| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Testy Mctest
   |
Posted - 2006.04.25 11:56:00 -
[1]
In the spirit of the blaster thread of the same name, could you possibly update us on how your research into artillery fixing is going (or not going)?
Particularly:
*as to the balance issues between 'smaller' size artilleries (250, 650, 1200) and larger sizes
*as to artillery fitting requirements in general, but more specifically, small and medium artillery fitting requirements
*as to the general dps and tracking of artillery, again particularly small and medium artillery.
Many thanks.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
wierchas noobhunter
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 11:58:00 -
[2]
nope they gona fix beam lasers
artys are to uber 
i will be nice
Naughty - don't discuss moderation on the forums! - Cathath |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 12:16:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: wierchas noobhunter
nope they gona fix beam lasers
artys are to uber
1400mm Arty isn't bad. Its fine in fleet battles, at least.
The other 5 artilleries, though.....that's another story.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
wierchas noobhunter
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 12:20:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Testy Mctest
Originally by: wierchas noobhunter
nope they gona fix beam lasers
artys are to uber
1400mm Arty isn't bad. Its fine in fleet battles, at least.
The other 5 artilleries, though.....that's another story.
yeah it is
but artys realy need some love
i will be nice
Naughty - don't discuss moderation on the forums! - Cathath |
Deros
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 12:47:00 -
[5]
hopefully once the test server reappears and the blaster changes are played with, we can get some love for them, cant wait for AF changes as well.
D
|
Kaleeb
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:31:00 -
[6]
Autocannons need looking at aswel as those sexy arties
 |
Forsch
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:34:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Kaleeb
Autocannons need looking at aswel as those sexy arties
/agree. fitting requirements of ACs are way too low.
Forsch
Defender of the empire |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:37:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Testy Mctest on 25/04/2006 13:37:17
Originally by: Forsch
Originally by: Kaleeb
Autocannons need looking at aswel as those sexy arties
/agree. fitting requirements of ACs are way too low.
Oh look, its Forsch. Yay.
ACs could do with some changes, notably the largest of each class. Also, ammo consumption and cap usage could do with an eye on it.
However, these are by no means urgent, whereas the artillery issues are.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Kaleeb
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:37:00 -
[9]
Cant believe I said that i`m a gallente pilot ffs lol
|
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:40:00 -
[10]
Agreed, both could do with a look at, especially with regard to the 'useless' catagories of both top tier autocannons and bottom tier arties.
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:42:00 -
[11]
Originally by: smallgreenblur
Agreed, both could do with a look at, especially with regard to the 'useless' catagories of both top tier autocannons and bottom tier arties.
sgb
High tier ACs arent useless, but only for the fact that they use less ammo than the rest. However, as AC DPS isn't fantastic, they could easily use a DPS boost to differentiate them from mid tier ACs, using the same logic as for the Tachyon boost.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Kaleeb
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:44:00 -
[12]
I was sat with Cerberix last night using quickfit and the dps of a 6x 425II temp with no damage mods was less than an apoc with 4x mega pulse II. Is quickfit wrong? If thats right its shocking.
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:45:00 -
[13]
i have yet to see any good arguments to boost anything you say apart from clip size/amo size in arts.
DPS: use the correct ammo you can incrase that considerably, your guns use near to no cap, have best burst damage[arts]
fitting requirments: i havent looked into arts but AC are more than easy to fit
Tracking, at 150km your -20% tracking is gona make a difference in hitting bs and crusiers? fyi iirc at past 30km all the large guns track all the other BS more than fine, so at 150km there is no problem at all
AC track fine!
my higher tier AC does less damage than my medium tier: this is not true at ALL, it does more dmaage, it does only slighly more damage WHEN TAKING RELAOD INTO ACCOUNT, take a look at blasters and take reload into account. if u really want boost the t2 800mm by 2% and u get exactly same as ions-neutrons
and on top of all that you cant balance one system to anoter without looking the the whole picture, your ships are faster and have lower sig i dont go crying for galante ships to be made faster and have lower sig. take into account your ships are better than all other ships in terms of sig/speed thus something else about your race needs to be lower than the oterh races to compensate, AKA DPS
-------------------Sig-----------------------
IPO idea: give it a read, feedback wanted, thanks |
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:46:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kaleeb
I was sat with Cerberix last night using quickfit and the dps of a 6x 425II temp with no damage mods was less than an apoc with 4x mega pulse II. Is quickfit wrong? If thats right its shocking.
you are mistaken!
-------------------Sig-----------------------
IPO idea: give it a read, feedback wanted, thanks |
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:50:00 -
[15]
Edited by: smallgreenblur on 25/04/2006 13:51:19
Originally by: Gronsak
i have yet to see any good arguments to boost anything you say apart from clip size/amo size in arts.
DPS: use the correct ammo you can incrase that considerably, your guns use near to no cap, have best burst damage[arts]
fitting requirments: i havent looked into arts but AC are more than easy to fit
Tracking, at 150km your -20% tracking is gona make a difference in hitting bs and crusiers? fyi iirc at past 30km all the large guns track all the other BS more than fine, so at 150km there is no problem at all
AC track fine!
my higher tier AC does less damage than my medium tier: this is not true at ALL, it does more dmaage, it does only slighly more damage WHEN TAKING RELAOD INTO ACCOUNT, take a look at blasters and take reload into account. if u really want boost the t2 800mm by 2% and u get exactly same as ions-neutrons
and on top of all that you cant balance one system to anoter without looking the the whole picture, your ships are faster and have lower sig i dont go crying for galante ships to be made faster and have lower sig. take into account your ships are better than all other ships in terms of sig/speed thus something else about your race needs to be lower than the oterh races to compensate, AKA DPS
Can you check the actual issues here? The problem is with low tier arties, they are useless. Try using them and you'll see why.
Top tier autos i would be very very happy to see a boost in clip size and a 2% increase in damage, to put them in line with the other 2 tiers.
Tracking is not really an issue with minmatar, we accept that we are not going to hit things with arties and we use our falloff effectively in autocannons.
DPS - well we have t2 ammo which only gives us the choice of exp and kin damage. We can also switch to emp for less overall damage but better emp. We can also switch to phased plasma for even less overall damage but more thermal. None of that changes the fact you are accepting a good 20% dps reduction in the hope that the person you are fighting doesn't have the big gap in his resistances filled. Edit: not to mention the 10-12 second loss of firing time to reload in the middle of a battle...
Unless you fly minmatar ships, and i believe you are an ammar specialist, it is very easy to look at the pros and none of the cons. Please try and see this from both sides of the argument, as i have for blasters and tachs.
