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)
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.18 09:51:00 - [301] Edited by: Ithildin on 18/05/2006 09:51:45 The cap use is of great principle importance. However, whether to decrease cap use on hybrids or increase cap use on lasers is, perhaps, a matter of taste (nerf or buff, what do you prefere?). That lasers ("I use cap, not ammo") use less capacitor than hybrids ("I use ammo AND cap") while performing similarly is wrong. That lasers should use more capacitor is supported in their fluff. That said, I must say I'd like to see a tracking boost on blasters, too. Not for the Megathron, but for the tier 1 and 3 Gallente battleship's, who won't be getting any such bonuses to tracking. There's no wonder people fit only NOS on Dominix when you a) can't fit blasters and b) can't hit with blasters when you do manage to fit them New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Kitty O'Shay	Posted - 2006.05.19 00:03:00 - [302] Regardless of what the changes are, I would like to know when! Do we have to wait until September? -- Originally by: Mephysto come on, solo-mining in a 0.4 system? Its wrong NOT to pod you...
Traeon	Posted - 2006.05.19 00:27:00 - [303] Recently my catalyst ran out of cap only from firing its 8 ion blasters for a while. Yea sure, ships with an injector can deal with that but not every ship has room for one... so nothing wrong with a cap reduction. It's a good thing, but nothing that adresses the real issues.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.19 08:41:00 - [304] Originally by: Kitty O'Shay Regardless of what the changes are, I would like to know when! Do we have to wait until September? Sadly all information indicates we do have to wait that frackin' long New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.05.19 17:32:00 - [305] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Kitty O'Shay Regardless of what the changes are, I would like to know when! Do we have to wait until September? Sadly all information indicates we do have to wait that frackin' long Couple of months to bore me of eve completly with EW whoring Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs
Opiette	Posted - 2006.05.19 18:44:00 - [306] The list is still missing the fix for tech 2 rocket's .. as Everyone knows they are utter crap atm. Theyr explosion radius and panalties and allmost every other aspect is plain wrong. PLS fix them. It's actually weird how wrong those modules actually are. --
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.19 19:00:00 - [307] Originally by: Opiette The list is still missing the fix for tech 2 rocket's .. as Everyone knows they are utter crap atm. Theyr explosion radius and panalties and allmost every other aspect is plain wrong. PLS fix them. It's actually weird how wrong those modules actually are. They aren't modules, but if you want to go there... fine by me. This is what needs be fixed with T2 ammo: Long turret, long ranged ammo must be removed. Nerf! Long turret, short ranged ammo doesn't work (read: isn't useful). Boost! Rage torps and rockets provide too much penalties and aren't useful. Boost! Short turret, long range ammo works like a marvel only because they are for short range turrets only. Keep! Short turret, short ranged ammo really don't hit and strongly invade on faction ammo. Change! Precision missiles don't add range, only small ship killing power. Nerf! Fury missiles work like a charm but have too strong penalty. Only problem is there's no faction ammo to compare to yet. Boost! T2 precision rockets don't give any real benefits except range and capacitor nerf. Boost! So. There you have it. Out of all the T2 ammo, only one sort of ammo are really good (Null and Barrage) for the game. Null does allow the Megathron to operate in an otherwise Tempest-intended environment, but the Megathron looks to remain too problem riddled even after the fixes that this isn't too much of a balance issue. In almost every other case, T2 ammo is either useless or game breaking good. (Fury and Rage missiles/torps actually work pretty well if you run cap boosters, in which case they are rather good for the game. Rage torps just have to find people who MWD while webbed in order to do damage, though. Question is, however, why make ammo that needs to nerf your ship so severely? Why did this ammo even make it off the idea board and into the game? Why didn't you allow the pilots to test them first? Now that it is apparent that the community is spewing gall over T2 ammo, why don't the devs do something about it?) New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.05.19 19:45:00 - [308] meh patchy -.- Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs
