- reason that something that uses more PG, more CPU, less tracking, slower RoF, and a smaller clip (425mm)should hit for the same amount of damage as something that uses less PG, less CPU, has better tracking, fasters fire, and has a larger clip (220mm) --------------
Rohann	Posted - 2006.03.22 23:23:00 - [194] Originally by: Malka Badi'a Quote: I think AC's are just fine and dont need any tweaking. The fact that AC can deal out all dmg types could make up for dps. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. You can't possibly look at two completely different AC types and say that the fact that the 425mm and the 220mm ACs hitting for almost identical DPS but with the 425mms requiring more tracking skills, more PG and more CPU is something that doens't need tweaking. AC's don't need a high dps because of variable damage, I can agree with that. But the tweaks are worried about overall AC damage but the higher tier damage. There is -no- reason that something that uses more PG, more CPU, less tracking, slower RoF, and a smaller clip (425mm)should hit for the same amount of damage as something that uses less PG, less CPU, has better tracking, fasters fire, and has a larger clip (220mm) I can and I did.
Malka Badi'a	Posted - 2006.03.22 23:28:00 - [195] Quote: I can and I did. Do you have any support or reasoning why differnetly tiered items should preform the same with the higher tier having negative attributes to it, or is this something beyond your intellectual patience? --------------
Mikel Crenshaw	Posted - 2006.03.22 23:42:00 - [196] This is definately /signed. I think this would improve AC's as a whole while working pretty well balance wise. Either increasing clip size or lowering reload time would be a nice addition. I hope the amount of work that went into this will notify the devs of the problem with high tier AC's. --------------------- "To err is human, to really foul things up requires a computer"
Tachy	Posted - 2006.03.23 00:17:00 - [197] @Malk Badi'a: The third tier guns even have worse performance. They're harder to fit and have worse tracking while having the same damage output under optimal conditions as their second tier competitors. (At least they're dirt cheap ...) @DigitalCommmunist: This isn't the first time you're fervently fighting against fixing weapon systems that aren't generally used on Gallente ships. You've been most outspoken when there was any reasonable effort done to get the Minmatar ships or guns even remotely up to par with other races weapon systems. You haven't backed up your point of view with facts once - So this has nothing to do with BoB. I wonder why your comments about Minmatar ships in the EON magazine are a bit uninspired. Coincidence? If you do not believe the math Sarmaul and Naughty Boy presented, then prove them wrong. A little hint: my personal tests support the math. --==*-- Megadon CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray
Ooiittee	Posted - 2006.03.23 01:25:00 - [198] As for the comments about so few people having an issue with this matter. Most like myself have abandoned the Mini weapon range and opted for more potent weapons. If this is the case we have 3 of the 4 races not seeing a problem as they dont use it and given that the problem is so evident in the Mini community half of them have bailed out of their own racal tech trees and opted for other weapons, so half our own people cant see this as a problem to report. If EVE justice is going to be "noisest cog" syndrome, then might as well have the mini race wiped out as we have loud voices but the numbers a dwindling. Just because our gear is the last to be looked at, either as it was balanced to begin with or over loaded resulting in the others getting the tweek they needed, we have been over looked. Well done Sarmaul, right or wrong its a good bit of work you have done.
Damien Vox	Posted - 2006.03.23 02:58:00 - [199] Has anyone looked at this from the RP side? At all? 150's allow you to fit a tank or whatever you want because they give grid/cpu, etc. 200mm AC's are incredible in a gank set-up using AC's, as are 425's and 650's. Guess what? Minmatar ships shine their best in packs. Hence how they fit in their RP settings. If you run a pack of ships around and put one minmatar ship in gank in that pack (whether it be a BS pack, cruiser pack, frig, etc) and that ship is fitted to gank it gives an advantage to that pack that no other ship in that pack can give. Why? Because it can provide so much damage in those first three salvos, or in the 200's case overall, that it gives the group an advantage to possibly kill more ships then it could have and do so quickly and efficiently. I hate hearing about balancing the tempest and people bringing in fleet set-ups. I really do. I fly a wolf and jag mainly, that is my specialty and honestly I do wish for more grid/cpu on the Wolf and Jag but you know what? I scare the crap out of people in it anyways. What AF do you know that can deal out 500+ hits from ONE gun. Do you know how demoralizing hitting a frigate or cruiser for that much is? Autocannons with barrage = death. I fought a caracal last week and ate through it like it was paper with that stuff. You may want to boost AC's and I may agree to a degree (I say increase clip size on the 200mm rather then its dmg mod) but overall I think they fit perfectly within the RP aspects of the minmatar design.