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Gronsak
i have yet to see any good arguments to boost anything you say apart from clip size/amo size in arts.
DPS: use the correct ammo you can incrase that considerably, your guns use near to no cap, have best burst damage[arts]
fitting requirments: i havent looked into arts but AC are more than easy to fit
Tracking, at 150km your -20% tracking is gona make a difference in hitting bs and crusiers? fyi iirc at past 30km all the large guns track all the other BS more than fine, so at 150km there is no problem at all
AC track fine!
my higher tier AC does less damage than my medium tier: this is not true at ALL, it does more dmaage, it does only slighly more damage WHEN TAKING RELAOD INTO ACCOUNT, take a look at blasters and take reload into account. if u really want boost the t2 800mm by 2% and u get exactly same as ions-neutrons
and on top of all that you cant balance one system to anoter without looking the the whole picture, your ships are faster and have lower sig i dont go crying for galante ships to be made faster and have lower sig. take into account your ships are better than all other ships in terms of sig/speed thus something else about your race needs to be lower than the oterh races to compensate, AKA DPS
I quite know all of your points already. However, for some reason you seem to think that if anything else ever gets looked at, then blasters wont, and hence you proceed to troll every thread involving balance of anything but blasters.
Also, please read properly. I dont mention fitting changes for acs, tracking changes for acs, or most of the things that you mention. This thread is primarily about artillery. We've had all the arguments and the stats before, and Tux has replied before and acknowledged one of the major threads. I'd just like to know how/if he's getting on with it, and think it'd be fair to see arty changes at the same time as the blaster changes, if any, since they both need loving equally.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:52:00 -
[17]
Keeping us poor minnies informed ftw :)
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 13:56:00 -
[18]
I would certainly like to see the 'oversized' versions of weapons in the medium/large classes, operate at a lower tracking speed/sig radius than the others.
|
Forsch
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 14:44:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Testy Mctest
Oh look, its Forsch. Yay.
I just couldn't resist. 
Free bump for my friend Testy.
Forsch
Defender of the empire |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 14:54:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Forsch
Originally by: Testy Mctest
Oh look, its Forsch. Yay.
I just couldn't resist.
Free bump for my friend Testy.
I'd rather have you than Gronsak :)
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:06:00 -
[21]
*Tuxford advises all to put on flame retardant suit because here comes the flames
Haven't really started with artilleries. One thing I have noticed that the 250mm artillery look lot worse compared to 280mm howitzers than 125mm rails look compared to 150mm rails. The tracking is a bit crappy as well but its supposed to be crappy. The real question is, is it too crappy.
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
_______________ |
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:07:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Tuxford
*Tuxford advises all to put on flame retardant suit because here comes the flames
Haven't really started with artilleries. One thing I have noticed that the 250mm artillery look lot worse compared to 280mm howitzers than 125mm rails look compared to 150mm rails. The tracking is a bit crappy as well but its supposed to be crappy. The real question is, is it too crappy.
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
Omg... my ac tempest/ slepnir thanks you....
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:10:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Tuxford
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
*Bows* *tears of happyness*   
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:11:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Tuxford
*Tuxford advises all to put on flame retardant suit because here comes the flames
Haven't really started with artilleries. One thing I have noticed that the 250mm artillery look lot worse compared to 280mm howitzers than 125mm rails look compared to 150mm rails. The tracking is a bit crappy as well but its supposed to be crappy. The real question is, is it too crappy.
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
do you mean that none of the projectile turrets will have cap use, like launchers are atm?
if yes, great, I wouldn't mind even if all projectiles would use cap, just not like now where small don't and the others do (as well as being the same across all in the same size)
-
phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
Zendor
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Tuxford
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
|
Forsch
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:19:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tuxford
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
uuuhh.... what? 
Forsch
Defender of the empire |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:20:00 -
[27]
ehh, the cap need was the last thing which had to go 
Jawas are lousy carebears :(
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:23:00 -
[28]
"uuuhh.... what? "
Typhoon prices are gonna go up... :s
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:26:00 -
[29]
Originally by: j0sephine
"uuuhh.... what? "
Typhoon prices are gonna go up... :s
yay, flavvah of the month goes to minnies for a change 
-
phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
FireFoxx80
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:30:00 -
[30]
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
|
Sadist
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:40:00 -
[31]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
Again.
---------------
VIP member of the [23]
Quote:
- Numbers alone do not win a battle
- No, but I bet they help.
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:41:00 -
[32]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
yes 
one of the great advantages of missiles and small proj is you can keep shooting even if ur nosed to zero cap, thanks im sure the medium and large mini guns needed this
-------------------Sig-----------------------
IPO idea: give it a read, feedback wanted, thanks |
Forsch
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:51:00 -
[33]
That's something I agree on with Gronsak. This is yet another blow to the amarr that actually use amarr ships against their racial enemy. Laser dmg is already very bad against minmatar and now nos will lose out on effectivness. Why again should I use amarr ships/weapons against my racial enemy?
As it stands, caldari and gallente are alot better but really, it shouldn't be like this.
Where's the emperor when you need him? The amarrian fleet needs to think over their weapon systems (and get done with the invention of those damn explosive crystals!).
Forsch
Defender of the empire |
turnschuh
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:57:00 -
[34]
you dont need ammo though, so youc an have all your cargo full of cap boosters.
|
Kaleeb
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:58:00 -
[35]
Originally by: turnschuh
you dont need ammo though, so youc an have all your cargo full of cap boosters.
thats true not to mention instant reload
|
Kaleeb
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 15:58:00 -
[36]
Explosive crystals are the worst idea....ever.
|
Vina
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:03:00 -
[37]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
No, You have a ship called the "zealot" which gives 2 damage bonuses to guns that with no damage bonuses do more DPS than every other gun with 1 or 2.
-----------------------------------
btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai |
SIGMA KAPPA
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:06:00 -
[38]
Why should I need Amarr ships?
Maybe because of absolute superiority vs Minmatar in the two most important combat areas, damage and tanking?
And on top of that better tracking?
Removing energy usage is only one step, as it doesnt benefit long range tempests. Right now their dps is mediocre, and their alpha strike capabilities are far from what they have been before the armour nerf.