Opiette	Posted - 2006.05.19 20:34:00 - [309] I would fix the tech 2 rocket's so that javelin rocket's dont have penalties to cap at all they would have their speed boosted and explosion radius upped to tech 1 lvl So basically tech 1 rockets that are faster / longer range. Tech 2 rage rockets should have only small speed penalty. And bit less explosion radius nerf. PPL might actually use them after such chainges. --
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.20 03:11:00 - [310] Originally by: Ithildin The cap use is of great principle importance. However, whether to decrease cap use on hybrids or increase cap use on lasers is, perhaps, a matter of taste (nerf or buff, what do you prefere?). That lasers ("I use cap, not ammo") use less capacitor than hybrids ("I use ammo AND cap") while performing similarly is wrong. That lasers should use more capacitor is supported in their fluff. So would you support a cap use decrease for railguns? Shield tanking is more cap-intensive than armor-tanking, so a shield-tanking Roc needs a cap reduction for its weapons more than an armor-tanking Megathron does. -------- 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!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.20 19:07:00 - [311] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Originally by: Ithildin The cap use is of great principle importance. However, whether to decrease cap use on hybrids or increase cap use on lasers is, perhaps, a matter of taste (nerf or buff, what do you prefere?). That lasers ("I use cap, not ammo") use less capacitor than hybrids ("I use ammo AND cap") while performing similarly is wrong. That lasers should use more capacitor is supported in their fluff. So would you support a cap use decrease for railguns? Shield tanking is more cap-intensive than armor-tanking, so a shield-tanking Roc needs a cap reduction for its weapons more than an armor-tanking Megathron does. Yes, due to the fact that a) Caldari use hybrids, too and shield tanking is really cap intensive as well as b) Amarr ships don't have THAT increadible capacitor. I am in favour of making Hybrids the middling gun as far as capacitor is concerned by reduction of cap use. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.20 19:27:00 - [312] Great. Let's go picked CCP headquarters until they listen! -------- 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!
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.21 00:07:00 - [313] Originally by: Ithildin So. There you have it. Out of all the T2 ammo, only one sort of ammo are really good (Null and Barrage) for the game. I disagree. The Claw and Vagabond throwing Barrage amo around are overpowered, imo. Sigh. I'm with j0 on T2 amo. (Shouldn't of happened)
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.21 18:05:00 - [314] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Ithildin So. There you have it. Out of all the T2 ammo, only one sort of ammo are really good (Null and Barrage) for the game. I disagree. The Claw and Vagabond throwing Barrage amo around are overpowered, imo. Sigh. I'm with j0 on T2 amo. (Shouldn't of happened) Yeah, well. Yeah. I wish the devs did something possitive and constructive about them. Like disabling them until they've figured it out. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Amarria Lightwielder	Posted - 2006.05.21 18:17:00 - [315] tachyon wasn't in italic, but i don't see them in the patch notes either? NAGA ShopÖ
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.22 01:41:00 - [316] I believe there was a post about a month or 2 back, where someone mentioned the 5% falloff bonus on the Wolf not being in line with the 10% falloff bonus on some other ships. Tux responded with something along the lines of "yeah this is wierd, and needs fixing". I dont believe it happened. Was there a change somewhere that I didnt hear about?