Theron Gyrow	Posted - 2006.03.23 07:27:00 - [200] Originally by: Damien Vox Autocannons with barrage = death. I fought a caracal last week and ate through it like it was paper with that stuff. You may want to boost AC's and I may agree to a degree (I say increase clip size on the 200mm rather then its dmg mod) but overall I think they fit perfectly within the RP aspects of the minmatar design. I don't know, I personally have problems eating paper... But seriously, agreed completely. It looks like the problem could be fixed by increasing the top-tier ACs' clip size without causing balance problems. -- Gradient's forum
Rak'Kabal Kain	Posted - 2006.03.23 09:17:00 - [201] I really dont see why there is so much h8 in here, if you cant accept that some people will not agree with you then I think you should not post. At the end of the day AC still work, almost all of the fights that I have been in I have never needed to reload. If you have to reload then odds are your bitting more then you can chew. Dont get me wrong if you can get AC's boosted then more power to you, but they are not the broken weapon that you make them out to be.
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.03.23 10:02:00 - [202] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 23/03/2006 10:03:56 I see little point in using 200mm ACs, 425mm and 800mm. They simply don't stand on their own as usefull tools. when Large Hybrid Blasters get love and are fixed there will be clear definition between the tiers at the small, medium, and large. They have their distict advantages and disadvantages. Top Tier Autocannons have no distict advantage considering the optimal range, falloff, rate of fire and tracking of the weapon class. The damage dealt just isn't spectacular compared to Dual 650mms. To play devils advocate... do we really need Damage per second as teh clear definative of the gun? I think optimal range and falloff should be increased by 30% or some reasonable number to make operational range the reason why you'd choose an 800mm over a Dual 650. my 0.02isk Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Sun Ra	Posted - 2006.03.23 10:19:00 - [203] All these blaster whiners should stfu, im sure you'd be happy if neautrons damage was lowered to be the same as ions?? yeah didnt think so Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas'
Wilfan Ret'nub	Posted - 2006.03.23 11:21:00 - [204] Originally by: Damien Vox Why? Because it can provide so much damage in those first three salvos, or in the 200's case overall, that it gives the group an advantage to possibly kill more ships then it could have and do so quickly and efficiently. Ah, good old Lanchester Square Law (introduction, real deal). Rarely seen in RL, but omnipresent in computer games. Unfortunatly, these naughty graphs show that the "alpha-strike" advantage of highest tier ACs (200mm in this case) is barely noticable. And mind the disclaimer in the original post when reading the graphs! I guess it wouldn't influence gang-vs-gang outcome by much. To anyone that would like to see the exact difference: equations are in the second link .
Fredbob	Posted - 2006.03.23 11:48:00 - [205] Personally, I'd rather have arties looked at than autos.. Yeah certain autos are useless compared to others, but at least we have a weapon of each size worth using :), I can't say the same for arties. But hey you didn't want to look at wider picture so I'll stfu :p If the less-useful autos were to be changed I'd rather see a variety of tracking, falloff or clipsize rather than pure dps increments. I use 220mm vulcan IIs on a vagabond, 425mm IIs don't do much more dmg (if at all), have lower tracking (fast ship means tracking is important, as you're having to compensate for your opponents movements and your own high orbit speed), they're easier to fit, and higher RoF to go with the ship bonus - giving a stronger all round setup using smaller guns! It would be nice if 425mm IIs had a certain edge for their higher fitting, something that would make them stronger against larger opponents maybe?.. Maybe not having to reload so much which would make little difference against smaller ships but against say a BS it would increase your overall damage considerably... or something like that :) Then again, I don't consider changing autos a priority myself ___________ ~Fredbob~
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.23 12:18:00 - [206] now that's better - people discussing the issue at hand rather than trying to derail the thread and demean my intentions :). as for artillery, I will be posting on that once the final values for t2 tachs are released.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.23 12:26:00 - [207] oh, I'm still waiting for those elusive gold bars telling me to 1) stfu that's how it should be and these are the reasons why: ... 2) we didn't know this, but we're not changing it until after kali 3) omg we love you, here's a titan and we'll fix it this afternoon
Sun Ra	Posted - 2006.03.23 12:43:00 - [208] Fredbob has a point Arcane Frankologies - 'plz stop guys it's xmas'
Sentille	Posted - 2006.03.23 13:48:00 - [209] omg Sarmaul look what you did Good to see the debate still ongoing. Summary so far: (imo) 1. TOP TIER Autocannons have little value over Med tier autocannons due to DPS, fitting, ROF and tracking issues incumbent with them, figures from Sarmaul are fairly conclusive. 2. DC doesn't agree 3. General concensus that increasing the clip size of TOP TIER Autocannons would offer the best initial solution to see what effect this has on the DPS equation without the need to alter any of the existing characteristics of the weapons. 4. Reducing or omitting completely the reload of autocannons (except when changing ammo types) is also something worth exploring, although no reload would negate the need of a larger clip size. 5. DC still doesn't agree 6. Additional refinements to ROF, tracking, fitting, DMG mod, optimal and falloff, should also be considered where appropriate. 7. We all <3 Sarmaul for applying some maths to Matari pilot frustrations. 8. Except DC ofc worthy bump.