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:07:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Vina
Originally by: FireFoxx80
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
No, You have a ship called the "zealot" which gives 2 damage bonuses to guns that with no damage bonuses do more DPS than every other gun with 1 or 2.
with the ability to fit 4 guns WOOOOOTT look at my 4 whole guns
-------------------Sig-----------------------
IPO idea: give it a read, feedback wanted, thanks |
Zendor
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:11:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Gronsak
Originally by: Vina
Originally by: FireFoxx80
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
No, You have a ship called the "zealot" which gives 2 damage bonuses to guns that with no damage bonuses do more DPS than every other gun with 1 or 2.
with the ability to fit 4 guns WOOOOOTT look at my 4 whole guns
That's be the same number of guns as a Rupture or Stabber then?
|
Necrologic
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:12:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Gronsak
Originally by: Vina
Originally by: FireFoxx80
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
No, You have a ship called the "zealot" which gives 2 damage bonuses to guns that with no damage bonuses do more DPS than every other gun with 1 or 2.
with the ability to fit 4 guns WOOOOOTT look at my 4 whole guns
Zealot has as much dps as ships that have to fit 5 or 6 guns without having to use the grid/cpu to fit them. Also 7 lows.
|
Dampfschlaghammer
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:13:00 -
[42]
Suggestion to Amarr pilots: just load NaughtyBoys spread sheet, look at Amarrs dps compared to Minmatar, go to eve-tanking, look at Amarr tanking versus Minmatar, sit and relax while Tuxford thinks about ways to also give a boost to Minmatar long range battleships.
|
Forsch
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:14:00 -
[43]
Originally by: SIGMA KAPPA
Why should I need Amarr ships?
Maybe because of absolute superiority vs Minmatar in the two most important combat areas, damage and tanking?
And on top of that better tracking?
Explain to me how laser damage is superior against minmatar with them having 70% against EM on t1 ships and a crazy amount on t2?
It really makes not much sense to use lasers against them.
Better tracking? Yes because it is needed. Minmatar are faster and more agile while amarr ships move like bricks.
As long as another race's ships are more effective against the racial enemy, there is something wrong in my book.
Forsch
Defender of the empire |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:14:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Tuxford
*Tuxford advises all to put on flame retardant suit because here comes the flames
Haven't really started with artilleries. One thing I have noticed that the 250mm artillery look lot worse compared to 280mm howitzers than 125mm rails look compared to 150mm rails. The tracking is a bit crappy as well but its supposed to be crappy. The real question is, is it too crappy.
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
There won't be any flames from me, I just wanted to know where you were up to.
However, I assume even though you haven't started, that you are aware of the issues in the OP - without neccessarily acknowledging one way or the other, are you aware that these are actually issues and will they be addressed?
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:19:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Dampfschlaghammer
Suggestion to Amarr pilots: just load NaughtyBoys spread sheet, look at Amarrs dps compared to Minmatar, go to eve-tanking, look at Amarr tanking versus Minmatar, sit and relax while Tuxford thinks about ways to also give a boost to Minmatar long range battleships.
yes, this game is nothing but DPS and tanking,
it has nothing to do with slot layout, tracking, damage types, sig, flight time, burst damage, price,
and the best bit is, most of naughty boys spreedsheets are geared around at getting his points across,
also note average armor tank = 2/3 energized adaptive nanos, giving armor 80% EM which is a lot more than the otehr resistances! and guess waht amarr main damage type are and also take into account that 75% of ships armor tank, oh u dont want to hear taht just point at some near meaningless graph and bury your head in the sand
ppl that dont think for themselfs FTL
-------------------Sig-----------------------
IPO idea: give it a read, feedback wanted, thanks |
SIGMA KAPPA
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:22:00 -
[46]
With vs Minmatar I didnt refer to Amarr vs Minmatar, but general PvP capabilities of Minmatar vs general PvP capabilities of Amarr. Minnie resistances might be geared against Amarr, but this leaves resistance holes versus other races, as they dont have a higher total resistance.
Regarding Nos, I think the situation is fine. We have much less cap than you, so nos is very effective here against tanks, not so good against offensive capabilities though. Which perfectly fits the no-defense lots-of-offense appraoch of Minnies.
Also that argument about speed doesnt really make sense, in my opinion? Speed is relative, so Minnies who fly fast have not enough tracking, contrary to their Amarr opponent.
Basically it is enough that one of the two sides has the ability to fly fast, it doesnt matter who, to make tracking crucial.
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:23:00 -
[47]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
How do you come to that conclusion?
-
phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
Forsch
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:28:00 -
[48]
Originally by: SIGMA KAPPA
Also that argument about speed doesnt really make sense, in my opinion? Speed is relative, so Minnies who fly fast have not enough tracking, contrary to their Amarr opponent.
Basically it is enough that one of the two sides has the ability to fly fast, it doesnt matter who, to make tracking crucial.
Theoretically the one being orbited (amarr) should have 0m/s transversal velocity on the overview of the one orbiting (minmatar). That is if the orbiting ship flies a perfect circle. The guns would always face the target and wouldn't need to turn.
But we know it's not like this in game, so yea..
Still, it hurts roleplay alot if Amarrians have to resort to other race's ships because it's an advantage over their own ships.
Forsch
Defender of the empire |
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:39:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Gronsak
and the best bit is, most of naughty boys spreedsheets are geared around at getting his points across
Busted 
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:41:00 -
[50]
well the cap usage is a bad idea, besides the whining above.
It will be just another excuse that the minmatar guns wont get fixed (the way thy should get fixed imho).
Players: "Waha, Minmatars are useless for PvE and 30km fights"
Devs: "But you dont use CAP!"
For Tuxford:
Matari problems are: Autocannons are all the same, there is no real point for using anything except the smallest one.
Small and Medium howitzers are impossible to fit on their ships, you always need 1-2 PG modules, on the other side autocannons are too easy to fit!
Only 2 types of howitzers, and the smaller ones are completly useless. For 90% of the cases there is no point for them and 10% are cases were people use the Tempest for something every other BS does twice as good.
My Suggestion:
425er Autocannons stay the same
650er -> 7 ROF/3.21 damage mod (increased damage)
800er -> 16.89 ROF/7.623 damage mod (make it a alphastrike closeranger!)
Now some fitting changes:
650er -> 1800 PG/42 CPU
800er -> 2750 PG/60 CPU (much increased PG and CPU, but for alphastrike <3)
The poor 1200er Howitzer, never seen in combat (except for some poor noobs)
15 ROF/4.5 damage mod
2750 PG/50 CPU
Please allow us to do some armor tanking when using 1200er, Shield tanks just dont work on tempest
Jawas are lousy carebears :(
|
Hakera
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:42:00 -
[51]
gah and i was hoping for an increase in clip size, the reload times are the biggest downer on projectiles atm where dps is more beneificial than volley dmg.
|
Dampfschlaghammer
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:46:00 -
[52]
Well actually it does.
I just dont see the big advantages that offsets having low dps and tanking.
Slot layout? Fail to see Minnies advantage here. You are amour tanking and have lots of lows, we cant do anything right as we are the only race to have a strange mix of lows and mediums on most ships.
