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)
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:40:00 - [121] Edited by: Gronsak on 04/05/2006 22:45:54 TUXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx....................... the cpu is not enough, make it 20%, even 15% isnt enough! OR reduce the cpu need to 100mn mwd to 50 and do 10%. look at my post that shows ion setup if ur 10% goes through it basicly means insted of useing a t2 cpu mod i use a t1 cpu mod which isnt helping us much the cap on blasters should be less than lasers we all agree on that, BUTTTTTTT also take into account that blaster ships need to fit a mwd while a pulse ship doesnt [specilly the BS cloass] thus if blasters use only 25% less than lasers its basicly the same cap use since they dont get hit by the mwd 25%. so large blaster useing half cap of pulse imo makes sense!!! medium neutrons pg degcrease? dude that isnt required, i think your doing it becase of the ****ty deimos, but increase the deimos pg not neutron blaster PG decrease! also with your neutron blaster pg decrease you still cant fit 5x t2 neutrons and 1x mwd let alone the remaining 1high 2mid and 5low -------------------Sig----------------------- Boost the raven, i dont know how since its got great volley damage, massive range, any damage type, overpowered tank BUT BOOOOOOOSTTTT them raveneeeeen
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:46:00 - [122] Originally by: Kenan Waroria If you are trying to balance things please have a look at the carrier bonuses. I don¦t mind the Gallente 10% to Fighter damage, but compare it with the other races Carriers and there are no reason to get another race than Gallente (5% resistance or better remote tanking is useless compared to 10% damage). Wouldn¦t it be better if the other races got damage bonuses to their race specific damage (all the Gallente users would whine as hell if they got stuck with "only" Thermal bonus)? I think that's...a bit linear. Sure, the 5% resistance bonus, hey that could be applied to the fighters rather than the ship.... "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:57:00 - [123] I think it's kind of obvious the only carrier worth squat are the gallente ones, that bonus pretty much trumps every other. ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:57:00 - [124] tbh, 10% cpu decrease is more than enough for me. But it doesn't make any sense to fly blasterthron still. I'm better off with rails and few sensor boosters. Those 200dps aren't worth it. I think blasters should get like 10-15% more damage. Die, die, die.
Darpz	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:58:00 - [125] I also agree on the neutron blaster while makes sence on paper isn't required. I mean look at the Asatarte it already can fit a full rack of the stupid things. now your say your going to give it enough grid to play with while fitting them to also fit a tank. The only good fix is a DEAD fix
Darpz	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:59:00 - [126] Edited by: Darpz on 04/05/2006 23:00:04 Originally by: Jim Raynor I think it's kind of obvious the only carrier worth squat are the gallente ones, that bonus pretty much trumps every other. I disagree the amarr and caldari ones with faction tanks are scary hard to kill, while the mim ones is just a piece of space junk, but that fits the mim so it makes sence The only good fix is a DEAD fix
Arkanor	Posted - 2006.05.04 23:23:00 - [127] 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. Actually its 1.5x the damage, a 100% bonus (say 20% per level) would be double damage at level 5. Just FYI ________________________________________________ \_/ <-- My care cup, LOOK it's empty!
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.04 23:28:00 - [128] Nope....think about it. A launcher currently takes 10 seconds to fire, and does 100 damage. That's 10 DPS. If we cut the RoF to 5 seconds... The launcher fires at 5 and 10 seconds, doing 200 damage. That's 20 DPS. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
twit brent	Posted - 2006.05.04 23:32:00 - [129] Tux please look at large blasters again. Tachygeddon already beats the megathron at sniping before the extra 5% DMG. I dont care if tachygeddons can beat the megathron at range aslong as you give close range back to the megathron. Blasters do more damage than pulse right now but thats nothing when pulse get the better tracking, range, cap use and dont have to fit an MWD. Also null ammo has nothing on the pulse version as the optimal bonus does not help blaster all that much. Pulses are way more versitile as they can hit 60km+.