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.03.23 13:53:00 - [210] Can't wait for the atry thread, personally i have a great setup using 1200mms and a tank. Just need a denerf on the 1200mms now :) So where are all the nice devs to respond to this coherant and consistantly argued thread? Here ccp here ccp... sgb
Diana Merris	Posted - 2006.03.23 14:02:00 - [211] Originally by: Sarmaul Edited by: Sarmaul on 22/03/2006 17:22:30 Originally by: Diana Merris Edited by: Diana Merris on 22/03/2006 15:04:52 Quote: - reducing the dps of the middle tier autocannons How could that be a valid balance option when Sarmaul's numbers clearly show that they have the same percentage increase as the low -> middle tier blasters? Sarmaul, if you want to show clearer results for the lasers the quad light beam laser is acually the smallest "pulse" laser for cruisers. Only large lasers are missing the smallest pulse and have the Tachyon instead. I hate to point this out, but Quad Light Beams are Beams, not Pulses (unless I'm missing something) Well, I suppose you got confused because CCP themselves are confused. The gun is classed in the beam category but the stats are clearly the medium version of the Gatling Pulse. Same damage mod, 50% slower RoF and twice the ranges. Also, in reference to the post about missing guns: projectile guns are not missing a set of guns, hybreds were given an extra long range gun (125mm,200mm,350mm).
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.23 17:39:00 - [212] Originally by: Sentille omg Sarmaul look what you did Good to see the debate still ongoing. Summary so far: (imo) 1. TOP TIER Autocannons have little value over Med tier autocannons due to DPS, fitting, ROF and tracking issues incumbent with them, figures from Sarmaul are fairly conclusive. 2. DC doesn't agree 3. General concensus that increasing the clip size of TOP TIER Autocannons would offer the best initial solution to see what effect this has on the DPS equation without the need to alter any of the existing characteristics of the weapons. 4. Reducing or omitting completely the reload of autocannons (except when changing ammo types) is also something worth exploring, although no reload would negate the need of a larger clip size. 5. DC still doesn't agree 6. Additional refinements to ROF, tracking, fitting, DMG mod, optimal and falloff, should also be considered where appropriate. 7. We all <3 Sarmaul for applying some maths to Matari pilot frustrations. 8. Except DC ofc worthy bump. nicely done
Imhotep Khem	Posted - 2006.03.23 18:02:00 - [213] I think I missed something. Is someone claiming that 425mm autocannons(M) put out as much damage as 800mm Autocannons(L)? ____ If your not dyin' your not tryin'.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.23 18:04:00 - [214] Originally by: Imhotep Khem I think I missed something. Is someone claiming that 425mm autocannons(M) put out as much damage as 800mm Autocannons(L)? no they (I) am claiming that 425mm autocannons do the same dps as the size below (220mm autocannons), much like 800ms do the same dps as the size below (dual 650mm autocannons). Originally by: HippoKing I have a promble
Happysin	Posted - 2006.03.23 20:34:00 - [215] Not to add fuel to the fire, but DC, you're wrong, simple as that. Your logic is flawed and you follow it to conclusions that are nonsensical at best, and actively harmful to people that actually try to RP Minmitar at worst. Top tier ACs need some kind of rebalance, if only to have some reason to use them over mid-tier. Nerfing mid-tier woudl also require nerfing low-tier, and nerfing low-tier would make new players give up on Minmitar (and thus possibly EVE) much too fast. I personally don't have a problem with being the lowest DPS race, as I like being fast. That doesn't change the fact that the ratios as they stand are broken, and a bump to top-tier ACs makes the most sense.