Tracking? You ve got more.
Damage Types? First of all, 10 seconds recharge are way too much in short-lived eve pvp - you cant adjust damage types. Also only matters for short range. Nobodoy who flies long range tempest will seriously change Tremor L for more appropriate damage types. Greatly overrated.
Sig radius? Clear advantage. So go ahead, take it into account in the spreadsheet. Only very small difference, even if you take locking time differences into account.
For long range combat, Naughty Boys spreadsheet contains all the information you need. You can account for the med slots by filling them with sb and tcs, do the same with amarr, and still have worse dps and worse tracking, and some lows as advantage on Amarr side. Damage types dont matter, and Minnies dont have more resistance in general, only versus Amarr. Please tell me what makes the spreadsheet so biased in your eyes?
At least for long range, there are no mysterious neglected other factors that play into the equation.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:51:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Forsch
That's something I agree on with Gronsak. This is yet another blow to the amarr that actually use amarr ships against their racial enemy. Laser dmg is already very bad against minmatar and now nos will lose out on effectivness. Why again should I use amarr ships/weapons against my racial enemy?
As it stands, caldari and gallente are alot better but really, it shouldn't be like this.
Where's the emperor when you need him? The amarrian fleet needs to think over their weapon systems (and get done with the invention of those damn explosive crystals!).
God help that the Minmatar develop technologies that make them more effective against their biggest enemies...
In any event, Nos will still give you more cap and will still help you break their tank, it just means that you can't stop them shooting you while you do it (which makes perfect sense - if projectile weapons have propellant built into each round and they're already powered, what are they drawing power from the capacitor for?).
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:55:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Dampfschlaghammer
Edited by: Dampfschlaghammer on 25/04/2006 16:47:08
Quote:
yes, this game is nothing but DPS and tanking,
Well actually it is.
I just dont see the big advantages that offsets having low dps and tanking.
look at the vagabond vs deimos [at killing other ships]
the deimos has a MUCH higher DPS, yet the vagabond is a lot more effective [ask anyone about that tbh they will tell you its true]
there slot layout : speed : acceleration : shield Extenders makes the vagabond a much better ship, now do u understand DPS is not everything?
the only place it may be considered very important is fleet battle but there burst damage is also very very important in which case mini ftw
-------------------Sig-----------------------
IPO idea: give it a read, feedback wanted, thanks |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 16:57:00 -
[55]
Please dont turn this into an us-vs-them discussion guys. Theres lots of threads out there already for that. And we've all been through the arguments before.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Harum Skarum
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 17:16:00 -
[56]
Even if it does not get removed, Projectile cap usage still needs to get fixed.
At the moment small guns dont use cap at all, medium T1 and T2 guns do but the medium named variants on the other hand have no energy usage.
Large T1 and named use 2 cap, T2 and faction 3 while T1/T2/named/faction Hybrids and Lasers all use the same amount.
With Hybrids and Energy turrets the long range guns use the most cap/sec and the smallest close range variant the least, since all Projectile turrets of the same size have the same cap usage its the complete opposite.
720/1400s use nearly no cap at all and d180/d425 ACs the most, lowering AC cap usage would bring them inline with Hybrids and Lasers.
|
Pesadel0
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 17:26:00 -
[57]
Originally by: FireFoxx80
So Hybrid/Laser users get screwed?
Yes you do
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 17:31:00 -
[58]
Edited by: keepiru on 25/04/2006 17:31:07
Can we have a big "we're screwed!" thread where you can all throw poo at each like so many monkeys and leave interesting threads poo-throwing free?
If I may be so bold, I feel it would be advantageous to all.
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
Soren
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 17:53:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Tuxford
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
But I trained controlled bursts lvl 5!!! lolz
________________________________________________
Inappropriate signature. --Jorauk
pfft.. all pictures were off the CCP website =\ --Soren |
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 18:22:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 25/04/2006 18:22:28
Originally by: Gronsak
yes, this game is nothing but DPS and tanking,
it has nothing to do with slot layout, tracking, damage types, sig, flight time, burst damage, price,
and the best bit is, most of naughty boys spreedsheets are geared around at getting his points across,
also note average armor tank = 2/3 energized adaptive nanos, giving armor 80% EM which is a lot more than the otehr resistances! and guess waht amarr main damage type are and also take into account that 75% of ships armor tank, oh u dont want to hear taht just point at some near meaningless graph and bury your head in the sand
ppl that dont think for themselfs FTL
amarr ships are (and if they aren't anymore they were, eg. gankgeddon) very popular, logically people would try and tank thermal and em. However take the other tanking type, shield tanking, against most shields amarr lasers just melt through it.
Originally by: Forsch
Originally by: SIGMA KAPPA
...
Theoretically the one being orbited (amarr) should have 0m/s transversal velocity on the overview of the one orbiting (minmatar). That is if the orbiting ship flies a perfect circle. The guns would always face the target and wouldn't need to turn.
But we know it's not like this in game, so yea..
You do know that the one orbiting should have 0 transversal since he is the one that is constantly turning to face the centre of the circle? The one in the center has to constantly adjust the turrets or ship to follow the orbiting craft. transversal velocity is the speed at which an object orbits in a circle around a fixed point.
Originally by: Forsch
Still, it hurts roleplay alot if Amarrians have to resort to other race's ships because it's an advantage over their own ships.
You don't have to use other ships, amarr ships are just as effective(and more) as any other race in damage and tanking, only thing amarr ships would lack is mid slots for ewar(and closely followed by gallente)
-
phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
madaluap
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 18:39:00 -
[61]
Edited by: madaluap on 25/04/2006 18:39:27
Without even taking a looking @ any race i believe that every gun in the game should have its purpose, some a bit less some a bit more, but without making another gun absolute. Maybe people want to make the 1200 used with a decent shieldtank, decent dmg and 1400 for pure gankage, which is not the case atm. This counts also for other weapons. Im mainly gallente specialised, but if AC guns and such dont have specific advantages over each other wtf is the point.
I dont get Tux, why do you boost tach dmg if they allready pwn, why reduce capusage on med and large AC guns, wtf who notices that on a cruiser or bs, ony when you are dry nossed...you are fecked anyway.
What i believe most people want is clear difference between weapons of the same size and class.
I hope you dont give blasters more falloff or something, they will just be AC guns without different damagetypes and insane capusage...
_________________________________________________
In worldwar 2 they called me *****slap |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 18:45:00 -
[62]
You notice it quite a lot on the vagabond, for example. With 5x 220 IIs and some gyros it puts quite a big dent in your cap, because of the ludicrous rof. Which is bad to begin with.