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.04 23:44:00 - [130] Originally by: Tuxford Some of you might feel that this is not enough. Damn right. A blasterthron is still the worst battleship for solo-work (hmm, ok, with the apoc right next to it I guess) and completely useless for anything else. Errr, ok, that was a bit wrong, cause there is actually one situation I can think of: A gang fight (say 4v4) that starts within 5km range (as in all ships within 5km). Then a blasterthron would be a good choice. Good thing that happen so often... Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
Nebuli	Posted - 2006.05.04 23:49:00 - [131] The blaster changes as far as I can see isnt going to change anything Please fix them instead of throwing useless buffs that wont actualy change anything, plenty of numbers flouting around for you to look at. Still not sure why tachs need a boost, Tach geddon pwns, as does tach apoc tbh, so realy dont get it, but whatever. Just fix the blasters "properly" please. CEO - Art of War
Sheriff Justice	Posted - 2006.05.04 23:51:00 - [132] Disapointed in the blaster changes. Please see here for an excellent explination. SJ
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.04 23:52:00 - [133] Originally by: Arkanor 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. Actually its 1.5x the damage, a 100% bonus (say 20% per level) would be double damage at level 5. Just FYI /me sends Arkanor and Testy McTest back to Math class. 1/1 = 1 1/0.5 = 2 Right? So, 50% to ROF = 200% boost to damage/time. Which also means that the standard -5% ROF at lvl 5 actually gives 33.3% bonus to damage/time and not 25% (then comes the factor of reload...). Yes, the reason for this is that the 'correct' way to measure ROF would be in 'shots per second' and not in 'seconds per shot', which is used in EVE. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
Stitcher	Posted - 2006.05.05 01:11:00 - [134] Originally by: Tuxford 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. This is awesome. Stitcher likes missiles, and now stitcher's AF likes missiles as well.. Still, it would be twice as sweet if we could get a Kestrel-esque damage bonus, rather than a velocity bonus, I think. Sig removed, please keep it below 24000 bytes, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus
ThunderGodThor	Posted - 2006.05.05 01:17:00 - [135] Edited by: ThunderGodThor on 05/05/2006 01:17:23 [rant] Well over all the changes on blasters are where i expected... that they completely miss the mark and do **** all. [rant end] Now on to fixing the problem. First is neutrons arnt the only blaster in the game. All the blasters need work. The cap changes on the blasters arnt enough as DC has run the math HERE. They still use to much cap and now with the changes to the ac-pest not needing cap for its guns makes the B-hron look like a joke. Now i dont know the numbers well enough but they need a min of 20% most would say higher and i agree reduction in cap use. As stated earlyer in this thread blasters still need a more of a cpu reduction as you cant fit much in the free up low. We also forget bout the med ions in that a diemos has a hard time fitting them as statedHERE. None the changes you have suggested are enough to fix the problem with them it also might be a good idea to read my to linked threads as there are some good data on the problem and possibly how to fix it form the people who REALLY use blasters. One last thing small blasters arent overpowered or need any changes as most i think agree. Plz dont lower the pg on small neutrons as that would make my Iskur/Enyo solo pwn mobiles as i could have a tanking/gank setup with both.
fmercury	Posted - 2006.05.05 01:25:00 - [136] Originally by: Tuxford 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 That's a good start, but i don't think it's enough to bring blasters in line with the other short range guns.
Dash Ripcock	Posted - 2006.05.05 01:58:00 - [137] So, despite a twenty-page thread, the Deimos is getting nothing bar the blaster changes that really aren't substantial enough to counter its horribly poor fitting? Nevermind her low speed, high mass and large signature radius. Sigh The Firing Range
Khadur	Posted - 2006.05.05 02:32:00 - [138] Zomg <3
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.05.05 03:29:00 - [139] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: j0sephine "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. Assault ships aren't really as bad as people make them out to be but I guess you have a point. This has more to do with the damage output of the interceptors than assault ships signature radius though. Not saying I'm going to omgwtfnerf interceptors though. Just turn them into tacklers, and leave T2 damage to the AFs and bombers. Originally by: Dark Shikari Istvaan Shogaatsu's ego, when combined with a veldspar asteroid, would create 500 titans. Too bad he's never mined. RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.05.05 03:35:00 - [140] Originally by: Jim Raynor So Hawk is 5% rate of fire on launchers and 10% velocity, 5% shield boost level (minmatar get 7.5% booo), and the resist "bonuses"? 5% kinetic dmg, 5% all-types dmg, and 10% missile velocity were the bonuses unless I missed something in this thread. Originally by: Dark Shikari Istvaan Shogaatsu's ego, when combined with a veldspar asteroid, would create 500 titans. Too bad he's never mined. RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
kbullet	Posted - 2006.05.05 03:40:00 - [141] would be nice if a slight boost tracking on the tachs too --- Give me liberty or give me death!