Ooiittee	Posted - 2006.03.23 21:42:00 - [216] Didnt see this on the front page of the forum, think we should bump it till something is done. Fix it or explain that it is the way it is intentionally.
Wulfgard	Posted - 2006.03.24 04:54:00 - [217] Auto cannon Tempest must be able to tank to survive and win an encounter vs another BS. Fit 800s on you Tempest and your kill your tank. The added dmg is only marginal, result you end up in an egg. Happy Easter btw
Harper04	Posted - 2006.03.24 04:57:00 - [218] I'm personally a blaster lover, but one of my corpm8's is a hardcore tempest pilot. Fix both so that we can stop arguing and go mine veld...errr...
Golgrath	Posted - 2006.03.24 06:31:00 - [219] Dunno if this has already been suggested, but CCP could double the dmg mod and rof of top tier ac's, keeping the dps same (slight increase cuz of less reloading). This would go nicely with the name 'repeating artillery'. 800's would be great npcing guns. I still wouldnt use em for pvp over dual650's though because of fitting reqs.
Yzman Shhan	Posted - 2006.03.24 10:55:00 - [220] Nice post covering real issues just like has been requested from the players and still no gold bars? Also, Sarmaul: Get working on that arty thread, I need more things to whine about -- No sig ftw!
Anjerrai Meloanis	Posted - 2006.03.24 11:04:00 - [221] Originally by: Sun Ra All these blaster whiners should stfu, im sure you'd be happy if neautrons damage was lowered to be the same as ions?? yeah didnt think so hehe, thats so true uh.
Entilzah Valen	Posted - 2006.03.24 11:52:00 - [222] Originally by: Uther Doull Edited by: Uther Doull on 17/03/2006 16:28:20 that would just be another skill that every1 has at 5 Originally by: Smartacus How about. CCP gets rid of RELOADING in any way, shape or form. No reloading what so ever for any race. I mean c'mon we are flying highly advanced spaceships in freakin space. Yet i need to reload my gun Just get rid of it. Will solve a lot of these underpowered guns. hmm, that's a really good idea actually I agree, prehaps the best way would be only for the 10 relead to take effect only when you switch ammo types.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.24 17:24:00 - [223] bumpety bump more figures coming tonight if I can be bothered :) Originally by: Tassi Projectile very overpowdered
Felxia	Posted - 2006.03.24 17:34:00 - [224] Originally by: Sarmaul bumpety bump more figures coming tonight if I can be bothered :) dude odn't bump this thread if it's dying
Great Artista	Posted - 2006.03.24 17:36:00 - [225] DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU HAVE DONE?!! NOOOO!! Now they are going to nerf med sized Autos! FFS! Think before you post!! Anyone that can use calculator can easily prove that AC's are superb. And just when I was finishing my skills on Minnie guns/ships... Fights are over before anyone can reload, EMP ammo makes superrior damage types, and has the DPS of blaster (allmost), but since blasters make crappy and easily tankable damage types; PROJECTILES OUTPWNS THEM! Next time you get a brilliant idea, forget it. -------------
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.24 17:37:00 - [226] Originally by: Great Artista DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU HAVE DONE?!! NOOOO!! Now they are going to nerf med sized Autos! FFS! Think before you post!! Anyone that can use calculator can easily prove that AC's are superb. And just when I was finishing my skills on Minnie guns/ships... Fights are over before anyone can reload, EMP ammo makes superrior damage types, and has the DPS of blaster (allmost), but since blasters make crappy and easily tankable damage types; PROJECTILES OUTPWNS THEM! Next time you get a brilliant idea, forget it. erm... lol Originally by: Tassi Projectile very overpowdered
Wilfan Ret'nub	Posted - 2006.03.24 19:09:00 - [227] 3 pages of flames and trolling, sprinkled with some solid arguments, but nobody noticed a typo in thread title...
