EVE Search - Blasters, artillery and more

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Blasters, artillery and more

» 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 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)
Slink Grinsdikild	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:33:00 - [1] Edited by: Slink Grinsdikild on 04/05/2006 15:35:10 "Capacitor need removed from all projectiles" Awesome, autocannons actually use up bit a cap contrary to popular belief.

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:33:00 - [2] Here are some changes I've made on my development server and am hoping we can release it in the next patch. These are not all the changes I'm doing but these are the once I'm reasonably certain won't mess up too much. Blasters Decreased Capacitor need by 15% Decreased cpu need by 10% Decreased powergrid need by 10% on all heavy neutron blasters Some of you might feel that this is not enough. The changes are pretty modest on purpose. I don't think this makes blasters overpowered and they are obviously better then they are now. Of course blasters suffer from other stuff that has nothing to do with blasters really but more to do with the danger of coming that close to other ships thus making them vulnerable to nos, webs, scramblers and so on. Projectile Capacitor need removed from all projectiles 1200mm, 650mm and 250mm artillery get a 10% damage increase Considering that the lower tier artillery is not that much easier to fit than the top tier ones their damage output is pretty poor. This is even more evident when comparing the relationship between different tier of artilleries to different tiers of railguns. Typhoon Projectile optimal range bonus changed to a siege and cruise missile launcher rate of fire bonus I've already posted about this. This bonus makes the damage output on a typhoon to pretty good although it does require a bit more skillpoints to pilot than most other battleships. Hawk Now gets 4 launcher hardpoints and 2 turret hardpoints hybrid optimal range bonus changed to missile velocity bonus There were three assault ships I mentioned, the Hawk, Vengeance and Jaguar. Even though the Hawk changes are a bit larger they are a bit more straightforward. Give it missile slots and change hybrid bonus to missile bonus. The other two ships would need more player testing before I'm satisfied with the results. Assault ships signature radius increase This is more of a bug fix than a balancing change. It seems that the assault ships have had a signature radius more in line with interceptors than assault ships. I've increased it so its more like the tech 1 ships they are based on. Precision Missiles Cruise precision missiles damage 260hp Explosion radius 200m Heavy precision missiles damage 135hp Explosion radius 75m light precision missiles Velocity penalty changed to 7.5% Its pretty simple really. The larger precision missiles are way to powerful. The velocity penalty isn't really that much when fighting smaller targets because they are already so much faster than you. Now you take a damage reduction penalty against targets your own size when using those missiles and you don't do as much damage against smaller targets. You still do more damage to a crusier and a frigate with precision cruise than you do with normal cruise missile though. The light missile was on the other hand severely underpowered since there isn't really anything much smaller than frigate and a velocity penalty is a complete murder on a frigate. Drone control unit only fits on carriers and motherships now The problem was that a drone control unit on a Moros made it a super pwnmobile of death. The module drone control unit is out but the skill that is required to use it is not. When we have limited the dcu on motherships and carriers only I can seed the skill in good conscience. Like I said this is some stuff I'm hoping we can get out in next patch not stuff that is absolutely 100% going out. _______________


Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:34:00 - [3] Originally by: Slink Grinsdikild Nice holy crap that was fast _______________

Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:38:00 - [4] doubt that 10% damage will help 1200 at all, but let me do some math first Summertime - Campingtime!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:39:00 - [5] Need to update the test patch so we can test these changes, please. (By the way, what HAVE you changed in the current (....9) test patch?) New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
pricechecker 12	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:41:00 - [6] will t2 rockets get a buff? at the min they are hardly used due to the penalties applied, whilst a cap/speed hot may not affect a larger ship like a bs anywhere as much the same penalties crucify a frig taking away its one advantage.
Astrum Ludus	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:43:00 - [7] Edited by: Astrum Ludus on 04/05/2006 15:43:34 Thank you for the update There is no mention of Tachyons in there, is the change you mentioned in the last sticky still going ahead?

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:44:00 - [8] Originally by: Astrum Ludus Thank you for the update There is no mention of Tachyons in there, is the change you mentioned in the last still going ahead? New I forgot something, thanks _______________

Cmdr Patrick	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:49:00 - [9] Originally by: Tuxford Decreased powergrid need by 10% on all heavy neutron blasters surly "all" neutron blastars and not just the mediums?