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
Mnengli Noiliffe
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 18:51:00 -
[63]
to compensate for this boost of pojectiles, throw laser/hybrid users a bone.
nothing huge, really.
just re-introduce that t2 ammo .. you know, explosive laser crystals and em hybrid charges...
|
SengH
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 18:56:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe
to compensate for this boost of pojectiles, throw laser/hybrid users a bone.
nothing huge, really.
just re-introduce that t2 ammo .. you know, explosive laser crystals and em hybrid charges...
To stop all the whining from the laser/hybrid users reduce their cap usage by the same amt. .5 Cap  and put it in the patchnotes as all guns have had a .5 cap reduction.
|
LordMordred
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 19:05:00 -
[65]
Quote:
I also removed all cap need from projectiles OMGOVERPOWEREDYARR!!!11111 we'll see if it sticks.
My Curse, curses you.
-----
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 19:13:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe
to compensate for this boost of pojectiles, throw laser/hybrid users a bone.
nothing huge, really.
just re-introduce that t2 ammo .. you know, explosive laser crystals and em hybrid charges...
lasers users have their tachyon boost.
hybrids are being looked at, i'd like some more info on that
why that particular T2 ammo was delayed was because they couldn't think of something equally spiffy for projectiles.
-
phew! dodged the mods on this sig!
|
Blind Man
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 19:14:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Blind Man on 25/04/2006 19:14:12
Can we please get a reason (ANYTHING) to fit 425mm med AC over 220mm's. my sleip is looking sad at 54% pg use
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2006.04.25 19:21:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Reatu Krentor
You do know that the one orbiting should have 0 transversal since he is the one that is constantly turning to face the centre of the circle? The one in the center has to constantly adjust the turrets or ship to follow the orbiting craft. transversal velocity is the speed at which an object orbits in a circle around a fixed point.
Also, the main engines of the circling craft should be pointed towards the center of the circle...
---
Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
Kaylana Syi
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 02:40:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Nafri
well the cap usage is a bad idea, besides the whining above.
It will be just another excuse that the minmatar guns wont get fixed (the way thy should get fixed imho).
Players: "Waha, Minmatars are useless for PvE and 30km fights"
Devs: "But you dont use CAP!"
For Tuxford:
Matari problems are: Autocannons are all the same, there is no real point for using anything except the smallest one.
Small and Medium howitzers are impossible to fit on their ships, you always need 1-2 PG modules, on the other side autocannons are too easy to fit!
Only 2 types of howitzers, and the smaller ones are completly useless. For 90% of the cases there is no point for them and 10% are cases were people use the Tempest for something every other BS does twice as good.
My Suggestion:
425er Autocannons stay the same
650er -> 7 ROF/3.21 damage mod (increased damage)
800er -> 16.89 ROF/7.623 damage mod (make it a alphastrike closeranger!)
Now some fitting changes:
650er -> 1800 PG/42 CPU
800er -> 2750 PG/60 CPU (much increased PG and CPU, but for alphastrike <3)
The poor 1200er Howitzer, never seen in combat (except for some poor noobs)
15 ROF/4.5 damage mod
2750 PG/50 CPU
Please allow us to do some armor tanking when using 1200er, Shield tanks just dont work on tempest
That is a very well thought out post. I hope tux looks at it.
Originally by: "Oveur"
I don't react to threats any better than you do
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 02:51:00 -
[70]
Well, i woudlnt mind too much if they didnt take off the cap use, so long as there was some CONSISTENCY.
Either take it off all the guns, or make all the guns use cap. And for gods sake it fix it up so dual 180s dont use 2.5x the cap of 425s, if you do.
Then you can go do the same with pre-applied resistance bonuses (my other consistency pet peeve)
----------------
Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief.
Barricades a speciality!
Last stands on request. |
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 08:47:00 -
[71]
Dear Tux, a few points from a long term minmatar pilot:
Before i start, thanks for replying to this thread so promptly.
Firstly, this cap idea is interesting, and would certainly solve the problem of minmatar doing less dps than other races. However it would also make projectiles overpowered compared to blasters (not compared to missiles and lasers, however), so any such change here needs to reflected in some blaster lovin. Furthermore, much as I would love to be able to continue firing when nossed to death, and much as this would solve a lot of the current nos problems, this is not the major issue facing minmatar right now.
We currently have 2 major problems. Top tier autocannons and bottom tier arties.
So, autocannons:
The top tier version of these (200mm, 425mm, 800mm) need, in my opinion, a 2% dps increase and double the clip size. Job done.
Autocannons are also a little too easy to fit, perhaps a 2-5% increase in pg use (can't believe i just said that ).
Arties:
Are very hard to fit. In fact if I fit 6 1400mmIIs to a ship i can't fit anything else that uses pg, and i need a grid mod. Same with 720mmIIs and a munin. Some slight pg reduction here would be benificial.
Low tier arties (250mms, 650mms, 1200mms) are pointless. They do considerably less damage for a slight trackng increase and less pg usage. I am not entirely sure how to fix this, except to suggest a small damage mod increase on these (not the top tier tho)
Also i am in favour of an increased damage mod overall but also increased rof, to keep dps the same but increase alpha on arties, keeping them ahead in that game, since that is what they do best.
Overall, projectiles need some love, but the cap thing is a lesser priority that fixing the 'useless' version of each turret classification. Yes thet do have some advantages but these tend to be outweighed by their disadvantages when compared to missiles and lasers. Bringing blasters and proj up rather than nerfing the other 2 is imo a balanced way of solving the problem.
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 08:50:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Blind Man
Edited by: Blind Man on 25/04/2006 19:14:12
Can we please get a reason (ANYTHING) to fit 425mm med AC over 220mm's. my sleip is looking sad at 54% pg use
Actually i use 425mmIIs on my sleip. Yes they do the same dot and the reloading is annoying, but before that first reload they do about 2% more damage. Might as well, i still got about 10% pg left even with them fitted...
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 08:52:00 -
[73]
Originally by: smallgreenblur
Dear Tux, a few points from a long term minmatar pilot:
Before i start, thanks for replying to this thread so promptly.
Firstly, this cap idea is interesting, and would certainly solve the problem of minmatar doing less dps than other races. However it would also make projectiles overpowered compared to blasters (not compared to missiles and lasers, however), so any such change here needs to reflected in some blaster lovin. Furthermore, much as I would love to be able to continue firing when nossed to death, and much as this would solve a lot of the current nos problems, this is not the major issue facing minmatar right now.
We currently have 2 major problems. Top tier autocannons and bottom tier arties.
So, autocannons:
The top tier version of these (200mm, 425mm, 800mm) need, in my opinion, a 2% dps increase and double the clip size. Job done.