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.24 19:41:00 - [228] Originally by: Wilfan Ret'nub 3 pages of flames and trolling, sprinkled with some solid arguments, but nobody noticed a typo in thread title... fixed Originally by: Tassi Projectile very overpowdered
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.03.24 19:42:00 - [229] Originally by: Great Artista DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT YOU HAVE DONE?!! NOOOO!! Now they are going to nerf med sized Autos! FFS! Think before you post!! Anyone that can use calculator can easily prove that AC's are superb. And just when I was finishing my skills on Minnie guns/ships... Fights are over before anyone can reload, EMP ammo makes superrior damage types, and has the DPS of blaster (allmost), but since blasters make crappy and easily tankable damage types; PROJECTILES OUTPWNS THEM! Next time you get a brilliant idea, forget it. Sarcasm for the win
Great Artista	Posted - 2006.03.24 19:52:00 - [230] \o/ I got the first trolling that had actual point, AC's ARE SUPER! Devs, lock this thread and ignore it, since it has no point, I want to keep my overPOWdered guns. Now lets see... HAA!! INTERESTING TOPIC AT THE GENERAL DISCUSSION SECTION! Someone is trying to make a new proposal for PvP! I must flat... I mean, make a interesting post! Come Kilo, we have work to do! -------------
M00dy	Posted - 2006.03.24 20:25:00 - [231] Sarmaul FTW!!!!1111
gron alt	Posted - 2006.03.24 20:37:00 - [232] Originally by: Sun Ra All these blaster whiners should stfu, im sure you'd be happy if neautrons damage was lowered to be the same as ions?? yeah didnt think so oh no , not the whole 3% more damage our neutrons do over our ions, shock. what you guys are missing imo and its something that would solve all off this, is that you are in a position that your fall off for your AC are all the same, now neutrons do 3% more dps iirc than ions but i try fit neutrons becase of the increased falloff. nerf the falloff of lower tier AC!!! then you can have the 2% more dps to your highest tier to put them in line with lasers/hybrids, i mean you cant have best of both it is stupid that you got same falloff for your lower tier AC, lower the smaller tier fall off becase all otehr guns follow that trend. since we want ac dps to follow the trend.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.24 20:46:00 - [233] \o/ Originally by: gron alt oh no , not the whole 3% more damage our neutrons do over our ions, shock. 6.1% with antimatter. I don't fly gallente and even I know that Originally by: Tassi Projectile very overpowdered
Harper04	Posted - 2006.03.24 21:29:00 - [234] Originally by: Sarmaul \o/ Originally by: gron alt oh no , not the whole 3% more damage our neutrons do over our ions, shock. 6.1% with antimatter. I don't fly gallente and even I know that Blasters are getting fixed also...leave the AC people alone. /emote is a blaster user. Besides, I wanna pwn them AFTER both are fixed and nobody has room left to complain either way .
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.03.24 21:30:00 - [235] Originally by: Sarmaul \o/ Originally by: gron alt oh no , not the whole 3% more damage our neutrons do over our ions, shock. 6.1% with antimatter. I don't fly gallente and even I know that ion t2 cannon / neutron t2 cannon = 0.9741... that makes like 2.5%, no matter what ammo you use. And when you apply skills on that it is still less than 3.5%... Yeah i divided normalized damages ... (0.51 for ions and 0.53 for neuts and omg 0.39 for dual 650, however with rof bonus it becomes 0.52... minmater isn't dmg race anyone? ) however neuts have 10km falloff, ions have 8 and electrons have 6... yes that makes like 1/3 of dual 425mm ac falloff with maxed skills. I think they should variate AC falloff and you would see reason for fitting 800mm acs over dual 650. Originally by: Commander Nikolas People like Lukec are the problem and they know it. Shin Ra's Raven has 4x WCS, Lukec's Dominix has 5x WCS & Ishtar has 2x WCS. Antipiracy is causing brain damage