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:55:00 - [10] Originally by: Cmdr Patrick Originally by: Tuxford Decreased powergrid need by 10% on all heavy neutron blasters surly "all" neutron blastars and not just the mediums? Nope just the neutron blasters. The reason for that is that shorter range turrets should really need less grid than the longer range ones. For example mega pulse laser uses less grid than mega beam lasers and autocannons needs less than grid than artillery. This applies to the large hybrid, the 425mm railgun uses more grid than neutron blaster cannon. The same does not apply to the relationship between heavy neutron blasters and 250mm railguns. The same can be said about smaller hybrids but I'm not entirely sure that blaster frigs need much of a boost. _______________

Lunas Feelgood	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:56:00 - [11] Yea well about time for a boost to blasters however still dont think thats enough... Blasters should get a 15% dmg increase also.. becuase of all the penalties you get when you fit them.. Blasters should be the most powerfull guns ingame but its not..
Kael D'mende	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:57:00 - [12] Tux: I take it that there is more like u say, but have to ask this, have projectile AC's been looked at, and what about arty clip size ? Regards. Regards. /Kael
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.04 15:59:00 - [13] Any chance that with the Hawk getting two more launcher hardpoints, we can get the Eagle another turret hardpoint? Hell, probably just trade away a launcher hardpoint for a turret point... -------- Tom Thumb > for a nut case you rawk [04:21:15] Mebrithiel Ju'wien > Nik's bio 4tw btw [07:38:53] Graelyn > Nikolai for Dev 108!
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:00:00 - [14] if you also somehow fix the tracking on the smaller howitzers, then people may use them Summertime - Campingtime!

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:01:00 - [15] Originally by: Kael D'mende Tux: I take it that there is more like u say, but have to ask this, have projectile AC's been looked at, and what about arty clip size ? Regards. There is more but I think I've reached the limit on what I can try and squeeze in for next patch. There are no changes to autocannons yet though but that is one of the things I am looking into. Expect a blog real soon about some of the upcoming projects in balancing department. _______________

Kael D'mende	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:06:00 - [16] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Kael D'mende Tux: I take it that there is more like u say, but have to ask this, have projectile AC's been looked at, and what about arty clip size ? Regards. There is more but I think I've reached the limit on what I can try and squeeze in for next patch. There are no changes to autocannons yet though but that is one of the things I am looking into. Expect a blog real soon about some of the upcoming projects in balancing department. thanks for the response :O) Regards. Regards. /Kael

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:07:00 - [17] Originally by: Nafri if you also somehow fix the tracking on the smaller howitzers, then people may use them Tracking on artillery was one thing I was going to look at. The brutal truth of the matter is that I haven't looked at it yet, but its on my evergrowing schedule _______________

Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:10:00 - [18] Quote: Projectile # Capacitor need removed from all projectiles # 1200mm, 650mm and 250mm artillery get a 10% damage increase Considering that the lower tier artillery is not that much easier to fit than the top tier ones their damage output is pretty poor. This is even more evident when comparing the relationship between different tier of artilleries to different tiers of railguns. Thats a start. But artillery across the board still needs a DPS increase, and also still needs a fitting reduction. Not being able to fit a rack of guns on a Tempest, a Rupture, and a Muninn, for example, is a bit silly. Quote: Typhoon # Projectile optimal range bonus changed to a siege and cruise missile launcher rate of fire bonus I've already posted about this. This bonus makes the damage output on a typhoon to pretty good although it does require a bit more skillpoints to pilot than most other battleships. That's a good change, but it's not enough. As the bonus is split across hardpoints, it should be larger. In addition to which, the ship simply doesn't have enough grid to fit a reasonable setup if it even attempts to fill all of its highs. If it fits big guns in its highs, it essentially can't fit anything else that requires grid at all. Compound this with the phoon's bad stats (stats look like a shield tank, slots dont) and it's generally low numbers across the board, and though you're getting one part right, the ship is still far from balanced. If you want me to make this more mathematical and provide numbers Tux, I will. Testy's Eve Blog!
Kalhystia	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:13:00 - [19] Hmm so there will be no tracking bonus increase for Megathron then?
Klurig	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:14:00 - [20] While we have the attention: Is anything being changed/looked at regarding drone AI? ------------------------------------------------------------
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:16:00 - [21] Originally by: Kalhystia Hmm so there will be no tracking bonus increase for Megathron then? I believe someone said 5% tracking bonuses are being increased to 7.5% and 7.5% to 10%, I'm not 100% sure but can someone check to see if I'm 0% right or not? Learn what it means to be Caldari - www.omertasyndicate.com

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:18:00 - [22] Originally by: Kyoko Sakoda Originally by: Kalhystia Hmm so there will be no tracking bonus increase for Megathron then? I believe someone said 5% tracking bonuses are being increased to 7.5% and 7.5% to 10%, I'm not 100% sure but can someone check to see if I'm 0% right or not? That was the plan yes. I wasn't expecting to put anything like balancing changes out this patch but I'll try to squeeze this in as well. _______________