goober	Posted - 2006.05.22 01:53:00 - [317] o/ what is going to be done with the damage output on ac's? is it going to be a bonus to the larger size or a nerf to the lower size? currently it is almost pointless to fit the larger t2 ac's because the smaller size ac's (in the same size category) do almost as much damage. this may have been said already but this thread is massive and i dont have all day ;)
1ron Maiden	Posted - 2006.05.22 02:12:00 - [318] Hey Tux, I was wondering why someone like you cannot see the real problem with blasters. The Cap and Powergrid etc is a nice minor fix but it should by no means be the only fix for blasters. It is a real problem that Blasters are supposed to be gallante's racial gun but cannot be used as effectivly compared with other racial guns etc. The blaster does not do enough damage or have enough tracking speed for the range it has its simple either increase the range/tracking speed and or increase damage/decrease cap usage. And they have to be significant changes not just little 10-15% changes on things. Blaster setups have to get up close and that way we are more effected by webs nos and anything else our enemy wants to throw at us, we need some sort of bonus. Otherwise the blaster is renderred useless u can just sniper away at 100-200km and be better off.. I dont mean to nag, but while some things are getting fixed that dont need it as badly and blasters that are beeing left with a cold shoulder it seems a tad unfair for gallante. What do u expect us to do loose all our skills with blasters and choose to use something else from now on? Update the game according to whats needed i say, there has been countless posts and threads on this subject and im sick of hearing about it. Provide a solution.. Thanks
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.22 07:07:00 - [319] Originally by: goober o/ what is going to be done with the damage output on ac's? is it going to be a bonus to the larger size or a nerf to the lower size? currently it is almost pointless to fit the larger t2 ac's because the smaller size ac's (in the same size category) do almost as much damage. this may have been said already but this thread is massive and i dont have all day ;) Here's a suggestion: Set all AC capacities ("ammo clips") to same size as middling AC. This should make the dps difference between the guns show while reducing the need for reload for 800mm while increasing the need for reload on 425mm (although not too significantly) while at the same time not budging the... balance between blasters and autocannons too much. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
VeNT	Posted - 2006.05.22 10:24:00 - [320] NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO when will we get the phoon fix? gah there was me thinking that my phoon could be an even better ship! -------------------- You'll never take my Sig Alive mods! DEATH OR GLORY! Half a league, half a league, Half a league onward, All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. Tennyson 4tw! ~kieron
MysticNZ	Posted - 2006.05.24 03:51:00 - [321] Afternoon Tux. Few things i'd like to say: Phoon: I think it should also have slightly more grid to fit a decent setup. I think I have pretty good skills and I struggle to fit a decent setup (dps wise) on a phoon. AC: I think the tracking of the ac and dps should be looked at. Art: I think the tracking of the 1400 should be slightly increased, even a %2 increase would be nice. I would back this up with data but I think this has already been done in alot of other threads, just voicing my support. -=====-
Godagast Goudiyah	Posted - 2006.05.27 07:39:00 - [322] Edited by: Godagast Goudiyah on 27/05/2006 07:45:29 The one thing that concerns me: Khanid ships need some improvement. Yes, I am biased, but in all fairness, they do. At the same time, I agree with a lot of previous posters on that they should not become like all the other Amarr ships - if anything, try and make them more distinct! Khanid ships are supposed to be a fusion of Amarr and Caldari technology, not second-rate Carthoum copies. In other words: changing the Sacriledge to become essentially a poor man's Zealot was a horrible job. Shame on you! Where's your imagination? My biggest fear is that a similarly uninspired fate lies in store for the Vengeance. I'm one of the pilots who actually likes the fact that the Vengeance has a cap recharge bonus. Yes, the ship will never outdamage a Retribution, but it isn't intended to. The strength of the Vengeance is elsewhere - using the med slots / cap recharge combo. With a little creativity, you can do some interesting things, especially in fleet battles. And not half as bad as everyone claims. Tackling, EW, tanking - a very versatile ship. At least that's the theory. We all know the Vengeance needs some improvement, but I wouldn't change the basic concept. I would hate to see the cap recharge bonus replaced by a run-of-the-mill damage bonus. Then we'd simply have a poor man's copy of the Retribution, and who needs that... Leave the Vengeance concept as is, including the cap recharge rate. Just add the 11th slot with enough grid and CPU to use it. I think the ship will be fine after that.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.27 08:58:00 - [323] I still think Khanid ships should be pure laser ships, none of this missile junk, but dedicated to powerful shield tanking. Sansha ships already have Amarr armor tanking and Caldari missiles, Khanid should be shields/lasers. -------- 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!