Tachy	Posted - 2006.03.25 07:23:00 - [236] I have a good reason to use top tier AC on my ships for pve: They're cheaper than their smaller cousins. --==*-- Megadon CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.03.25 11:52:00 - [237] Originally by: Tachy I have a good reason to use top tier AC on my ships for pve: They're cheaper than their smaller cousins. I perfectly agree with OP that... there is no benefit in fitting top ACs... however it is not because they suck, but because lower tiers are unbalanced... cough 8km falloff on dual 180 for example. Originally by: Commander Nikolas People like Lukec are the problem and they know it. Shin Ra's Raven has 4x WCS, Lukec's Dominix has 5x WCS & Ishtar has 2x WCS. Antipiracy is causing brain damage
Kolhell	Posted - 2006.03.29 09:51:00 - [238] Originally by: Hugh Ruka Nice topic and very well writen Sarmaul. I learned a bit about autocannons. Now I am a total ignorant about guns (except rails) as I am a Caldari missile user. So I appologize if I screw this up for lack of information. As I understand, projectile ammo has various size ? I mean you fit different number of emp than e.g. depleted uranium in the same gun right ? Then what about making all the projectile ammo in one size class the same volume ? I think hybrid ammo works this way and with similar clip size reductions from lower to higher caliber guns and there are no problems. Now the deciding factor is reload time, so we need to make the guns fire longer on one magazine. This can be done by increasing clip size AND/OR changing ammo volume. never saw a reply to this so im gonna do the math for putting DU on the ruppie instead of EMP (DU is the smallest projectile ammo at 1/2 the size of EMP) Originally by: Sarmaul 220mm Autocannon II on a Rupture, with EMP M Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.25 (Rupture) x 1.58125 = 3.91359375 Damage Per Shot: 3.91359375 x 22 = 86.0990625 Rate of Fire: 3.38 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Rupture) = 1.8252 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.05 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 1.8252 x 80 + 10 = 156.016 seconds Damage per magazine: 80 x 86.0990625 = 6887.925 Damage Per Second: 6887.925 / 156.016 = 44.148837298738590913752435647626 DPS 425mm Autocannon II on a Rupture, with EMP M Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.25 x 1.58125 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 22 = 100.44890625 Rate of Fire: 3.75 x 0.75 x 0.72 = 2.025 Number of Shots: 2 / 0.05 = 40 Magazine Firing Time: 2.025 x 40 + 10 = 91 seconds Damage per magazine: 40 x 100.44890625 = 4017.95625 Damage Per Second: 4017.95625 / 91 = 44.153365384615384615384615384615 DPS 220mm Autocannon II on a Rupture, with DU M Damage Mod: 1.98 (base) x 1.25 (Rupture) x 1.58125 = 3.91359375 Damage Per Shot: 3.91359375 x 16 = 62.6175 Rate of Fire: 3.38 (base) x 0.72 x 0.75 (Rupture) = 1.8252 Number of Shots: 4 / 0.025 = 160 Magazine Firing Time: 1.8252 x 160 + 10 = 302.032 seconds Damage per magazine: 160 x 62.6175 = 10018.8 Damage Per Second: 10018.8 / 302.032 = 33.171319595274672882343592731896 DPS 425mm Autocannon II on a Rupture, with EMP M Damage Mod: 2.31 (base) x 1.25 x 1.58125 = 4.565859375 Damage Per Shot: 4.565859375 x 16 = 73.05375 Rate of Fire: 3.75 x 0.75 x 0.72 = 2.025 Number of Shots: 2 / 0.025 = 80 Magazine Firing Time: 2.025 x 80 + 10 = 172 seconds Damage per magazine: 80 x 73.05375 = 5844.3 Damage Per Second: 5844.3 / 172 = 33.978488372093023255813953488372 DPS a rupture using emp in 425s does 0% more dps than 220s a rupture using du in 425s does 2.43% more dps than 220s the solution is obvious - we must all start running 425s with DU to truely capitalize on the 425s having a higher damage per shot and optimal range than the 220s! but all sarcasm aside... the "high end" acs really do suck, but i always seem to end up using them cuz if my ship has more than 10 spare pg i get ****y :( ------------------------- bury the hatchet
Inhabitant	Posted - 2006.03.29 11:07:00 - [239] Edited by: Inhabitant on 29/03/2006 11:11:28 this is one of the best threads in this forum ... flaming of others doen¦t change it. what i miss is a STATEMENT OF THE GM¦S. knock-knock someone there? oh no, i forgot, the gm¦s might be gallente or amarr in a jove mask! it seems they seriously think to change the blasters and tachs first: devs statement
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.03.29 11:26:00 - [240] 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 Originally by: Tuxford we look at them say "wow autocannons sure do suck,... oh well lets go boost amarr".
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]

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.