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)
keepiru	Posted - 2006.05.10 10:53:00 - [271] i dont think ppl would mind the amarr ships with missiles bonuses, if they didnt all suck simian reproductive organs so damn HARD. ---------------- teqNo > I don't read eve-o forums, they bore me
Maggot	Posted - 2006.05.10 11:28:00 - [272] Why is the tachyon getting a damage boost when it already has enough bonus already as it can be used at a range where the pilot is unvunerable to ECM. The target pilot has no defense. Long range pilots get the love again. I like the other blaster changes proposed, but the damage should be skewed much higher for short range pilots. Those getting up close and dirty have nothing but downsides atm.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.10 12:27:00 - [273] Originally by: Maggot Why is the tachyon getting a damage boost when it already has enough bonus already as it can be used at a range where the pilot is unvunerable to ECM. The target pilot has no defense. Long range pilots get the love again. I like the other blaster changes proposed, but the damage should be skewed much higher for short range pilots. Those getting up close and dirty have nothing but downsides atm. No guns do really outrange a ECM ship Summertime - Campingtime!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.10 13:36:00 - [274] Originally by: keepiru Imo: gave it a 4th low, enough grid/cpu to actually be fit properly, enough cap to tank and shoot & tackle without overly gimping your setup, and change the cap bonus to an armor resist bonus. In other words: +1 low slot 5% capacitor recharge -> 7.5% capacitor recharge (That's actually a pretty damned hefty boost to capacitor, and only slightly better than the Apoc's capacitor capacity bonus - 6.67% better at level 5) New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
keepiru	Posted - 2006.05.10 13:42:00 - [275] Edited by: keepiru on 10/05/2006 13:45:54 i dunno if its 7.5%. what id like is this: 1 more low. cap recharge changed to armor resists enough cap to run guns + web + 7.5kn scram + tank for a minute or 2 with a small rep + passive thermal + hs II + cap relay in low, @ max skills. considering the no extra damage, thats not too much to ask, is it? enough grid/cpu to fit med pulse + rokt or dual beams + standard (with pdu II for latter) would be nice also. what youll get is something with ~15% more dps than a punisher, and a mush better tank, that can tackle. do that, and it'll actually have a point. because right now it shares the spot with raptor and ares as most useless frigate. at least the jag is fast. ---------------- please fix bc sig/agility!
Dreez	Posted - 2006.05.10 14:37:00 - [276] Btw, can i please get a good reason and explanation to why missiles and projectiles should use no cap ?. Lasers and Hybrids suffers from same penalty as projectiles since they are based on tracking, optimal, tons of skills. And missiles which are imo the most effective weaponsystem based on the cap Vs dmg, why cant launchers require cap to activate ?. Imo its nothing but a load of crap that 2 weaponsystems should require no cap, with no penaltys, while the remaining 2 systems requires loads of cap and yet, still suffers from the penalty of tracking etc, etc. Current Location: After 2 years of waiting, getting ready for another hunt.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.10 16:06:00 - [277] I want to see 1 cap activation on everything bigger than standard launcher. /emote runs from horde of insulted caldari pilots... Die, die, die.
Forsch	Posted - 2006.05.10 17:39:00 - [278] Originally by: LUKEC I want to see 1 cap activation on everything bigger than standard launcher. /emote runs from horde of insulted caldari pilots... Not gonna happen now that Tux has the bat. He would have to put cap useage back on projectiles which he just removed. And it's clear, he is a terrorist lover. Forsch Defender of the empire Micro Smartbombs - make them useful
darkmancer	Posted - 2006.05.10 18:25:00 - [279] Quote: 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 partially agree. If your fitting cruise missiles your losing Raw damage in return for higher damage against HAC's and cruisers. I wouldnt like to go up against any other BS while in a cruise raven (cept maybe scorpion when its on it's own) because the damage output is already gimped. Surely if I fit specifically against one type of ship, in something intended to trump that ship, i should be doing decent damage? I'm fine with the radius increase reduceing damage to smaller ships but a 15% reduction in the damage against the specific ship im gimping my setup for (ignoring the 25% reduction in damage to the vagabond now gets at full skill)? Cruise missiles are already a specific role in pvp with bugger all speed and a large lock time. Addin the reduction in DPS, and HACs high resists get anyway and cruise missiles are hardly instapwn anyway. Anyway basically the radius reduction is fine but the damage reduction is OTT. If you really want to gimp precision against larger targets (why?) , make them use cap like turrets.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.10 23:24:00 - [280] Originally by: Ithildin No. Please stop making all the Amarrian ships the same. It was bad enough when the Sacrilege was changed to become a Zealot, we don't need the Vengeance to become a Retribution. If the Vengeance recieves a damage bonus, it will obsolete the Retribution because the meagre amount extra damage the Retribution does will not outweigh the lack of mid slots QFT "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.11 01:38:00 - [281] Edited by: Nikolai Nuvolari on 11/05/2006 01:38:12 Originally by: Ithildin No. Please stop making all the Amarrian ships the same. It was bad enough when the Sacrilege was changed to become a Zealot, we don't need the Vengeance to become a Retribution. If the Vengeance recieves a damage bonus, it will obsolete the Retribution because the meagre amount extra damage the Retribution does will not outweigh the lack of mid slots I'm also ****ed that the Khanid ships are all going ever further towards armor tanking...I mean the whole POINT of Khanid is Amarrian shield tanking... Seriously, lasers + shields please! -------- 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!