Godagast Goudiyah	Posted - 2006.05.27 09:39:00 - [324] Edited by: Godagast Goudiyah on 27/05/2006 09:42:43 Double post
Godagast Goudiyah	Posted - 2006.05.27 09:41:00 - [325] Edited by: Godagast Goudiyah on 27/05/2006 09:41:48 Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari I still think Khanid ships should be pure laser ships, none of this missile junk, but dedicated to powerful shield tanking. Sansha ships already have Amarr armor tanking and Caldari missiles, Khanid should be shields/lasers. Sansha ships are hardly available to a lot of players on a regular basis, are they? They are faction ships, which is why I'd say your argument is flawed. I actually like the laser / missile hybrid builds of most of the Khanid ships, and I know quite a few other players who do as well. That is not where the problem is. The point is that, to make them useful, Khanid ships need other bonus fields than damage. A damage bonus on a laser / missile ship never applies to all the weapons, which means it will be less effective than on a pure one weapon type ship. Which is precisely the problem with a lot of the current Khanid designs. Instead, these ships should have bonus categories other than damage. Which is why the cap recharge rate on the Vengeance is basically a sound idea. The ship needs some tweaking and improving, but the basic concept isn't bad, and could even be a pointer for other Khanid ships.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.27 23:09:00 - [326] I know they're not available to most players, but I figure if they've got to choose SOME combination of features, they might as well not choose one that's already being used by something else. Another (if unusual) set of ships already uses armor/missiles. NOBODY uses shield/lasers. As for your idea of non-damage bonuses, yes, that's going to be important as long as the ships have split weapons. -------- 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!
Godagast Goudiyah	Posted - 2006.05.28 08:47:00 - [327] Well, it's a question of "flavour", really... I for one think it is simply more interesting to have lasers and missiles on a ship, rather than only lasers or only missiles. You argue that ships should be distinct and not copy a class that is already there. I agree to a point. But then, you contradict yourself when you say Khanid ships should become pure laser boats - since we already have the Amarr covering that niche, and I don't see a point in copying it. I say, let the Khanid ships remain as mixed laser / missile designs (yes, the Sansha do that too, but really, they are faction ships and a bit outside of the "mainstream", so I don't see a major problem here). Anf find other bonus fields for them than damage. I don't have a problem at all with the Khanid ships not being the uber damage dealers in the game. The Amarr and others are covering that field already, and I'd rather have something different. I'll say it again: the cap recharge rate on the Vengeance was a pretty good idea, actually. There is plenty that needs to be changed with the ship, but not that particular bonus. On the contrary, it could be a template for other Khanid designs. One approach that would fit with the prime fiction and make the Khanid pretty unique would be to make them laser / missile firing shield tanks. No damage bonus (which would be only half effective on a mixed weapon ship), but advantages in cap recharge, or shield boosting (like the Hawk), and so on. That would be interesting! On the other hand, what they did to the Sacriledge was just a botched job. Turning the Khanid into lesser Amarr copies is not the way to go.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.28 10:53:00 - [328] Originally by: Godagast Goudiyah But then, you contradict yourself when you say Khanid ships should become pure laser boats - since we already have the Amarr covering that niche, and I don't see a point in copying it. Not at all, the point is that Amarr are laser/armor, Sansha are laser/missile/armor, so I think Khanid should be laser/shield instead of laser/missile/armor. If you're not going for damage bonuses, then cap is great...maybe something else interesting, like EWar? -------- 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!
Godagast Goudiyah	Posted - 2006.05.28 13:10:00 - [329] Originally by: Nikolai Nuvolari Not at all, the point is that Amarr are laser/armor, Sansha are laser/missile/armor, so I think Khanid should be laser/shield instead of laser/missile/armor. If you're not going for damage bonuses, then cap is great...maybe something else interesting, like EWar? Khanid might as well be laser/missile/shield, which is still different from the other two. And if you look at the weapons only, Amarr already cover the "all lasers" niche, which was my point. As for the other question, there are various bonus fields I could think of that do not concern damage. One is cap. The other, if you indeed make the Khanid shield tanks, would be shield boosting, like on the Hawk. Others could be thought of.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.28 16:20:00 - [330] Originally by: Godagast Goudiyah Khanid might as well be laser/missile/shield, which is still different from the other two. And if you look at the weapons only, Amarr already cover the "all lasers" niche, which was my point. Sure, that works too. I personally would prefer lasers/shields over lasers/missiles/shields, but that's just personal preference, both work. Originally by: Godagast Goudiyah As for the other question, there are various bonus fields I could think of that do not concern damage. One is cap. The other, if you indeed make the Khanid shield tanks, would be shield boosting, like on the Hawk. Others could be thought of. That could work. -------- 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!

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.