Kael D'mende	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:18:00 - [23] McTest kinda have a point, according to the item-database, its got a 5% to siege/cruise ROF, the old bonus was 10% would it be to overpowered with 10% siege/cruise ROF ? Regards. /Kael
Astrum Ludus	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:20:00 - [24] Edited by: Astrum Ludus on 04/05/2006 16:21:20 Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Astrum Ludus Thank you for the update There is no mention of Tachyons in there, is the change you mentioned in the last still going ahead? Canou I forgot something, thanks np stares at his Tach's Originally by: Klurig While we have the attention: Is anything being changed/looked at regarding drone AI? Please, tell me someone somewhere at CCP knows it's horrible and needs to be fixed!
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:20:00 - [25] Quote: Capacitor need removed from all projectiles Hugs Tuxford Then goes to read the rest ;) . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:23:00 - [26] Originally by: Kael D'mende McTest kinda have a point, according to the item-database, its got a 5% to siege/cruise ROF, the old bonus was 10% would it be to overpowered with 10% siege/cruise ROF ? 10% rof bonus is doubling the damage output at level 5. Traditionally range bonuses are 10%, and most other bonuses 5%. I'm a bit of a traditionalist so I'm not fond of giving different kind of bonuses. _______________

Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:23:00 - [27] Originally by: Kael D'mende McTest kinda have a point, according to the item-database, its got a 5% to siege/cruise ROF, the old bonus was 10% would it be to overpowered with 10% siege/cruise ROF ? The correct number would actually be 7.5% to both bonuses. Testy's Eve Blog!
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Kael D'mende McTest kinda have a point, according to the item-database, its got a 5% to siege/cruise ROF, the old bonus was 10% would it be to overpowered with 10% siege/cruise ROF ? 10% rof bonus is doubling the damage output at level 5. Traditionally range bonuses are 10%, and most other bonuses 5%. I'm a bit of a traditionalist so I'm not fond of giving different kind of bonuses. well, atm it just has a single damage bonus to its highslots Summertime - Campingtime!
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:27:00 - [29] "Assault ships signature radius increase This is more of a bug fix than a balancing change. It seems that the assault ships have had a signature radius more in line with interceptors than assault ships. I've increased it so its more like the tech 1 ships they are based on." Ouch. it makes certain sense, but... assault frigates already generally play second fiddle to interceptors, increasing their signature radius will now make them easier to kill, taking away the main reason one would want to pick them over the 'ceptor. Dunno if that's such good idea overall. ... While you're looking into missiles, can you please fix the explosion radius of high damage heavy missiles? It's 150 m, which is leftover from standard heavy missiles explosion radius which was then reduced to 125 m. Currently, the high damage heavies are the only 'high damage' guided missile that has explosion radius penalty which effectively removes any benefit of higher payload, resulting in no benefit from using these things in manner one would use other high damage guided missiles... "Precision Missiles Cruise precision missiles damage 260hp Explosion radius 200m " With these new numbers, high precision cruise missile fired vs a regular sized cruiser does pretty much identical damage over time you'd get when firing regular heavy missiles vs that cruiser. Combined with no good reason to use high damage heavies vs cruisers (see above) this still makes the high precision crusises tad bit too effective vs cruisers and such, imo. I also don't see much point in the damage ouput penalty vs 'correct' targets with these missiles, done in this manner. This change is basically admission that current penalty that comes with high-end precision missiles simply isn't a real penalty that affects the user in any practical manner. Because if it was the case, this penalty itself would make the missile user think twice before they'd fit precision missiles into their launchers... and there'd be no need for this "and you'll do less damage vs bigger targets with them" thing on top of it. "Heavy precision missiles damage 135hp Explosion radius 75m " Similar issue like with cruise precision vs regular standards, only even more acute -- precision heavies deal more damage over time vs frigate-sized targets than regular light missiles fired both from standard and assault launchers. Here at least it's possible to outdamage these heavies with high damage light missiles fired from assault launcher, but still it feels the end-results come far too close to each other. Dunno, but would suggest bit of tweaking -- by giving the high precision missiles the base eplosion radius of their 'regular' version with maxed out precision skill. I.e. 225 m for the cruises, and 93.75 m for the heavies ... this way, combined with these new damage values they'd still deal more damage than their regular version vs. the smaller targets, but at the same time landing about in middle between these regular missiles, and the regular missiles one size smaller. I.e. precision cruise would be in the middle dp-wise between regular cruise and regular heavy missile, etc. just a thought, anyway o.O;
ParMizaN	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:32:00 - [30] Some nice changes tux Keep at it Phenomena of ironies, cast the litany aside How intelligible, blessed be the forgetful

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.