Autocannons are also a little too easy to fit, perhaps a 2-5% increase in pg use (can't believe i just said that ).
Arties:
Are very hard to fit. In fact if I fit 6 1400mmIIs to a ship i can't fit anything else that uses pg, and i need a grid mod. Same with 720mmIIs and a munin. Some slight pg reduction here would be benificial.
Low tier arties (250mms, 650mms, 1200mms) are pointless. They do considerably less damage for a slight trackng increase and less pg usage. I am not entirely sure how to fix this, except to suggest a small damage mod increase on these (not the top tier tho)
Also i am in favour of an increased damage mod overall but also increased rof, to keep dps the same but increase alpha on arties, keeping them ahead in that game, since that is what they do best.
Overall, projectiles need some love, but the cap thing is a lesser priority that fixing the 'useless' version of each turret classification. Yes thet do have some advantages but these tend to be outweighed by their disadvantages when compared to missiles and lasers. Bringing blasters and proj up rather than nerfing the other 2 is imo a balanced way of solving the problem.
sgb
agree with all, but I belive that the 250's/650's/1200's would benefit more from a boost on the ROF instead of the dmg mod increase.
----------------
Originally by: Abdalion
Shoot him ingame if you don't like this person. If you do like him, go mine veldspar with him.
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 09:21:00 -
[74]
Originally by: smallgreenblur
Dear Tux, a few points from a long term minmatar pilot
I actually disagree with a lot of your points.
I believe lower alpha strikes are good for the game. I believe artillery needs a slight DPS increase, but that this should be done through RoF, and that a clip size increase would also be fair.
The *only* weapon that needed its cap use looking at was medium sized autocannons, they eat massive cap due to their insanely low rof, and Minmatar ships lack in the cap department as we all know.
Autocannons don't really need a DPS boost, but a small one might be fair. What they really need is increased clip size, and a lower rof with higher damage mod, keeping their dps similar but reducing both the cap used in total to fire (maybe no longer an issue if cap use is removed) and more importantly, the user's ammo concerns.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Arianne Lost
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 09:57:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Arianne Lost on 26/04/2006 09:57:32
Originally by: Testy Mctest
they eat massive cap due to their insanely low rof, and Minmatar ships lack in the cap department as we all know.
surely you mean high rof?
------------------
A cause is only lost when you fail to fight for it |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 10:15:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Arianne Lost
Edited by: Arianne Lost on 26/04/2006 09:57:32
Originally by: Testy Mctest
they eat massive cap due to their insanely low rof, and Minmatar ships lack in the cap department as we all know.
surely you mean high rof?
Semantics, really. I mean low rof as in their rof value is low. You mean high rof as in they fire rapidly. It amounts to the same thing.
Anyway....enough time wasted replying to an irrelevent post.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Keta Min
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 10:33:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Nafri
My Suggestion:
425er Autocannons stay the same
650er -> 7 ROF/3.21 damage mod (increased damage)
800er -> 16.89 ROF/7.623 damage mod (make it a alphastrike closeranger!)
Now some fitting changes:
650er -> 1800 PG/42 CPU
800er -> 2750 PG/60 CPU (much increased PG and CPU, but for alphastrike <3)
The poor 1200er Howitzer, never seen in combat (except for some poor noobs)
15 ROF/4.5 damage mod
2750 PG/50 CPU
Please allow us to do some armor tanking when using 1200er, Shield tanks just dont work on tempest
this is a very good and fair suggestion. making medium and top ACs worth fitting for some extra dmg while sacrificing the low fitting reqs. projectiles cap use really has to go though even if it will be used in pseudo arguments against minmatar.
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 10:57:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
Originally by: Nafri
well the cap usage is a bad idea, besides the whining above.
It will be just another excuse that the minmatar guns wont get fixed (the way thy should get fixed imho).
Players: "Waha, Minmatars are useless for PvE and 30km fights"
Devs: "But you dont use CAP!"
For Tuxford:
Matari problems are: Autocannons are all the same, there is no real point for using anything except the smallest one.
Small and Medium howitzers are impossible to fit on their ships, you always need 1-2 PG modules, on the other side autocannons are too easy to fit!
Only 2 types of howitzers, and the smaller ones are completly useless. For 90% of the cases there is no point for them and 10% are cases were people use the Tempest for something every other BS does twice as good.
My Suggestion:
425er Autocannons stay the same
650er -> 7 ROF/3.21 damage mod (increased damage)
800er -> 16.89 ROF/7.623 damage mod (make it a alphastrike closeranger!)
Now some fitting changes:
650er -> 1800 PG/42 CPU
800er -> 2750 PG/60 CPU (much increased PG and CPU, but for alphastrike <3)
The poor 1200er Howitzer, never seen in combat (except for some poor noobs)
15 ROF/4.5 damage mod
2750 PG/50 CPU
Please allow us to do some armor tanking when using 1200er, Shield tanks just dont work on tempest
That is a very well thought out post. I hope tux looks at it.
It is a very thought out post and making it worthwhile to fit 800mm over dual 650 is the primary issue that I'm looking at regarding autocannons. This has mostly to do with there actually being not much damage difference between them but also because of the small clip size of lets say 200mm autocannon compared to 150mm autocannon. So when reloading is factored in they do almost the same damage.
The small ones also need a lot less grid than the small artillery. 200mm autocannon needs 1/3 of the grid that 280mm howitzer needs. As you might imagine that makes ship balancing a bit of a pain. If I want to make a minmatar frigate good with artilleries I need to give it a lot of grid. If I do that it can just fit three autocannons for the price of one howitzer and have all the grid in the world (well almost) for rest of its modules.
I haven't made any decisions on the matter but I assure you thats "the issue" with autocannons that we're looking at.
Btw just because I said we were taking the cap need of projectiles that doesn't mean thats the end of our changes, its just a think I had already done.
_______________ |
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 11:01:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Tuxford
The small ones also need a lot less grid than the small artillery. 200mm autocannon needs 1/3 of the grid that 280mm howitzer needs. As you might imagine that makes ship balancing a bit of a pain. If I want to make a minmatar frigate good with artilleries I need to give it a lot of grid. If I do that it can just fit three autocannons for the price of one howitzer and have all the grid in the world (well almost) for rest of its modules.
I haven't made any decisions on the matter but I assure you thats "the issue" with autocannons that we're looking at.
It seems fairly simple to me that the issue is not that the ships need more grid, but that artillery needs a grid reduction at least, and maybe a cpu reduction too.
Also, please don't forget about the difference between the top tier acs of each class - 200mms and 425mms need looking at as well as 800s.