keepiru	Posted - 2006.05.11 02:22:00 - [282] Fek are you on about Khanid shield tanks are like matari armor tanks, only worse. Yey, lets devote half the t2 ships to that... o wait How about i just pod myself instead? At least that way i get to choose to die pathetically in the comfort of my own system... ---------------- please fix bc sig/agility!
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.11 03:17:00 - [283] Originally by: keepiru Khanid shield tanks are like matari armor tanks, only worse. That's what I'm saying, it should be fixed so that Khanid ships can shield tank properly! -------- 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!
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.05.11 07:48:00 - [284] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Originally by: keepiru Khanid shield tanks are like matari armor tanks, only worse. That's what I'm saying, it should be fixed so that Khanid ships can shield tank properly! who the hell would want to shield tank with no natural em or thermal resistance? Originally by: Fi T'Zeh I'm a complete tosser.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.11 07:54:00 - [285] Originally by: Sarmaul who the hell would want to shield tank with no natural em or thermal resistance? Uh, there's this whole race called "Caldari", we have something called a "Raven" that's actually been widely criticized for its supposedly overpowered tanking ability... -------- 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!
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.11 08:21:00 - [286] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Originally by: Sarmaul who the hell would want to shield tank with no natural em or thermal resistance? Uh, there's this whole race called "Caldari", we have something called a "Raven" that's actually been widely criticized for its supposedly overpowered tanking ability... Raven has 6 medslots and uses at least 4 of those for tank. If i get for instance 5 medslots on vengeance as i need propulsion mod(hey i'm not missile spammer), then i think i will still armor tank it and stick full rack of jammers. Which is also new raven trend. Die, die, die.
Commander Nikolas	Posted - 2006.05.11 08:52:00 - [287] Tux the changes don't really address the biggest problems with blasters/arty. T2 Large Blasters, Deimos, and Large Arty... all still really screwed. However the Brutix makes out really well (which was a problem when?). I also have to say the changes will make close range vaga's/munnin's behave better well being NOSed. It will also allow a bit of CPU room well fitting a T1 blaster based mega.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.11 09:20:00 - [288] I don't really have such huge problems in fitting thron anymore. However it will be 15mil cheaper when changes hit. But it won't improve thron much tbh. Die, die, die.
Dreez	Posted - 2006.05.12 15:30:00 - [289] I still want to know how you can justify giving 2 weaponsystems a Zero Capuse, one of them being highly effective with maximum damage at all times, while the 2 remaining uses loads of cap. Current Location: After 2 years of waiting, getting ready for another hunt.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.05.12 16:15:00 - [290] Originally by: LUKEC I don't really have such huge problems in fitting thron anymore. However it will be 15mil cheaper when changes hit. But it won't improve thron much tbh. It'll be a 15mio cheaper piece of junk that lacks a practical role other then being thrown at pilots that simply don't have other BS skills yet. Power to the players !