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.05.05 03:57:00 - [142] Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Tuxford 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. RIP Afrigs in PvP. sorry but that's a hefty nerf. no it just means that AF without ab get a massive hit, so forceing ppl to fit a mwd onto AF Have you ever put a MWD onto an AF? I'm going to guess you haven't, because that is simply not an option for many of them, and once webbed they'll just be taking full dmg from TORPS. Originally by: Dark Shikari Istvaan Shogaatsu's ego, when combined with a veldspar asteroid, would create 500 titans. Too bad he's never mined. RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.05.05 04:01:00 - [143] Originally by: Darpz Edited by: Darpz on 04/05/2006 23:00:04 Originally by: Jim Raynor I think it's kind of obvious the only carrier worth squat are the gallente ones, that bonus pretty much trumps every other. I disagree the amarr and caldari ones with faction tanks are scary hard to kill, while the mim ones is just a piece of space junk, but that fits the mim so it makes sence Hmm... fun tank for a ship that will most likely sit way the hell away from big fighting, or 10% damage allowing them to wipeout enemies fast as hell... Racial Damage bonii please. Originally by: Dark Shikari Istvaan Shogaatsu's ego, when combined with a veldspar asteroid, would create 500 titans. Too bad he's never mined. RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Darpz	Posted - 2006.05.05 04:03:00 - [144] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia Originally by: Darpz Edited by: Darpz on 04/05/2006 23:00:04 Originally by: Jim Raynor I think it's kind of obvious the only carrier worth squat are the gallente ones, that bonus pretty much trumps every other. I disagree the amarr and caldari ones with faction tanks are scary hard to kill, while the mim ones is just a piece of space junk, but that fits the mim so it makes sence Hmm... fun tank for a ship that will most likely sit way the hell away from big fighting, or 10% damage allowing them to wipeout enemies fast as hell... Racial Damage bonii please. thats all good and fine for fleet engagements but for small gang fights, which is what carrier is really good for being in the thick of the battle is alot more effiecent use for them The only good fix is a DEAD fix
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2006.05.05 04:23:00 - [145] Edited by: Hllaxiu on 05/05/2006 04:22:46 Originally by: Arkanor Actually its 1.5x the damage, a 100% bonus (say 20% per level) would be double damage at level 5. Just FYI A 100% rate of fire bonus is actually an infinate damage bonus. Everyone that played earth and beyond should be extremely familiar with the way rate of fire, or "turbo" effects work. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Levin Cavil	Posted - 2006.05.05 06:14:00 - [146] Originally by: Wizie As for blasters. I believe that cpu wise the following needs to be done. Electrons need reduced cpu... some 10% Ions need reduced cpu .. some 20% (bringing there cpu use down to Electron level) Neutrons need cpu reduced ... to Ion levels. Cap wise, they should use a little less cap than a pulse geddon (neutron vs Mega pulse). Everything else is fine. CCP, hire this man. ---------- <Kayosoni> I'm actually normal
Lily Savage	Posted - 2006.05.05 06:32:00 - [147] I am very concerned about the AF sig boost. A change that affects a whole class of ship doesn't sound like a change that's been well thought through or fully tested. Let's have individual changes for individual ships please. Plenty has been said about AF's role in PvP, but for me (and I suspect many others), AFs are the ship of choice for missions and complexes. That's not really because they are uber at these, but because they are fun. I'll be pretty unhappy if after the change, my AF starts taking cruiser like damage (or even destroyer like damage) :/ Finally, I'll add my support to the idea of changing interceptor damage bonuses for tackling bonuses - provided the changes are done sensibly, on a ship by ship basis. There's not much point having a web & scramble bonus on a ceptor with less that three mid slots.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.05.05 06:50:00 - [148] Originally by: Lily Savage A change that.......doesn't sound like a change that's been well thought through or fully tested. Ah, so you've noticed the theme running through the entire list of changes too then? Personally, I'm going for 'not been thought out or tested at all and simply dropped in to keep the hordes at bay because we can't be bothered making the changes that need to happen' Testy's Eve Blog - Now With Mp3 Rants about lack of game balance!
Wesley Harding	Posted - 2006.05.05 06:56:00 - [149] Edited by: Wesley Harding on 05/05/2006 06:58:46 What? No Caldari agility fix? Oh, and smartbombs, hello?
Aakron	Posted - 2006.05.05 06:59:00 - [150] I am seriously disappointed in the Blaster changes, it seems that the point in hand was overlooked for some minor changes. We will have boosted nos free vagabonds, and crappier AFs. Blasters need further CPU and cap decrease, the current changes are insufficient. Blasters need a dps increase to justify flying into such close range. I hope that further revisions are made

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.