Also, the question I really wanted to raise in this thread was that of artillery changes - fittings as mentioned above, and dps, and a total overhaul of the smaller of each artillery category. The thread has been sidetracked into autocannons and we appreciate the answer on those. How about the artillery issues?
Cheers again for answering more.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Serj Darek
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 11:10:00 -
[80]
Nice of Tux to reply so quickly to this thread!
I think that the 0 cap usage is quite logical, since it's just a trigger being pulled (by Amarr slaver scums). Compared to the massive energy charge in Lasers or cyclotrons in blasters and so on.
Using 220 Vulcan II:s on the Vagabond puts a serious dent in the capacitor, since it has the crazy rof (even more so with 180:s).
|
smallgreenblur
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 12:17:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Testy Mctest
Originally by: smallgreenblur
Dear Tux, a few points from a long term minmatar pilot
I actually disagree with a lot of your points.
I believe lower alpha strikes are good for the game. I believe artillery needs a slight DPS increase, but that this should be done through RoF, and that a clip size increase would also be fair.
The *only* weapon that needed its cap use looking at was medium sized autocannons, they eat massive cap due to their insanely low rof, and Minmatar ships lack in the cap department as we all know.
Autocannons don't really need a DPS boost, but a small one might be fair. What they really need is increased clip size, and a lower rof with higher damage mod, keeping their dps similar but reducing both the cap used in total to fire (maybe no longer an issue if cap use is removed) and more importantly, the user's ammo concerns.
I'll have to agree to disagree with you on the alpha strike point, I think it's nice that minmatar have something different. Not too bothered how it gets balanced tho as long as it does.
I'm a fan of the higher tier acs actually, on everything short of bs, since i have the grid spare. However i do see your point, a reduction in med tier cap use instead of an overall no cap usage change. Although the more I think about it the more i'd love to be able to shoot whilst nossed :)
Agree with you on the last AC question, except i still think the high tier need a small increase to put them in line with the progression on other races. Apart from that bang on.
Cheers again for the replies tux, looking forward to jumping on test (which is gonna be when?  ) and having a go.
sgb
C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details. |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 12:47:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Kaylana Syi
Originally by: Nafri
That is a very well thought out post. I hope tux looks at it.
It is a very thought out post and making it worthwhile to fit 800mm over dual 650 is the primary issue that I'm looking at regarding autocannons. This has mostly to do with there actually being not much damage difference between them but also because of the small clip size of lets say 200mm autocannon compared to 150mm autocannon. So when reloading is factored in they do almost the same damage.
The small ones also need a lot less grid than the small artillery. 200mm autocannon needs 1/3 of the grid that 280mm howitzer needs. As you might imagine that makes ship balancing a bit of a pain. If I want to make a minmatar frigate good with artilleries I need to give it a lot of grid. If I do that it can just fit three autocannons for the price of one howitzer and have all the grid in the world (well almost) for rest of its modules.
I haven't made any decisions on the matter but I assure you thats "the issue" with autocannons that we're looking at.
Btw just because I said we were taking the cap need of projectiles that doesn't mean thats the end of our changes, its just a think I had already done.
But you will probably bring cap usage into play when I will complain about 1400er beeing totally outclassed by other long range guns, except for fleets and sniping where alphastrike matters.
If you consider that thy are nearly as hard to fit for a matari as a tach for amarr ( 18.45% PG for 1400 II/Tempest compared to 16.92% PG for Tachs/Apoc) thy defenitly also need some kind of constant DPS. Or if thy cant providce constant DPS, make the smaller howitzers constand DPS guns (or better, introduce a new gun, called dual 1000mm Cannons and make them something like a 350er rail)
Jawas are lousy carebears :(
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 13:58:00 -
[83]
"But you will probably bring cap usage into play when I will complain about 1400er beeing totally outclassed by other long range guns, except for fleets and sniping where alphastrike matters."
Well, it is being routinely brought up in the missile-related threads. "OMG but missiles don't use cap at all so Raven can tank all day and even when you nos her, she's still shooting, nurf /o\"
While it doesn't make much difference for the artillery turrets (with their low cap use due to slow RoF to begin with) ... for autocannons not being shut down by the cap drainers, having less worry about entering other ship's nosferatu range and getting more cap for tank or whatever is a considerable advantage...
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 14:26:00 -
[84]
Originally by: j0sephine
"But you will probably bring cap usage into play when I will complain about 1400er beeing totally outclassed by other long range guns, except for fleets and sniping where alphastrike matters."
Well, it is being routinely brought up in the missile-related threads. "OMG but missiles don't use cap at all so Raven can tank all day and even when you nos her, she's still shooting, nurf /o\"
While it doesn't make much difference for the artillery turrets (with their low cap use due to slow RoF to begin with) ... for autocannons not being shut down by the cap drainers, having less worry about entering other ship's nosferatu range and getting more cap for tank or whatever is a considerable advantage...
Yeah but I prefer howitzers in combat and you cant really compare a tempest vs a raven at 30km, the tempest is just outclassed every possible way
Summertime - Campingtime!
|
Diana Merris
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 16:16:00 -
[85]
Changing projectiles to zero cap? About time.
People have been saying that projectiles don't use cap forever in these balance arguments so its time we finally made it true. The missile argument is very relavent here as well given that missile launchers do as much damage as projectiles and have never used any cap.
I agree with Nafri in principle that the larger autocannons should have increased fitting requirements in exchange for improved performance but I think she's going a little to far on the 800s. Something on the lines of:
800mm: 2500grid/45cpu with 9sec RoF and 3.15dmg mod.
425mm: 200 grid/30cpu with 6sec RoF and 3.15dmg mod.
200mm: _ 8 grid/15cpu with 4sec Rof and 3.15dmg mod.
Grid equal to the lesser artillery and cpu equal to the howitzers.
Artillery: As someone else already pointed out, using rails as a comparison the 1200s have the relative fitting requirements of 350 rails but the relative damage of dual 250 rails. The last attempt to make them more desirable was an increase in their range to bring it closer to the howitzers but the lack of damage still doesn't justify the fitting requirements. Rather than boost the artillery's damage I would reduce the fitting requirements. Just some quick numbers:
1200mm: 2000grid/35cpu and drop the optimal to 24km.
650mm : 150 grid/22cpu and optimal range 12km.
250mm : _ 6 grid/10cpu and optimal range 6km.
This makes them easy to fit so you can fit damage mods in lows rather then powergrid and the trade-off is range.
|
KilROCK
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 17:28:00 -
[86]
Enough to autocannon, Fix 250mm, 650mm, 1200mm.
Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs. Evemail me if interested - I think |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 18:18:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Diana Merris
Changing projectiles to zero cap? About time.