Kai Lae	Posted - 2006.05.13 06:54:00 - [291] Originally by: keepiru Edited by: keepiru on 10/05/2006 13:45:54 i dunno if its 7.5%. what id like is this: 1 more low. cap recharge changed to armor resists enough cap to run guns + web + 7.5kn scram + tank for a minute or 2 with a small rep + passive thermal + hs II + cap relay in low, @ max skills. considering the no extra damage, thats not too much to ask, is it? enough grid/cpu to fit med pulse + rokt or dual beams + standard (with pdu II for latter) would be nice also. what youll get is something with ~15% more dps than a punisher, and a mush better tank, that can tackle. do that, and it'll actually have a point. because right now it shares the spot with raptor and ares as most useless frigate. at least the jag is fast. The cap recharge bonus is hte 1 good bonus that the ship has. It means at L5 you get a built in CPR which greatly assists tanking (and everything else). Why, however, does every AF need an optimal range bonus? On top of this it takes the khanid overflavoring of the old sac to a new level since it has more shields than armor. While caldari pilots with amar skills love that I'm sure most amarr pilots hate it. Better would be this: 4/3/4 slot layout 5% small laser damage, 10% reduction in cap use per frig level, 5% bonus to cap recharge rate and armor resists per level. However CCP seem intent on no 4th bonus to AF (so far) so in that scheme I'd rather have the cap bonus than the armor. 525 shields/788 armor As for the whining that then the retribution has no purpose, the retribution will still do more DPS due to more guns with bonuses. Also, the ret has it's own problems that need adressing, saying that you can't boost the vengeance because of the retribution is, well, dumb. Raptor and Ares Fix
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.05.14 14:48:00 - [292] Will the advanced drone interfacing skill have its damage bonus applied even if you don't use the control unit ? Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
Russo	Posted - 2006.05.16 01:10:00 - [293] Here is my super badass, ultra high speed low drag idea for fixing blasters. Do all that stuff you just posted, plus give blasters this ability....it will make up for the damage the mega takes coming into a fight from longer range. Blasters gain 5% ROF bonus every firing cycle up until they reach a total of 25% the normal ROF, once you have entered optimal weapon range. This reflects how the blasters have warmed up and achieved their optimal firing speed. This will make up for the trip in to the target where they have not done any damage, but been expending their own cap and been taking damage. This would also allow them to be hands down, the most heavy hitting close range ship, as they should be. Upon switching targets, the blasters lose this bonus, and so it is only really a good bonus against larger ships, where the firing rate bonus can be fully achieved. See, I told you it was badass. Russo - CEO Amarria Auxilia XL pod for an XL personality
FolkoDemon	Posted - 2006.05.16 18:11:00 - [294] Edited by: FolkoDemon on 16/05/2006 18:14:56 As devs seem to have completly forgot about 'starbases and outposts' part of forums, I'm gonna try a small hijack thing. Can someone from dev team look into this thread, lots of good ideas how to improve current situation. I'm aware that it won't be as spectacular as for example blaster change but... please? -----
Zenst	Posted - 2006.05.16 19:43:00 - [295] Originally by: Tuxford Stuff in italics won't make it in <SNIP> 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. So is that officialy an expliot (announcment) or have you just told everybody how to be uber in a moro's now? If you can clarify please as atm I see a world of pain given the cat is out of the bag!
Ortu Konsinni	Posted - 2006.05.16 21:15:00 - [296] So the Hawk isn't getting changed in the next patch (whenever that is) ? Me = sad --- High quality pics of ALL EVE ships!
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.16 21:37:00 - [297] Originally by: Zenst So is that officialy an expliot (announcment) or have you just told everybody how to be uber in a moro's now? If you can clarify please as atm I see a world of pain given the cat is out of the bag! The module isn't avaliable AT ALL right now (it's ready to be, but has not been seeded, apparently) because of this issue. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Zippy Pinno	Posted - 2006.05.17 05:46:00 - [298] While trying to test the new 250mm artillery on sisi i noticed my Jag and Wolf taking a lot more damage than normal. I had to warp out of normally do-able belt spawns. Very puzzling ultil i looked at the sig radius stats. The Wolf went from 28 to 33 (17.8 % increase) The Jag went from 30 to 34 (13.3% increase) Enyo went from 33 to 39 (18.2% increase) Ishkur went from 31 to 39 (25.8% increase) This is totally bogus - these ships used to be cool but ony borderline usefull. Now they will be completely useless. If these changes go through im finally giving up on frigs and climbing into a boring-as-hell BS like everyone else. I did not see anyone ask for this nerf to the AFs. I saw many people ask for a boost to these ships over the last couple of months.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.17 08:07:00 - [299] Edited by: Ithildin on 17/05/2006 08:08:59 Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Zenst So is that officialy an expliot (announcment) or have you just told everybody how to be uber in a moro's now? If you can clarify please as atm I see a world of pain given the cat is out of the bag! The module isn't avaliable AT ALL right now (it's ready to be, but has not been seeded, apparently) because of this issue. The module is available but the skill to use it is not. Edit: actually it says quite clearly in Tuxford's post that the module is available but the skill is not. Zenst, it can't be an exploit if you can't use it. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Levin Cavil	Posted - 2006.05.18 02:31:00 - [300] There is only one intelligent thing you can do to blasters. 20% reduction in CPU and 5-10% increase in damage with NO OTHER CHANGES. Why are you reducing cap use? The cap use is one of the tradeoffs for the insane DPS that blasters are supposed to do. I suggest you use less graphs and try fighting a raven one or twice or 50 times with a "normal" Megathron. Try using guns people can actually fit (electrons) and a tank (lol). Your graphs are meaningless if you don't back it up with some actual playtesting. ---------- <Kayosoni> I'm actually normal

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.