People have been saying that projectiles don't use cap forever in these balance arguments so its time we finally made it true. The missile argument is very relavent here as well given that missile launchers do as much damage as projectiles and have never used any cap.
I agree with Nafri in principle that the larger autocannons should have increased fitting requirements in exchange for improved performance but I think she's going a little to far on the 800s. Something on the lines of:
800mm: 2500grid/45cpu with 9sec RoF and 3.15dmg mod.
425mm: 200 grid/30cpu with 6sec RoF and 3.15dmg mod.
200mm: _ 8 grid/15cpu with 4sec Rof and 3.15dmg mod.
Grid equal to the lesser artillery and cpu equal to the howitzers.
Artillery: As someone else already pointed out, using rails as a comparison the 1200s have the relative fitting requirements of 350 rails but the relative damage of dual 250 rails. The last attempt to make them more desirable was an increase in their range to bring it closer to the howitzers but the lack of damage still doesn't justify the fitting requirements. Rather than boost the artillery's damage I would reduce the fitting requirements. Just some quick numbers:
1200mm: 2000grid/35cpu and drop the optimal to 24km.
650mm : 150 grid/22cpu and optimal range 12km.
250mm : _ 6 grid/10cpu and optimal range 6km.
This makes them easy to fit so you can fit damage mods in lows rather then powergrid and the trade-off is range.
well the fitting requirements arent a problem at all, even for 1000 PG I wont fit 1200 howitzers on a tempest
Summertime - Campingtime!
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 21:56:00 -
[88]
Originally by: KilROCK
Enough to autocannon, Fix 250mm, 650mm, 1200mm.
Tux, if you could continue in the trend of giving us a bit of info in this thread, any news you could give us about these artillery would be very much appreciated, as I think this is probably the singular biggest projectile issue many people have at the moment - the fact that we only have two tiers of them, and one tier is essentially useless.
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Slink Grinsdikild
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 22:19:00 -
[89]
Originally by: KilROCK
Enough to autocannon, Fix 250mm, 650mm, 1200mm.
Quoted for the truth. Artillery is too "vanilla" at the moment. You've got 1 gun for each size (280/720/1400) and the rest isn't worth looking at, even for tracking/fitting reasons. The DPS *and* alpha strike is so horrible that you're left with no other option than to fall back on the vanilla howitzers.
I laugh at the poor sod who got a 1200mm Howitzer II BPO.
|
Hashi Lebwohl
|
Posted - 2006.04.26 22:47:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Slink Grinsdikild
Originally by: KilROCK
Enough to autocannon, Fix 250mm, 650mm, 1200mm.
I laugh at the poor sod who got a 1200mm Howitzer II BPO.
Its worse 
we actually purchased a 1200mm II bpo when they first came out on the theory that they could not remain that bad and would be surely be fixed in the future. We are still waiting and, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure, we have never ever actually made one off the print....it just sits there in the bpo hangar reminding me of our folly every time I scroll passed it.
|
Wizie
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 01:44:00 -
[91]
I am against removal of cap from projectiles.
Any legitimate concerns with regards to projectile balance will then get the staple answer "your guns use no cap stfu".
Infact, I don't mind an increase in cap use for projectiles. Just fix the useless versions namely 1200, 650 and 250.
Also, make the larger variant of the 3 size autocannons worth using. As it stands, 800s, 425 and 200 are just not worth fitting.
|
J'val Iktar
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 02:52:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Wizie
Any legitimate concerns with regards to projectile balance will then get the staple answer "your guns use no cap stfu".
We get that answer constantly as it is... might as well make it true.
|
Aloysius Knight
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 07:10:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Wizie
I am against removal of cap from projectiles.
Any legitimate concerns with regards to projectile balance will then get the staple answer "your guns use no cap stfu".
Infact, I don't mind an increase in cap use for projectiles. Just fix the useless versions namely 1200, 650 and 250.
Also, make the larger variant of the 3 size autocannons worth using. As it stands, 800s, 425 and 200 are just not worth fitting.
oh so missiles will have a cap use as well seeing how they are the only offensive weapons (beisdes drones) that do not use cap?
how about you have a big cup of "stfu" yourself mmmk
|
Alberta
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 13:02:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Testy Mctest
I believe lower alpha strikes are good for the game. I believe artillery needs a slight DPS increase, but that this should be done through RoF, and that a clip size increase would also be fair.
I agree with the clip size increase, but have the opposite view on alpha vs RoF, for a few reasons.
Firstly, high RoF is bad for the server, more shots means more calculations.
Secondly, lowering alpha strike capability encourages larger numbers in fleets, and we all know how much people love blobbing. Everybody tries want to pop a BS in a single fleet salvo, less alpha reduces the ability of a small group to do this, you will therefore require bigger numbers to even try hit-and-runs on a larger fleet.
Thirdly, one of the great things about Eve is it doesn't look for balance by making everything the same.
My Thoughts on Game Balance |
Wizie
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 14:38:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Aloysius Knight
Originally by: Wizie
I am against removal of cap from projectiles.
Any legitimate concerns with regards to projectile balance will then get the staple answer "your guns use no cap stfu".
Infact, I don't mind an increase in cap use for projectiles. Just fix the useless versions namely 1200, 650 and 250.
Also, make the larger variant of the 3 size autocannons worth using. As it stands, 800s, 425 and 200 are just not worth fitting.
oh so missiles will have a cap use as well seeing how they are the only offensive weapons (beisdes drones) that do not use cap?
how about you have a big cup of "stfu" yourself mmmk
WTF are you on about moron?
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 15:19:00 -
[96]
Please keep the spammage to a minimum, and argue somewhere else.
This thread has been pretty constructive so far, and I'd like to keep it that way, Im sure if Tux is still reading this he'd prefer not to read through the rubbish.
Cheers
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Spartan239
|
Posted - 2006.04.27 15:24:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Testy Mctest
Please keep the spammage to a minimum, and argue somewhere else.
This thread has been pretty constructive so far, and I'd like to keep it that way, Im sure if Tux is still reading this he'd prefer not to read through the rubbish.
Cheers
Wizie is kinda right, ive read mr Knights post about 10 times and cant make sense of it
Originally by: Tamora
its not the skills that make the eve
player... its the smack that back him up
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.04.28 07:06:00 -
[98]
Well we got a few AC questions answered, but not much about lower tier artillery and general artillery fittings - any chance of some kind of acknowledgement, anything at all, even if it's just to say they havent been looked at yet but they will be?
Cheers
Testy's Eve Blog!
|
Senator Chink
|
Posted - 2006.04.28 20:12:00 -
[99]
nice
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |