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

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:37:00 - [31] 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. Originally by: j0sephine 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... Will do, will probably not make it in next patch though. Originally by: j0sephine "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; I did the math on these and iirc you get like 30% damage increase when shooting at smaller targets with precision cruise missiles rather than cruise missiles and something more on the heavies. The heavies get more gain since the velocity penalty is a lot harsher on a cruiser than a batt.... _______________

Forsch	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:39:00 - [32] Originally by: Tuxford 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. Don't nerf them. Just change them from damage dealers to tacklers. :) Forsch Defender of the empire
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:39:00 - [33] Originally by: Tuxford 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. Unfortunately, traditionally the Minmatar are imbalanced, so you'll have to break with tradition somewhere :P You're missing the point. Its increase the damage output by 50%, not double, for a start, and for a second it only applies to half of its slots. That being said, 10% is still too much. If a good example of a Minmatar ship is two weapon bonuses, each applied to 6 weapon systems, then that's a total of 12 times the bonuses are applied. For a Typhoon, the bonus is only being applied 8 times. Thus you need to increase the bonus by 1.5, hence, 7.5% to RoF on both weapon systems. Anything else is short changing the Typhoon, and that's before the other issues that I've mentioned above. Testy's Eve Blog!
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:40:00 - [34] Ok, nothing else I feel really strongly about, I have to ask about the TII rockets, at present rage deals massively reduced damage vs frigs/destroyers for a slight increase vs cruisers whilst basically turning off your cap (-45% cap recharge for each launcher ? ). Meanwhile javelin does reduced damage vs frigs (50% larger explosion radius) and makes your ship crawl along (-30% speed per launcher) for an (admittedly decent sized) increase in range. Both seem pretty much useless to me in there current states. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:43:00 - [35] Edited by: j0sephine on 04/05/2006 16:43:55 "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." Yup, i figure curbing the interceptors some would be another way to go about this ^^; (although if that was to happen, i'd hope at least half the ceptors is left in their 'assault' shape with the other half being tuned more for tackling.. or something to that effect. Rather than smacking them all ;.; "Will do, will probably not make it in next patch though." Thanks, it's good enough that it's actually going in the pipeline \o/ "I did the math on these and iirc you get like 30% damage increase when shooting at smaller targets with precision cruise missiles rather than cruise missiles and something more on the heavies." Aye, and this is exactly the difference in dps between cruises->heavies and heavies->lights (40% in this case) ... so by changing the numbers you'd have the damage increase of 15% and 20% respectively... which i think is reasonable gain from tech.2 equipment. While 30-40% feels a bit overboard ^^;; edit: and aye, what was said right before me... tech.2 rockets could use good long look at, but am guessing there isn't really enough time for this before next patch goes out.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:44:00 - [36] Originally by: Forsch Originally by: Tuxford 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. Don't nerf them. Just change them from damage dealers to tacklers. :) I aggree with the amarr scum above give them webber and scrambling range boni Summertime - Campingtime!
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:48:00 - [37] "I aggree with the amarr scum above" I don't, in the sense "changing them into tacklers" is nerfing all the same, just under different name. It's an okay change for these ceptors which currently have little use, but the ones that don't... is another matter.
Phoenix Jones	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:52:00 - [38] I see the prices of AF's dramatically falling :-) Other than that, I like most of these changes. I am sad though that no new BC's came out yet (Yes i know, Kali..). AM glad projectiles got tweaked. Also desparately awaiting advanced drone interfacing to come out. Me wanna be a Pwnmobile!
Klurig	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:52:00 - [39] I guess this means there is a grim outlook for the drone AI getting looked at? :( ------------------------------------------------------------
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:52:00 - [40] Originally by: Testy Mctest Originally by: Tuxford 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. Unfortunately, traditionally the Minmatar are imbalanced, so you'll have to break with tradition somewhere :P You're missing the point. Its increase the damage output by 50%, not double, for a start, and for a second it only applies to half of its slots. That being said, 10% is still too much. If a good example of a Minmatar ship is two weapon bonuses, each applied to 6 weapon systems, then that's a total of 12 times the bonuses are applied. For a Typhoon, the bonus is only being applied 8 times. Thus you need to increase the bonus by 1.5, hence, 7.5% to RoF on both weapon systems. Anything else is short changing the Typhoon, and that's before the other issues that I've mentioned above. Tux, I would like to point out that despite this change to Typhoon being a boost, is still not up to par with many BS. It is still practically a single bonus. Granted it affects all 8 slots, but all in all its a measely 5 % dmg bonus to a ship and nothing else. Since it affects 8 dmg dealing slots, I would recommend a mid-ground. Not a 10%, instead a 7.5% bonus to turret/missile rof. That way we dont get a 50% bonus to all slots, but not a mere 25% bonus (when technically we should have 2 proper bonii). I've trained up torps 5 just for this, and the skill finished earlier today. HOWEVER, I would still prefer a more useful bonus to a phoon.. ALSO.. Please fix the shield/armor discrepancy on a 7 low 4 mid slot ship.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.04 16:58:00 - [41] Edited by: j0sephine on 04/05/2006 17:00:38 "You're missing the point. Its increase the damage output by 50%, not double, for a start, and for a second it only applies to half of its slots." 50% bonus to RoF = 2x the damage since 1 / 0.5 = 2 it's indeed 50% increase of _overall_ damage, but only because it indeed affects half of the slots. But combined with the 5% rof bonus to other 4 slots, it'd give Typhoon 13.3 weapons worth of damage, which is high above any other battleship in the game, which don't generally get more than ~10 weapons worth of damage. edit: as it is, with 8 slots and 5% bonus to RoF on all of them Typhoon winds up with higher effective amount of weapons than even Armageddon, which is certainly nice value. Asking for more... that's overdoing it.

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:03:00 - [42] Originally by: Phoenix Jones I see the prices of AF's dramatically falling :-) Other than that, I like most of these changes. I am sad though that no new BC's came out yet (Yes i know, Kali..). AM glad projectiles got tweaked. Also desparately awaiting advanced drone interfacing to come out. Me wanna be a Pwnmobile! If these changes get in the patch the advanced drone interfacing skill will be dropped after it. About the Typhoon, then I realize you don't think its enough I can even understand the arguements that it is really only one bonus but at this point I would rather give it two small boosts than boost it only to nerf it in the following patch. _______________

CaptainCrunch	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:05:00 - [43] Maybe it is about time for an interceptor dmg nerf? Maybe add more specific bonuses e.g. half the damage bonus from 50% to 25%, but ad things like increase nos amount/range, increased web/scramble range, somthing along those lines? /me shrugs
Shamis Orzoz	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:06:00 - [44] What about the jaguar, weren't you going to give it more speed?
Artica Silverfox	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:09:00 - [45] Originally by: Tuxford About the Typhoon, then I realize you don't think its enough I can even understand the arguements that it is really only one bonus but at this point I would rather give it two small boosts than boost it only to nerf it in the following patch. Love is best served in many small doses. Mucho wubbins for the blaster tweaks. :)

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:11:00 - [46] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz What about the jaguar, weren't you going to give it more speed? Yeah I was. With the test server being down then I don't think it will get proper public testing before it goes live, so basically not this patch. _______________

MellaRinn	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:13:00 - [47] Originally by: Tuxford 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. Tux: what Patrick meant was that you surely didn't mean only Cruiser Sized (Heavy) neutron Blasters, but all sized Neutron Blasters (i.e. Light Neutron Blaster, Heavy Neutron Blaster and Neutron Blaster Cannon). Please say it's for all 3 classes (Capital don't concern me that much atm )

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:14:00 - [48] Originally by: MellaRinn Originally by: Tuxford 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. Tux: what Patrick meant was that you surely didn't mean only Cruiser Sized (Heavy) neutron Blasters, but all sized Neutron Blasters (i.e. Light Neutron Blaster, Heavy Neutron Blaster and Neutron Blaster Cannon). Please say it's for all 3 classes (Capital don't concern me that much atm ) Nope just heavy neutron blasters, not neutron blaster cannons or light neutron blasters because of the reason in the quote. _______________

moemoemoe	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:14:00 - [49] Tuxford, you mention a post about the role change for the Typhoon in your first post. Being my usual blind self I can't seem to find it, could you or someone else please link me?
Eximius Josari	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:25:00 - [50] What about the Nightmare? It stills needs more CPU ~Shadowlord Don't miss your chance to buy Sobe
Cloue	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:30:00 - [51] Originally by: Eximius Josari What about the Nightmare? It stills needs more CPU Tux run while you still can or u might be here all night
MellaRinn	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:44:00 - [52] Edited by: MellaRinn on 04/05/2006 17:46:00 Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: MellaRinn Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Cmdr Patrick Originally by: Tuxford Nope just heavy neutron blasters, not neutron blaster cannons or light neutron blasters because of the reason in the quote. Sorry, just read it carefully, meh, I think I need some sleep ;-)
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:44:00 - [53] I would increase the explosive radius on precision missiles a bit but not the actual damage they do, oh well. 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"? The reason people don't like AF much is because they have the mass of freaking cruisers and are actually like 10% faster than a cruiser as well in many instances. Also those "resist bonuses" aren't really bonuses at all, pretty lame. ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:47:00 - [54] Here's a problem I've discovered (this is a case of "it's not enough, needs more" feeling). 1. Capacitor use on blasters are still higher than on I-dont-use-ammo Pulse Lasers (22.1 versus 20 per shot on level 5 BShip, T2 highest grade turrets). Aren't lasers supposed to be the capacitor intensive weapons? 2. The CPU reduction is nice. Now we might get a low slot left without a CPU mod, but what are we going to fit in that slot? Nanofiber or (non energized) adaptive, maybe, but... And then a comment about the Artillery tracking: I do hope you are aware that the tracking difference between Artilleries and Railguns is minimal (Railguns've more tracking due to Gallentean bonuses) New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:48:00 - [55] Originally by: Tuxford About the Typhoon, then I realize you don't think its enough I can even understand the arguements that it is really only one bonus but at this point I would rather give it two small boosts than boost it only to nerf it in the following patch. I know its probably useless at this point to mention just how long the ship has been totally broken. So, I'm happy with that as long as you're not going to put it off for two years just because it's being given a little boost - it's going to be looked at whilst you're fixing artillery and autocannons properly for the next major content patch, right? Testy's Eve Blog!
Phoenix Jones	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:55:00 - [56] Well its always a good idea, when addressing a specific issue, to increase the potential of a ship Slowely. This helps offset the issues when a ship gets too much power, and the enevitable nerf (which people loathe). The Typhoon falls under that grid (its one of those nightmarish kinda ships to properly balance with everything else since it can pretty much do most everything (just not to a significantly good degree). I do believe the dev's do not want it to become the new Gankmobile (and most of us don't want it to become that either). Balance for the Typhoon...difficult it is.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.04 17:57:00 - [57] Well here's the INGENIUS solution to AFs. Adjust their sig radius to what it should... But to counter that much-needed nerfing, give them a REAL bonus instead of the fake resistances bonuses that HACs just have built-in. So they lose their tiny sig radius and gain a bonus they were supposed to have in the first place. That should balance out quite nicely. -------- 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!
Lord Waxduck	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:01:00 - [58] this seams a good start but i still feel that you could do something with the damage types of all the guns to give them all a differant flavor, To make tanking a little more interesting. Olso why aint you doing anything with the tech 2 torps as they suck bigtime 1000m radius ? not even a dread has that and the prisision torps are just as useless, i get better hits with t1 torps at a fraction of the cost. ☻IN♦GAME♦SINCE♦2003♦
Shamis Orzoz	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:01:00 - [59] With an increased sig radius, there will be no reason to use an assault frig over a destroyer.
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:03:00 - [60] 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. Like j0 said, I can see the rationale for this but I can't see how this isn't going to really hurt. AFs are already "secondary" ships in PvP, and this won't help that. However, they're also currently great and fun PvE ships, and they derive a lot of their survivability from simply not having to tank as much damage as larger ships due to speed and sig radius. By boosting the sig radius you're risking not only making them less useful for PvP but also making them far less useful for PvE, which would be a huge shame.
wierchas noobhunter	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:08:00 - [61] <3 i lube u all nice mode ON/off Naughty - don't discuss moderation on the forums! - Cathath
wierchas noobhunter	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:13:00 - [62] Originally by: Tuxford 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. wait a minute and what abaut deimos ? nice mode ON/off Naughty - don't discuss moderation on the forums! - Cathath
Porro	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:17:00 - [63] Edited by: Porro on 04/05/2006 18:22:00 Glad to see drone control units being released, any news on drone damage mods? You once made a post before saying they had not been released as they where bugged, is this still true? Also will they affect fighters? Wub woo in the mean time for blaster fixies And yeah, what about the deimos? ---------------------------------------------------- (22:01:14) (Sangxianc) you, porro, have madder skillzors than i, sang, do
zoturi	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:37:00 - [64] drone damage mod? domi is already too good
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:39:00 - [65] Originally by: zoturi drone damage mod? domi is already too good EW is too good. Since minmater won't need cap to fire anymore, you can only say... rip vampadomi. Die, die, die.
Dreez	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:43:00 - [66] I wasnt gonna waste any time replying to this, but i cant help myself. Changes. /me checks the date - No its not april 1:st. Let me get back to¦ya when the real changes comes, and SISU goes online. Current Location: After chasing TomB for 2 years, at the pub, getting a cold beer.
Soyemia	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:43:00 - [67] So no boost to AC:s & general arty boost. It doesnt chage the fact that minmatar has lowest tank & DPS=bad race. Speed dont give any advantage with worst tracking. Speed isint in this game big factor anyways. Most worst it come in BS class ships, you cant orbit and avoid hits by speed. So, that doesnt change the fact that minmatars are generally the worst race.
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:51:00 - [68] Edited by: LUKEC on 04/05/2006 18:51:45 Originally by: Soyemia So no boost to AC:s & general arty boost. It doesnt chage the fact that minmatar has lowest tank & DPS=bad race. Speed dont give any advantage with worst tracking. Speed isint in this game big factor anyways. Most worst it come in BS class ships, you cant orbit and avoid hits by speed. So, that doesnt change the fact that minmatars are generally the worst race. Wtf are you smoking? Acs get boost by not using cap... i see alot of tempest fitting more jammers and less injectors. Oh and how is minmatar exactly lowest tanking race? Please explain this to me. Also i predict another 50% boost in vaga prices. Die, die, die.
Soyemia	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:58:00 - [69] wrong char
Gai Servos	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:58:00 - [70] AC:s use so little cap, it doesnt really boost em :D
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.04 18:59:00 - [71] Originally by: Gai Servos AC:s use so little cap, it doesnt really boost em :D orly? But there is huge difference between very little and 0. Die, die, die.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:01:00 - [72] Originally by: LUKEC Edited by: LUKEC on 04/05/2006 18:49:58 Originally by: zoturi drone damage mod? domi is already too good EW is too good. Since minmater won't need cap to fire anymore, you can only say... rip vampadomi. Oh and another thing... electron cannons do 10% less dps than ions... need fixing? since the vagabound is probably the most flown matari ship, it will only benefit the vagabound Summertime - Campingtime!
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:04:00 - [73] Originally by: zoturi drone damage mod? domi is already too good wont fit on domi anyway Summertime - Campingtime!
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:04:00 - [74] Originally by: Testy Mctest Originally by: Tuxford About the Typhoon, then I realize you don't think its enough I can even understand the arguements that it is really only one bonus but at this point I would rather give it two small boosts than boost it only to nerf it in the following patch. I know its probably useless at this point to mention just how long the ship has been totally broken. So, I'm happy with that as long as you're not going to put it off for two years just because it's being given a little boost - it's going to be looked at whilst you're fixing artillery and autocannons properly for the next major content patch, right? well, for as long as 1200 howitzers are useless I wait for next data export, how many 1200 howitzers got destroyer in whole evetime. I guess my tempest with them were at least 10% of them Summertime - Campingtime!
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:05:00 - [75] "AC:s use so little cap, it doesnt really boost em :D" Main difference is being able to still shoot while nossed dry, vs your guns turn off on you and cry there's no cap to feed them... So it's like, the difference between dishing few hundred dps and none at all.
fisho	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:06:00 - [76] I must admit, i am pretty disppointed at the changes for the blaster tbh, was hoping for a bit more, oh well, i'm sure something might change later after tuxford gets battered by another FIX THE BLASTER thread by Dreez. But impressed by the precision cruise change, makes sense tbh. Overall a mixed bag.
Gunstar Zero	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:20:00 - [77] <3 Tux. Really excited about the Hawk. re: Blasters. The way I see it, the risk in getting in so close to the enemy is not worth the reward. Blasters in range should (imho) be uber-pwn. With antimatter, huuuge dps, Totally sucky at anything over 10k tho. Would make for some cool fights:- "ok guys we're totally outnumbered, lets warp in at 15k and see what we can kill before we die" etc re: Precision stuff the dps on cruise missiles is horrible so reducing dmg is painful, but then again I dont like frigates being instaganked by cheaty-esque missiles. Would it be possible to tweak them so they had less effect on a fast moving target instead. i.e. good dmg on small targets, but not if they're movign fast? nice work :)
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:21:00 - [78] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: zoturi drone damage mod? domi is already too good wont fit on domi anyway least the drone dmg mods are midslot ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Wolfgang Jager	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:23:00 - [79] I'm depressed that a more reasonable set of changes to blaster wasn't considered. The main problems with them are tracking speeds that are unable to cope with the transverals generated by such short range weapons. I'm also depressed by the continual assault on T2 missiles, most are a complete waste of time and the precisions are now becoming so. I think you really need to re-evaluate them completely. Apply more appropriate drawbacks and better bonuses to their intended uses so there is a compelling reason to bother paying the high costs for them. Also, T2 rockets need a lot more work and should have been higher priority.
Dreez	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:25:00 - [80] Originally by: fisho I must admit, i am pretty disppointed at the changes for the blaster tbh, was hoping for a bit more, oh well, i'm sure something might change later after tuxford gets battered by another FIX THE BLASTER thread by Dreez. But impressed by the precision cruise change, makes sense tbh. Overall a mixed bag. Those were not the "final" changes to the blasters, so im waiting with the witchhunt untill its been decided. Current Location: After chasing TomB for 2 years, at the pub, getting a cold beer.
Zendor	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:27:00 - [81] Tux, Some good stuff, although already looking forward to the next batch of changes :) AFs: really don't need a sig rad nerf/bug fix - it's already difficult to justify using a wolf/jag over a claw most of the time. Phoon: Still not there. I don't think you need to worry about overboosting it really... It needs shield/armour points switching; grid (or probably, reduced grid for projectiles generally); build mins reducing to bring its price in line with other tier 1s, and its second bonus... Jag: Hopefully the delay will give you time to realise it needs the extra mid Cynabal: I know this isn't a faction ships patch, but when is it going to get its grid boosted as per Ruppie boost last year? Some good changes tho - looking foward to proj damage improvements. PS - one day can you fix the bellicose properly
Mihae	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:29:00 - [82] AFs dont need a nerf, they are "secondary" combat ships as mentioned before and does not deserve a nerf.
Vina	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:35:00 - [83] Edited by: Vina on 04/05/2006 19:35:29 Actually. you guys aren't thinking right on the phoon. It will be pretty damn good with this change... let's think of it this way: Tempest: 50% to 6 guns = 9 guns Typhoon: 25% to 8 guns = 10 guns Not to mention the typhoon's drone space! add 5 tech 2 heavy drones, and you have quite a lot of damage output! Assault frigs... either don't nerf them, nerf their sig radius and give them a proper 4th bonus, or change interceptors to fit their role... web/scram bonuses would be very nice. Now then... NIGHTHAWK? :\| ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
hylleX	Posted - 2006.05.04 19:52:00 - [84] So the vengeance was to bad to fix i guess? And this time please dont make another Sacrilege which didnt get any better after gettin a "boost", it just became the weaker little brother of the Carthum counterpart . And btw the retribution needs a midslot so it can pvp. Amarr AFs needs help ---------------------------------------------------------
Porro	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:03:00 - [85] Originally by: Jim Raynor least the drone dmg mods are midslot Wha? You sure you don't mean the trackling mods? When they where last on sisi aaages ago, they where low slot. making them midslot, just wouldn't be cool ---------------------------------------------------- (22:01:14) (Sangxianc) you, porro, have madder skillzors than i, sang, do
Wrayeth	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:08:00 - [86] Edited by: Wrayeth on 04/05/2006 20:14:48 Good stuff, Tux. Regarding the precision missile nerf, will that have any effect on javelin torpedos, or do you consider them balanced as-is? I.E. will I take a damage penalty vs. other battleships when using them? The reason I ask is that I usually run javs so I can inflict full torp damage to the 'geddon, typhoon, and tempest, which all have sig radii that result in them taking reduced damage from tech 1 torps. As for the typhoon, I'm really looking forward to trying it out. I managed to squeeze on the following setup when I was on the test server the other day, which looks like it will be pretty evil in PvP once the bonus change happens: 4 dual 425 II 4 siege II 1 100MN AB II 1 faint 20km scrambler 1 fleeting web 1 heavy electrochemical cap injector 2 large armor rep II (might've been accoms, not tech II - can't log in to the test server atm to check) 3 N-type hardeners 1 RCU II 1 PDU II When combined with five heavy drones, a full eight battleship-sized weapons ought to be pretty damned uber in terms of damage output. EDIT: Can someone do a DPS calculation for the setup I just posted, taking into account the typhoon changes? I'm half asleep and can't be arsed. -Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Kaleeb	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:10:00 - [87] Originally by: hylleX So the vengeance was to bad to fix i guess? And this time please dont make another Sacrilege which didnt get any better after gettin a "boost", it just became the weaker little brother of the Carthum counterpart . And btw the retribution needs a midslot so it can pvp. Amarr AFs needs help Just because you cant solo in a retribution doesnt mean its useless for pvp.
Blind Man	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:11:00 - [88] err wait a minute, what about autocannons? 425/200mm's? Passari will never be safe again
Oneyeking	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:16:00 - [89] looks like Projectile are getting a bigger boost than basters
Andrew Jade	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:20:00 - [90] Yea, what Blindman said
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:38:00 - [91] Originally by: Oneyeking looks like Projectile are getting a bigger boost than basters honestly, 1200/650/250 howitzers are completly useless guns... for frigates its better to fit 75mm rails than 250 howitzers... Summertime - Campingtime!
R31D	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:41:00 - [92] Chnages look great, especially for ACs/Blasters Originally by: wierchas noobhunter i lube u all I think you might want to re-phrase that Free bumpage for all
Vina	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:42:00 - [93] yea, 1200/650/250 need more than just a damage boost, they need a role. There is NO REASON whatsoever to ever fit them. All ships have enough Grid for the big boys... There needs to be a REASON to use them other than less grid usage, since that isn't a valid reason. ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:45:00 - [94] Originally by: Tuxford 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. not impressed at all tux this is seriously not enough, firstly the 15% cap is not enough at all, to put this into context a megapulse t2 does 9.37% less damage than a neutron blaster t2. but neutron blaster fights in falloff decreasing our damage greatly, at 20km its halfed, just for comparion sake lets say they do the same damage becase pulse is in optimal blasters are not blasters range: 10km opti 15km falloff : effective range in my books 17.5km megapulse range: 45km + falloff. so the megapulse has about 3x the range a blaster does which means it doesnt need to fit a mwd so there alone its got more cap to play with max skill the megapulse uses 20% more cap [this is after your 15% blaster cap reduction and on a gedden with its rof] so for 20% more cap they get to fight in optimal [=full dmg] and have 300% the range? and instantly be able to hit upto 45+km. and not have to get into range becase of the great optimal? /me starts training large laser lvl 5 the cap reduction on large blasters needs to be at least imo 50% reduced [this is on large blasters and medium] heavy neutron blaster PG decrease by 10% ::what exactly was the plan here? you still cant fit 5x t2 neutrons + mwd let alone anything else! but that is a deimos problem not a med blaster imo CPU by 10% :: this was mostly a large blaster problem with the deimos being a bit hard to fit but doable so lets concentrate on large blasters for a sec. i been trying to still fit an ion setup on my blasterthron without faction mods or a cpu mod i got this so far 7x ion t2 1x mwd : 1x heavy cap injecter: 1x 20km : 1x webber 1x large t2 repper: 2x dmg mod : 2x energized adaptive nano t2: 1x named DCU: now i have left 1 low slot and 1high slot with a good helping of PG: what do i fit in these slots tux i only got 6.65CPU free [using the most cpu efficent mods] you know what i have to put there tux? yeh a cpu mod that way at lest i can put something usefull in the high slot, guess what my setup atm is tux? your 10% cpu decrease justs means my current setup cpu mod has to stay. you need to make it more than 10% or its just as we started! 80% of blaster complaints where on the b-thron and as u can see these changes do NOTHING, the 10% cpu might aswell not be there, the 15% cap is a joke, and medium neutrons still dont fit on a deimos. and just to compaire as balance is done compairing things: tmepest is able to fit 6x 650 T2 2x hvy nos. mwd. cap injecter. webber.20km [one optional mod dependant on situation]. 2 energized adaptives. 2dmg mods. 2 large reps. that coupled with its faster speed no cap guns, lower sig and our inability to still FIT the ship kinda shows you how low your figures are! -------------------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
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:46:00 - [95] Anyone who wanted 0 cap use on a vagabond just had to use named medium guns - it was just the TI and TII models that had 1 cap per shot. Granted, it might shave a few million off the setup costs and slightly increase the damage (by way of actually using the specializatin skill) on a few peoples vagabond setups, but overall the vagabond won't be capable of any more than it already was. It will probably help new people in there first stabber with poor skills and TI autocannons far more than most of the vets, funnily enough. . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
wierchas noobhunter	Posted - 2006.05.04 20:54:00 - [96] Originally by: R31D Chnages look great, especially for ACs/Blasters Originally by: wierchas noobhunter i lube u all I think you might want to re-phrase that nah nice mode ON/off Naughty - don't discuss moderation on the forums! - Cathath
Zenst	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:03:00 - [97] Sounds good. Astarte may be even more uber now, but hey i can fly that. Not got prob fitting that myself atm. Though not fitted any warfare information links on it yet :D
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:07:00 - [98] blasterthron setup after these changes if they are final best ion setup i can make is as follows: if anyones got better do let me know 7x t2 ion 1x empty 100mn mwd/web/20km/cap injecter [all usings lowest cpu types] 1x large t2 repper/2x dmg mod/2x energized adaptive nano t2/ 1x dcu/1x empty ok with that setup there is a nice amount of pg to play with, but there remains 11.65CPU so tux or anyone, what do i place in my 1 remaining low slot and 1 remaing high slot????? only thing i can think of is a CPU mod in low which then will permit 1x NOS and if u have a -3% cpu implant [which we should not have to use! since the other close range bs dont] we have 21cpu remaining, what to fit this time? ahh yes again cpu mod so we can actually fit something in that last high slot! tux take a good hard look at the cpu decrease, personally i would say 10% is ok if and only if you also lower the cpu of 100mn mwd from 75 to 50 which would permit us to use a nos in high and a non cpu using mod in low [ie a nanofibre or cpr in low with nos in high] -------------------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
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:09:00 - [99] I am against the 0 cap use on projectiles. People will soon moan about the Vagabond being immune to nos (which is its biggest problem.. LOW cap). Overall, I would much rather.. Dual 425 and Dual 650 get decreases in there falloff.... Make 800s do more dmg... a good amount. Make them worth fitting. same for the 425mm autocannon.
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:17:00 - [100] 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.
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:22:00 - [101] Originally by: Vina yea, 1200/650/250 need more than just a damage boost, they need a role. There is NO REASON whatsoever to ever fit them. All ships have enough Grid for the big boys... There needs to be a REASON to use them other than less grid usage, since that isn't a valid reason. Well in case of tempest its different, but yeah, a typhoon cant fit either 1400er or 1200er anyway, a 1200 II takes 3025 PG, thats 400 more than a 425er rail. And if you consider that the PG of a typhoon is barly more than the dominix ones... Summertime - Campingtime!
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:29:00 - [102] Originally by: Wizie As for blasters. I believe that cpu wise the following needs to be done. 1: Electrons need reduced cpu... some 10% 2: Ions need reduced cpu .. some 20% (bringing there cpu use down to Electron level) 3: Neutrons need cpu reduced ... to Ion levels. 4: Cap wise, they should use a little less cap than a pulse geddon (neutron vs Mega pulse). Everything else is fine. 4: why should they use only a little less than a pulse gedden, here is why i say they should use a lot less! pulse gedden: fights in optiaml so damage is higher. can swap from high damage crystals at 15km optimal to 45km optimal within a second! doesnt require a mwd so doesnt get the 25% cap hit has a lower sig than the mega. is tier 1 compaired to mega tier 2. it doesnt need to get into range so it doesnt need to use mwd which takes MASSIVE amounts of cap all those tell me it should be a healthy amoiunt less than pulse lasers! 3:2:1 as for the cpu, id say a 20% on large blasters or 10% but with the 100mn mwd getting its cpu use cut from 75cpu to 50cpu also tux look into the amount of cap used by 100mn mwd, its imo far too high! -------------------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
Gorion Wassenar	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:32:00 - [103] Originally by: j0sephine "AC:s use so little cap, it doesnt really boost em :D" Main difference is being able to still shoot while nossed dry, vs your guns turn off on you and cry there's no cap to feed them... So it's like, the difference between dishing few hundred dps and none at all. I agree 100%. Proj. should not be the only turrets with that ability. All turrest should use Cap. To an RP perspective, guns need juice to move the guns and to stabilize them during/to fire. Missles are a self contained package, power and all, that trades instant damage with damage if you wait a bit. ------------------ CEO of TKI Public Channel: TKI-Net http://s14.invisionfree.com/Tsurokigaarai/index.php
xeom	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:34:00 - [104] Here i was hoping to see some loving for the jaguar.Instead another reason to not pick it over a cruiser =( www.eve-files.com/media/signatures/xeomjugga.jpg[/IMG] CCP where are our t2 shield power relays? Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 kbs, ty - Cortes
commander tycho	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:34:00 - [105] 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. I agree, and Gronsak uses the numbers to show you that 10% is not enough, it hardly makes a difference as the cpu mod is still needed. After all the threads you still fail to make changes to blasters that people are happy with
Chode Rizoum	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:36:00 - [106] Originally by: Wizie I am against the 0 cap use on projectiles. People will soon moan about the Vagabond being immune to nos (which is its biggest problem.. LOW cap). Overall, I would much rather.. Dual 425 and Dual 650 get decreases in there falloff.... Make 800s do more dmg... a good amount. Make them worth fitting. same for the 425mm autocannon. :( dont give them any ides.. i like the current fall off.. and the cap usage sounds just o`so jolly ôThe harder the battle, the sweeter the victory.ö
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:37:00 - [107] So... acs get 100% cap reduction while blasters get 15% Now compare again d650 on tempest to ion cannon on thron. These guns do exactly same damage, however one uses 0 cap and 2/3 cpu. WHY? Oh well, guess gallente is the hard way to play eve. Die, die, die.
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:52:00 - [108] Originally by: Chode Rizoum Originally by: Wizie I am against the 0 cap use on projectiles. People will soon moan about the Vagabond being immune to nos (which is its biggest problem.. LOW cap). Overall, I would much rather.. Dual 425 and Dual 650 get decreases in there falloff.... Make 800s do more dmg... a good amount. Make them worth fitting. same for the 425mm autocannon. :( dont give them any ides.. i like the current fall off.. and the cap usage sounds just o`so jolly Chode don't you see.. A month from now 40% of Eve pvpers will fly a Vagabond. And the people will call for its nerfing. Guess what reasons they will provide? Too much range with barrage Too much speed for cruiser Too few -ves immune to NOS (which kills most other hacs dead). I would much rather they nerf barrage/cap use on proj then make the Vaga a target of 50 page posts regarding it being hax.
ChalSto	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:52:00 - [109] 10% reduction to cpu on large blasters and we all gave you (Tux) the numbers, that this decrase is not enough. So, what is your commend against this......I realy wanna know now (and I think ALOT of other Bthron-pilots too!!!) 20% Reduction to cpu and we will stfu cap use is ok. cap-use reduction is also ok. BUT CPU NOT! Current Location: Relax and drinking a beer with Dreez and waiting for Blaster changes UPDATE -> Still waiting...
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.04 21:54:00 - [110] Originally by: LUKEC So... acs get 100% cap reduction while blasters get 15% Now compare again d650 on tempest to ion cannon on thron. These guns do exactly same damage, however one uses 0 cap and 2/3 cpu. WHY? Oh well, guess gallente is the hard way to play eve. See.. the 0 cap use whinage has already begun.
Grimpak	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:00:00 - [111] 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. ---------------- Originally by: Abdalion Shoot him ingame if you don't like this person. If you do like him, go mine veldspar with him.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:03:00 - [112] 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 -------------------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
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:13:00 - [113] You know, I was about to post more arguments, but to be honest Im just sick of trying. Artillery needs more than a small buff to damage. It needs a huge boost in the case of the smaller ones, and a small boost in the case of larger ones. Auctocannons need looking at. The Typhoon needs a rework, not a token gesture. Blasters need a hell of a lot more thinking about. Changing their range would alter their flavour, but they still need a much larger cap decrease, and a much larger CPU decrease to compensate for their weakness. Tachyons get a BUFF when they need none. Assault frigates are about to be made even less useful than they already are, with the exception of the Hawk, which you're making way, way overpowered. And EVEN THOUGH this is no where near enough what needs doing, you're STILL not sure if it'll make the patch? You're promising to look at these things more in future, and you dont even know when these irrelevent minute buffs and ridiculous nerfs are going to happen? Seriously.....you need to listen to your players. Because this game is losing it. Yes, the sky is falling. Maybe there's a reason the average eve player only plays for seven months. Testy's Eve Blog!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:13:00 - [114] Time to give it a rest because you're not likely to get a response from Tux in the coming 10 hours or so (at least). As for assault frig, Gronsak, they're too heavy to have speed counteract their sig increase from the MWD. This means that an assault frig is actually easier to hit with the MWD going for max transversal than when they've not got the MWD going. It's a good starting point, however, Tuxford, for giving them the missing bonus set (that you don't believe in) New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Grimpak	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:13:00 - [115] 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 it's still a nerf. ---------------- Originally by: Abdalion Shoot him ingame if you don't like this person. If you do like him, go mine veldspar with him.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:14:00 - [116] Blasters? Great. Projectiles? Great. Tachion? Well afaik uncessary, but hardly game-breaking. Typhoon? About time. Hawk? I bought a bunch. Precision Missiles? Brilliant. DCU's? Wonderful AF's? ... For fleet defence, they need that low sig radius or turrets tend to make crispy AF's in moments. I'm not a fan of that change, at all. Nerfing Inties? I'm with j0. "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 22:21:00 - [117] Originally by: Testy Mctest You know, I was about to post more arguments, but to be honest Im just sick of trying. Artillery needs more than a small buff to damage. It needs a huge boost in the case of the smaller ones, and a small boost in the case of larger ones. Auctocannons need looking at. The Typhoon needs a rework, not a token gesture. Blasters need a hell of a lot more thinking about. Changing their range would alter their flavour, but they still need a much larger cap decrease, and a much larger CPU decrease to compensate for their weakness. Tachyons get a BUFF when they need none. Assault frigates are about to be made even less useful than they already are, with the exception of the Hawk, which you're making way, way overpowered. And EVEN THOUGH this is no where near enough what needs doing, you're STILL not sure if it'll make the patch? You're promising to look at these things more in future, and you dont even know when these irrelevent minute buffs and ridiculous nerfs are going to happen? Seriously.....you need to listen to your players. Because this game is losing it. Yes, the sky is falling. Maybe there's a reason the average eve player only plays for seven months. How is the hawk overpowered? It's basically a Tech II Kestrel. The Harpy is the tech II Merlin, and the Hawk before any changes is basically an ASSAULT RAPTOR! Yay.. Anyways, Hawk change is long overdue, it would be nice to have an actual missile oriented AF, since the Caldari AKA the Missile Race don't have one.. ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
Kenan Waroria	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:25:00 - [118] 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)? Gallente would still be better as their Carriers have more drone space than the other races. -= Think negative and you¦ll get positive surprices =-
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:30:00 - [119] Just woke up, but YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Psst, 15% or 20% CPU reduction on blasters might not that bad for Large ones Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs
Darpz	Posted - 2006.05.04 22:31:00 - [120] Somehow I knew this would happen when I heard the china server was comming. they are putting most of the current dev work into it and letting the current server slide. tux throws us a bone on some changes to make it look like they haven't forgotten us but really these are just some poorly thought out changes and not enough or not needed.Atleast on blasters the changes are not enough and are not enough to make a blaster mega a viable ship. Hawk/Phoon change is nice but Tachs didn't need the boost, ACs are already too easy to fit and now don't need cap. and all this limting modules to a certain class being the answer to balancing everything is getting a bit anoying. Cruiser and Frig blasters for the most part are fine even now and rarely run into CPU issues but BS Class Blasters need more DPS in the ion and neutron sizes , Blasters need about a 20% CPU reduction to get to the point where you can fit the stupid things and a proper setup in the rest of the slots, and they need 25-50% reduction in cap before they'll be viable to use in the BS class. The only good fix is a DEAD fix
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
Hugh Ruka	Posted - 2006.05.05 07:29:00 - [151] large blasters are not the main problem, megathron is the problem: 1. too low cpu 2. guns, tank AND propulsion heavily compete for capacitor use 3. low slots divided between tank, damage and fiting 1. decrease blaster cpu as proposed AND increase mega cpu by about 50 2. give mega a amarr like bonus. either +cap per level or -blaster cap use per lever (or repairer cap efficiency) 3. above points solve this one no non-caldari ship should be ever severely CPU limited ... we are the electronics masters so we have to pay for the choices. I have never flown a mega nd will never do, so treat this post as you like. ------------------------------ if you want peace, prepare for war ... ------------------------------ Removed due to offensive content - Laqum I realy liked my signature. Oh well
Drilla	Posted - 2006.05.05 07:54:00 - [152] Okay so now Minmatar or Caldari dont need any cap to shoot = easier to make a tank. But Amarr and Gallente do, and their offensive mods are the hardest to fit? Maybe a significant boost to Amarr and Gallente BS ships CPU is what is needed the most? Seek not to bar my way, for I shall win through - no matter the cost!
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.05 07:56:00 - [153] Originally by: Drilla Okay so now Minmatar or Caldari dont need any cap to shoot = easier to make a tank. But Amarr and Gallente do, and their offensive mods are the hardest to fit? Maybe a significant boost to Amarr and Gallente BS ships CPU is what is needed the most? Tbh, i'll fit thron ok when they reduce cpu by 10%. But i want it to do damage. Not just have easier fitting and still die to anything, even if i start in my optimal. Die, die, die.
Deviana Sevidon	Posted - 2006.05.05 08:03:00 - [154] Still no love for the Deimos. Decreasing Neuton Blaster PG-Needs will not help either. The Ship is still lacking the ability to even fit Ion Blasters effectivly. I am really dissapointed.
Maggot	Posted - 2006.05.05 08:15:00 - [155] Very very disappointed not to see a damage boost for large blasters.
Ysolde Xen	Posted - 2006.05.05 08:22:00 - [156] I think in the deluge of replies Tux has gone looking for cover But seriously, my oar's worth: The Jaguar Changes unlikely for thiscoming patch - great! More time to fully test stuff. I'd still like it to be a little faster but not at the loss of it's Optimal bonus. Currently, this bonus is what allows the Jagaur to make the best use of Artillery and be the Minmatar's sniper. The Wolf can't do it (not enough PG for Artillery) and it's configured to be an AC boat anyway. The Jaguar's current role is that of flexibility. It already can tackle, it can go up close with the ACs and it can sit back with the artillery and make rude gestures at targets with web/nos/scram - all depending on what is needed at the time. By speeding it up at the cost of it's optimal bonus, it's losing the ability to make the best use of the artillery/long range option and becomes another up-close AC beast. I know ACs are normally the way to go in a fight but this is only further removing the niche capability of artillery support in a firefight when the need arises, which the jaguar can do. Oh yeah - any word on the proposed slight CPU boost for it? That been dropped or still in the pipeline? AF Sig Rad Oh pants WTB Sig Rad reduction skill (2% per level) Projectile Cap use Good to see it's been removed. It was severely borked with certain guns requiring tons more cap than others for no readily apparent reason. That and we always get everyone whining 'but your guns don't use cap' and it's nice to see that become a valid argument To all the people going 'Vagabond will be unstoppable as it won't need cap now!!1!' - passive-tanking missile boats anyone? coughcaldaricough There's nothing wrong with the Vaga (or a missile ship) still being able to fire its weapons if it's nossed to oblivion when others can also do it. The ability to set up a ship to be nos-immune is a great idea because everyone relies on nos to be an I-Win button. Arty changes Good to see the lower tier artillery having a point now. Only people I ever saw fitting them were either 1) newbies who hadn't discovered the truth yet, 2) stubborn people who didn't care or 3) people waiting for their skills to train up to be able to squeeze 280s. Bigger clip size for both tiers would be lovely though. Doubling it wouldn't be so overpowered would it? Blasters Only use them in passing on some of my Gallente ships but I've never been able to come up with a reason to fit Neutrons because the severe gimping the rest of the ship suffers was too much to make up for the potential gankage. Not sure why all neutrons didn't get the PG reduction but, oh well. We'll see what happens with further tweaks. Cheers for the info and updates Tux! ----- Just because you couldn't get a ship to do what you wanted doesn't mean it's a crap ship - it means you're a crap pilot of that ship.
Ishana	Posted - 2006.05.05 08:27:00 - [157] Originally by: Tuxford 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. Talk about useless... For normal/higher skillpoint player I doubt that cap was ever an issue with the larger projectiles. Although it's "nice" it is a total token change without any basis. The lower tier howies are still useless. No reason to fit them ever. There are allot bigger issues with the projectiles which have been laid out and calculated by players on this forum allot. Maybe you should actually read some of the stuff they say for once, instead of throwing them a rotten bone. Originally by: Tuxford Tacyon beam I've already posted a bit about this. Its getting a boost so now it does about 5% more damage over time than mega beam laser. pppppffff Originally by: Tuxford 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. It's still a broken ship, although it helps a little bit. it's not enough by a long shot. I'd rather have a 7,5% drone damage bonus instead tbh. 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. Meh... hawk will be the best AF in game now because of the way missiles work. Although that's not bad it sucks that the other AF's are complete rubish. And they are getting a nerf to signature aswell! _________________________________________________________
madaluap	Posted - 2006.05.05 09:12:00 - [158] this entire typhoon lacks dmgoutput after changes is total and i mean total bull**.. The Raven is the powerhouse of the Caldari Navy. With its myriad launcher slots and powerful shields, few ships can rival it in strength or majesty. Special Ability: 5% bonus to Cruise and Siege Launcher Rate Of Fire and 10% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo Velocity per level. Typhoon # Projectile optimal range bonus changed to a siege and cruise missile launcher rate of fire bonus If we take a raven with 4X launcher and a typhoon with 4X launcher, both of them will get --exactly-- the same dmgoutput. but onoes the raven has 2X extra launcherslot, well to bad that the typhoon has 4!! than... after the changes ill be flying this trashcan and its gonna be omfgwtfhax, its uber ^^. and personally i think most people whine simply because they dont like the 50/50 layout and the fact you need more sp in either gunnery or missiles..and offcourse drones.. _________________________________________________ In worldwar 2 they called me ***slap
Sadist	Posted - 2006.05.05 09:17:00 - [159] Very disappointed to see no changes to PG requirements of medium rails, especially the 250mm, which is unviable on most gallente ships at the moment. --------------- VIP member of the [23] Quote: - Numbers alone do not win a battle - No, but I bet they help.
Bacchuss	Posted - 2006.05.05 09:34:00 - [160] yay, no need to fit blaterthron with half faction stuff to safe CPU ************************************ "What you gonna do, when I come for yoU?!" ************************************
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:08:00 - [161] Originally by: Sadist Very disappointed to see no changes to PG requirements of medium rails, especially the 250mm, which is unviable on most gallente ships at the moment. I think thats the fate of the top medium guns, None Matari ship can fit 720 howitzers without using 2 PG modules Summertime - Campingtime!
Bellum Eternus	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:09:00 - [162] not that I need to restate all the obvious problems w/ the proposed blaster changes that have been so well desribed already, but I just want to post to let the devs know that this is one more customer in agreement that the blaster changes are way too little. none of it solves any of the existing issues. might as well do nothing.

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:14:00 - [163] Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. _______________

Ishana	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:22:00 - [164] Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. oh FFS why not? and how long do we have to wait this time? Originally by: Tuxford Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. It might be small but it's still a nerf to an already struggeling ship class, any way you look at it. Originally by: Tuxford Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. I think people just get their hopes up that stuff get ballanced sometime, but at this rate..... _________________________________________________________
madaluap	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:35:00 - [165] Edited by: madaluap on 05/05/2006 10:39:46 Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. /rant on Its just going waaay to slow, a lot of stuff has been added to the game, but now we want balance. basicaly what i think the eve-community wants is modules that arent used, to be made usefull and not LESS crap...yay neutron are less crap, but i still cant fit 7X neutron 2 and go fullout gank, while a tier 1 geddon can with its megapulse. Also "fixing" "issues" like 2 capusage/sec on large howitzers dont make people happy, when they have absolutly no reason to fit a 1200 over a 1400. Please start on the big fixes instead of all that small crap...we have waited long enough and if you alone cant handle such fixes on a short term (6 months) than raise payment for eve with 1 euro each month and hire more testers... /rant over _________________________________________________ In worldwar 2 they called me *****slap
Hygelac	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:44:00 - [166] Excellent changes all-over. I'm very impressed with all of these, including the sigradius change on the AFs which has been long overdue imo.
Lucus Ranger	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:46:00 - [167] Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. Does that mean that these blaster changes are just to slightly improve them until a proper fix can be found and properly tested?
Hygelac	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:49:00 - [168] Originally by: Ishana Originally by: Tuxford 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. You've obviously never been at the mercy of a well flown Dominix Ishana. After the first time you find yourself unable to shoot back with your projectiles it kinda starts you wondering why you can't muster up enough power to pull the trigger. Projectile use comes with enough penalties as it is. Of course I agree that this is a low impact change for Artillery users but you'll be thanking Tux next time you step into an Autocannon Phoon ... which will hopefully be a lot more prevalent once the bonus gets added (if it gets added :D)
Kenan Waroria	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:50:00 - [169] I don¦t think the problem with Proj cap use was that it¦s to high, rather that missiles don¦t use cap at all. Solveing the cap issue would rather be that all guns and missile launcher would use some cap to activate (it¦s not logical that you don¦t need cap at all). I would rather se something like this: Large: Mega pulse: 40 cap/activation (no change) Mega neutron blaster: 15 Siege launcher/800mm repeating: 2 Medium: Heavy pulse: 13.33 Heavy neutron: 4,5 Heavy launcher/425mm AC: 0,5 Small: Medium pulse: 4,44 Light Neutron: 1,5 Standard launcher/200mm AC: 0,1 Conclusion: no ship is immune to drainers. Still blasters use a lot of ammo where lasers don¦t so why would it use more or as much cap (assuming maxed skills)? I¦m nut sure what to do about long range ships, I only know that Railguns uses about as much cap as Beam lasers. On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons. -= Think negative and you¦ll get positive surprices =-
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.05 10:55:00 - [170] Originally by: Lucus Ranger Does that mean that these blaster changes are just to slightly improve them until a proper fix can be found and properly tested? thats the problem they dont improve anyhting, the cpu decrease is so low it just means insted of fitting a t2 cpu mod you can fit a t1 cpu mod :/ the cap reduction was not thought out well at all! you need to take into account that BS blaster ships need to get into range thus need a mwd killing 25% of the ships cap! but a pulse gedden with its 48km optimal doesnt need to do that. with 15% cap reduction we just use the same amount of cap as pulse users but none of the advantages like fighting in optimal no ammo, 48km optimal fast ammo chance ect ! and the last one, decreaseing heavy neutron PG, what was the point there? i think its trying to buff the deimos but you still cannot fit 5x neutrons and mwd let alone the remaining 1h/2m/5L -------------------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
Pesadel0	Posted - 2006.05.05 11:08:00 - [171] Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. ,Rest in peace typhoon .
Ishana	Posted - 2006.05.05 12:16:00 - [172] Originally by: Hygelac Originally by: Ishana Originally by: Tuxford 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. You've obviously never been at the mercy of a well flown Dominix Ishana. After the first time you find yourself unable to shoot back with your projectiles it kinda starts you wondering why you can't muster up enough power to pull the trigger. Projectile use comes with enough penalties as it is. Of course I agree that this is a low impact change for Artillery users but you'll be thanking Tux next time you step into an Autocannon Phoon ... which will hopefully be a lot more prevalent once the bonus gets added (if it gets added :D) I've flown against some domies and they wtfpwnd me because I had no tank rather then not being able to shoot. 3 cap/shot (without skills mind you) won't turn off when you use an cap injector like any 1v1 bs has. It's still a moot point since even if this would matter, vs anything but an extreem nos boot you won't even notice the difference... yeah great "buff". I'd rather have something usefull, like increase clip size for my autocannons. (which should have already been in game a very long time.) _________________________________________________________
Gabriel Karade	Posted - 2006.05.05 12:38:00 - [173] Originally by: Kenan Waroria On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons. Hope you have fire-retardant clothing, you're going to need it... ---------- - Office Linebacker -
Miklas Laces	Posted - 2006.05.05 12:52:00 - [174] Originally by: Tuxford Blasters Decreased Capacitor need by 15% Decreased cpu need by 10% Decreased powergrid need by 10% on all heavy neutron blasters All the long wait for THIS ? Oh well.. Medium Blasters didn't need the CPU decrease, neutrons are still not usable on any cruiser/hac. Cap reduction is fine. Large blasters cap reduction is not enough. They also need more tracking. All in all those changes won't change much. Both Deimos and Mega would still have the same problems they have now.
ChalSto	Posted - 2006.05.05 12:59:00 - [175] Originally by: Kenan Waroria On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons. A friendly advice from me (and all other Bthron-pilots) -> RUN VERY FAST NOW! @Tux -> erm.........I have waiting over 2 1/2 years now got get my blasters fixed.........and now THAT! Only 10% reduction in CPU? and 15% reduction in cap-use is just....erm.......LOL Current Location: Relax and drinking a beer with Dreez and waiting for Blaster changes UPDATE -> Still waiting...
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:16:00 - [176] Originally by: j0sephine 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. Have to agree here. Interceptors are already arguably superior to AFs in most pvp, this just increases the gap -- and makes AF more generally vulnerable also. Was the smallish sigrad really a problem? These ships don't move very fast, after all. If these was another part of this nerf that was reducing the combat ability of interceptor and making them more, well, interceptors, I wouldn't have much problems. But now inties are in danger of becoming totally overpowered vs AFs -- which you could say they already borderline are. A bit worried.
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:20:00 - [177] Originally by: Klurig I guess this means there is a grim outlook for the drone AI getting looked at? :( I'd settle for just an increase in the "scoop to drone bay" distance, at the moment drones more often that not crawl to almost scoop range -- and then stop. No idea why that happens, but it's a killer. Simply increasing the scoop range a bit should be an easy stopgap fix with no balance issues I can think of.
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:22:00 - [178] Originally by: Jim Raynor The reason people don't like AF much is because they have the mass of freaking cruisers and are actually like 10% faster than a cruiser as well in many instances. Also those "resist bonuses" aren't really bonuses at all, pretty lame. Yeah. If you keep the sig increase, how about dropping their mass a bit to compensate? At the moment AFs really do handle like cruisers.
Kenan Waroria	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:22:00 - [179] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Originally by: Kenan Waroria On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons. Hope you have fire-retardant clothing, you're going to need it... I think you need better arguments than that. Vindicator is close to being a blastership, but it would be better with a cap reduction to blasters rather than tracking bonus. The problems with blasters isn¦t the tracking so why use it on a ship with tracking bonus? Because Megathron can "almost" fit 7xBlasters, tanking, cap injector and MWD no other ship is close in doing it with blasters but it¦s still "only" almost the right ship. Personally I think the Dominix was designed for Blasters and drones, Megathron was designed for Railguns. -= Think negative and you¦ll get positive surprices =-
Wrayeth	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:33:00 - [180] Edited by: Wrayeth on 05/05/2006 13:37:37 Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. Ouch. I assume this has something to do with why the latest mirror went bad the first time around? EDIT: ...or not. I just found an additional post on the game development forum saying it had something to do with agent data. Second hypothesis: time and manpower constraints? Quote: Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. Props for being forthright and up-front about this. Also props for sticking to your guns rather than risking unbalancing the game for months due to lack of testing. -Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
QwaarJet	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:36:00 - [181] Quote: Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. A reason for that would be nice. I think people are getting a bit sick of "We can't do this". What CAN you do? "Hobbes, she stepped into the Perimter Of Wisdom.Run!"
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:40:00 - [182] Originally by: Tuxford Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. It's still a significant nerf to a ship class that was already struggling. Unless you reduce interceptor combat ability (and make them more tackler-oriented), this is a severe blow to AFs, especially in PVP. They are already slow as cruisers and lack agility, and interceptors do as much or more damage -- the only thing they had going for them was their tankability... which is very much due to the small sigradius. With their crawling speed, any increase in sigrad will have very, very bad effects. If you feel you have to do this (for whatever reason), at least a) reduce their mass so they get more speed to compensate for sigrad. or b) remove all interceptor damage bonuses, change them into tackling-related stuff As long as interceptors can do everything better (which they already pretty much could, at least in pvp), this "small" change you're proposing will kill a whole ship class from viability.
Gabriel Karade	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:42:00 - [183] Originally by: Kenan Waroria Originally by: Gabriel Karade Originally by: Kenan Waroria On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons. Hope you have fire-retardant clothing, you're going to need it... I think you need better arguments than that. Vindicator is close to being a blastership, but it would be better with a cap reduction to blasters rather than tracking bonus. The problems with blasters isn¦t the tracking so why use it on a ship with tracking bonus? Because Megathron can "almost" fit 7xBlasters, tanking, cap injector and MWD no other ship is close in doing it with blasters but it¦s still "only" almost the right ship. Personally I think the Dominix was designed for Blasters and drones, Megathron was designed for Railguns. The Megathron damage bonus was initially to Blasters only... But if you're going to read much into the 'fluff': Dominix = Gallente-caldari war era Veteran, when Gallente ships were basically long range bombardment platforms (read: railguns + drones). Megathron = Modern Gallente battleship at only couple decades old, where the current Gallente doctrine is described by the description for the Thorax (read: blaster and drone platform) ---------- - Office Linebacker -
Kaleeb	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:47:00 - [184] Edited by: Kaleeb on 05/05/2006 13:49:13 Originally by: Kenan Waroria On the issue about the Blasters: Megathron is NOT a Blaster ship,! It¦s optimized for Railguns, otherwise it would get another bonus instead of Turret tracking (it solves the bad tracking of Rails) blasters already have the best tracking of all close combat weapons. Ok ok.... What was the megathron bonus before its hybrid damage bonus? It was a BLASTER bonus! The megathron should be a blaster ship as it was always intended please get that into your thick head! Railguns went on caldari ships at the start and were later adapted by mega pilots scared to fly close and depressed with blasters failings! Tux thanks for telling us those arent the final blaster changes and I appreciate the need for testing before anythign is finally released. What if any are your ideas for the finished balster article? Although I dont fly the phoon i feel sorry for all the phoon pilots that have already waited 3 years to fly a really cool ship properly
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:52:00 - [185] Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. The phoon/hawk changes won't go through now.. or Ever? Any estimate of when? What is your solution for this "bad news"? Plz provide more details.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.05 13:53:00 - [186] Edited by: j0sephine on 05/05/2006 13:53:51 "b) remove all interceptor damage bonuses, change them into tackling-related stuff" Err... suggestion to compensate 15% nerf to one ship class by nerfing another by 50% and effectively into the ground as far as significant part of their use goes... that's not the most thought out thing to offer :\| It's akin to pacifying megathron freaks by turning every other battleship into specialized ore hauler --;;
keepiru	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:07:00 - [187] Thats a shame about the effects tux. Does this mean they wont make it in the patch, or simply taht we dont get to test them? Originally by: j0sephine "b) remove all interceptor damage bonuses, change them into tackling-related stuff" Err... suggestion to compensate 15% nerf to one ship class by nerfing another by 50% and effectively into the ground as far as significant part of their use goes... that's not the most thought out thing to offer :\| It's akin to pacifying megathron freaks by turning every other battleship into specialized ore hauler --;; Sadly, very QFT'able... ---------------- Official ISD cake & bree reserve thief. Barricades a speciality! Last stands on request.
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:21:00 - [188] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 05/05/2006 13:53:51 "b) remove all interceptor damage bonuses, change them into tackling-related stuff" Err... suggestion to compensate 15% nerf to one ship class by nerfing another by 50% and effectively into the ground as far as significant part of their use goes... that's not the most thought out thing to offer :\| It's akin to pacifying megathron freaks by turning every other battleship into specialized ore hauler --;; Heh :) Well, there's a separate thread discussing this issue. It can be argued that changing inty damage bonuses into tacking bonuses isn't a nerf, it's a boost to what many see is the interceptor core role. But of course we have the problem of Claws, Crows and Taranises, which -- frankly -- all do way too much damage for interceptors, compared with AFs. I'm not saying combat interceptors are a bad thing, but I do think they are a bit too good at the moment. Combined with the upcoming AF sigrad nerf, why fly AFs? The above 3 inties already massively dominate the t2 pvp frigate scene. I fly a Taranis (among other things), and I know what kind of damage it does. Yes, I think it's too powerful in comparison to speed, and the same goes to Crow and Claw. Be honest here, even if this is "your favorite" ship we're talking about. I think the only sure thing we know right now is: interceptors are already better than AFs in pvp, in almost all cases. This AF change will make interceptors even better, in comparison. How to fix that? I'd just say "leave AF sigrad alone", but meh... my secondary vote goes to "reduce AF mass a bit".

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:25:00 - [189] Originally by: Wizie Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. The phoon/hawk changes won't go through now.. or Ever? Any estimate of when? What is your solution for this "bad news"? Plz provide more details. The changes to these ships won't go through because of technical issues. There will definitly be a change to them later though. _______________

Liare	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:30:00 - [190] so, in three months if we are lucky then ?
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:41:00 - [191] omg, tux actually listens to our moans <3
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.05 14:43:00 - [192] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Wizie Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. We can't update any effects. That means that we can't update the new Hawk and Typhoon bonuses. Also limiting the drone control unit to motherships and carriers isn't possible either. The simple attribute changes like the ones on turrets and missiles are good to go though. Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. The phoon/hawk changes won't go through now.. or Ever? Any estimate of when? What is your solution for this "bad news"? Plz provide more details. The changes to these ships won't go through because of technical issues. There will definitly be a change to them later though. So probably not before I quit Thanks for responding though. Tough job you have there.. keeping all the people happy.. and balance in the picture.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:04:00 - [193] "Well, there's a separate thread discussing this issue. It can be argued that changing inty damage bonuses into tacking bonuses isn't a nerf, it's a boost to what many see is the interceptor core role." Yeah, i briefly considered dropping a catgirl in that other thread so it goes all way to Cuba where it belongs :s the issue with making interceptors 'proper tacklers' is similar with most issues that plague the stealth bombers -- there's one "good tackler" which is Stiletto, and seven wannabes. Short of giving them all 4 mid slots, no matter what you do to them for tackling people will still pick just one of these ships. And if you give them bonus to tackling... well, just picture the +6 Stiletto that you no longer can even kill. Yay, let's do it... or better yet, let's not and say we did. "But of course we have the problem of Claws, Crows and Taranises, which -- frankly -- all do way too much damage for interceptors, compared with AFs. I'm not saying combat interceptors are a bad thing, but I do think they are a bit too good at the moment. Combined with the upcoming AF sigrad nerf, why fly AFs?" I think the crux of the matter is in your latter half of the last sentence. Why fly AFs, period? While the idea of "damage dealing frigate" is nice on paper, the truth is, there's no need for such ship if it comes with 'balancing drawbacks' that effectively make it a rich man's cruiser at 4x the price. Because of this, nerfing interceptors in the ground ain't gonna help squat -- interceptors don't 'take over AF role', the AFs simply have no role that's sought after, to begin with.
Darpz	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:22:00 - [194] Tux I think I speak with everyone here on blasters. don't bother with the current changes put some that actaully might fix them in and then let us test it on sisi for a month. I would rather wait a few extra weeks then to have you put these half assed changes in and have to wait months before you get back to looking at blasters again The only good fix is a DEAD fix
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:30:00 - [195] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/05/2006 15:34:47 Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/05/2006 15:34:10 Ok, I'd likr more explanation about what i made blue. And I'd like to hear your reaction to what I made orange. As far as I can see you provide w2ay too little argument for your changes in your interaction with the playerbase thusfar. If you want advice, it's to improve that by a fair bit. If you don't, it still is. 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 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. Are they ? Show us that they are then ? I don't see much improvement in this. So i can fit named instead of faction hardeners maybe. And i'll die a capdeath after two minutes instead of one and 50 seconds, big deal. Calculations and rationale please, not random numbers out of a hatOf 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. Like what ? And what are you going to do about those ? 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. Tried comparing both to lasers yet ? Try it and weep. Both need a boost actually, if you take a good look. Rationale please, not an empty line about having compared them to rails. Tacyon beam I've already posted a bit about this. Its getting a boost so now it does about 5% more damage over time than mega beam laser. Right, when will we finally see an explanation other then a fallacious reasoning about megabeams that provides some logic for this change ? Now, this sounds harsh, and it is. So far i've seen little good, and way too little explanantions for it all. I find balance in Eve reasonable ok overall atm, so don't think i'm frothing at the mouth over stuff lik this or something. But like i've been saying for three years now and it's still as true now as it was then: you guys move waaay too slowly and provide far too little documentated rationale for your ideas and decisions about something as calculeable as usability balance between for example battleships. Try harder please. Power to the players !
MonwrathDisortium	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:35:00 - [196] How about a real bonus for the typhoon, since you have to wait anyway to get it done. How about changing the resistances so that it can be properly armor tanked, or change the slots so it can be properly shield tanked. I Think a drone bonus along with the launcher bouns would make it a bit more balanced with the other tier 1 battleships. I also think that the mineral requirements are way out of range for a tier 1 ship. Can we also get a blaster change that will let me actually run medium blasters and a armor tank on a thorax? I dont know maybe everyone should continue using frigate guns on their vexors so that they can run a decent armor tank. I know, I know, wait for Kali, right?
KilROCK	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:40:00 - [197] note, blue on dark grey is damn hard to read Petwraith ♥ me. I make sigs
Magnus Thermopyle	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:43:00 - [198] I dont understand why the cap use of rails and blasters are so high? They are even higher than energy weapons, and makes it much harder to do missions in ships that uses rails or blasters. Should not rails and blasters use lower cap than energy turrets? Btw: removing cap use of projectule weapons does have one important effect: NOS will work less effective against minmatar ships. Is this intended?
Nafri	Posted - 2006.05.05 15:45:00 - [199] Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/05/2006 15:34:47 Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/05/2006 15:34:10 Ok, I'd likr more explanation about what i made blue. And I'd like to hear your reaction to what I made orange. As far as I can see you provide w2ay too little argument for your changes in your interaction with the playerbase thusfar. If you want advice, it's to improve that by a fair bit. If you don't, it still is. Originally by: Tuxford Now, this sounds harsh, and it is. So far i've seen little good, and way too little explanantions for it all. I find balance in Eve reasonable ok overall atm, so don't think i'm frothing at the mouth over stuff lik this or something. But like i've been saying for three years now and it's still as true now as it was then: you guys move waaay too slowly and provide far too little documentated rationale for your ideas and decisions about something as calculeable as usability balance between for example battleships. Try harder please. still the best documented change was the boost to projectiles, which still suck, but well Summertime - Campingtime!
Rivek	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:01:00 - [200] Edited by: Rivek on 05/05/2006 16:03:55 Originally by: Rod Blaine Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/05/2006 15:34:47 Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/05/2006 15:34:10 Now, this sounds harsh, and it is. So far i've seen little good, and way too little explanantions for it all. I find balance in Eve reasonable ok overall atm, so don't think i'm frothing at the mouth over stuff lik this or something. But like i've been saying for three years now and it's still as true now as it was then: you guys move waaay too slowly and provide far too little documentated rationale for your ideas and decisions about something as calculeable as usability balance between for example battleships. Try harder please. Tux, I think hes going a bit too far here. Please don't become like TomB and give us such gifts as uber ranged uber damaging megapulse lasers or 28 base damage radio crystals (40% more than other races long range ammo... wtf!?) I appreciate your "baby steps" approach to balance when we are getting close. Still, your pace (and CCP's pace in general) of making those necessary but small balance changes is absolutely GLACIAL. Maybe that is due to your living in Iceland, I don't know. Seriously, what prevents you from making these types of small changes every month instead of in bi-annual megapatches that cause as many problems as they solve and force us to live with all the problems in their wake for another 6 months? Edit: I think I speak for everyone when I say we want more transparency. What specifically are you thinking and why? Provide us graphs, charts, numbers, documentation, and validation. You then get feedback and make more suitable changes.
Darpz	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:02:00 - [201] OK quick senerio here to illustrate the issue with blasters Geddon Pilot with BS 5 Large Pulse 4 Surgical 5 Rapid Fire 5 NO damage mods 5.4432DM 4.4325ROF 515 DPS with conflag with an optimal of 15km+8km Falloff or 378 DPS with scortch and has an optimal of 45km with 8km falloff in adition to instant range change Megathron with Neutrons and Simlar Skills 7.938 DM 5.91 ROF 564 DPS with Void with an optimal of 3.5km and a falloff of 10km 416 DPS with Null a 8.57km optimal and a falloff of 12.5km with 10 second ammo change not to even mention the fact there is no way to fit a useful setup with neutrons on a mega, or the fact that the cap use is still about the same as Pulse but we have to use a MWD to get into range and added to that the MWD nerfs our Cap. so for about 10% more damage a mega starting a fight at 20km with a geddon will need to travel 15km with an MWD to outdamage that ship. which would take about 15 seconds depending on starting speed. in those 15 seconds the geddon has given the mega 7725 Damage and mega amybe a fraction of that thru lucky hits. Not to mention the Mega now has very low cap from the aproach and now must catch up damage wise and tank what damage its taken. with the measly 50 dps diferential it would take nearly 3 min for the mega to out damage the geddon in this senerio. or the mega pilot could use Null and be able to deal meaning ful damage the whole fight but would still be out DPSed by the Geddon. The changes I see that are needed: Electrons - 15% CPU Reduction, Damage is fine. Ions - CPU of Electrons Now, 5% damage boost Neutrons - CPU of Ions now, 10% Damage boost some tracking enhancement across the board (10-20% more) Cap Reduction by 50% across the board since with the MWD penalty factored in we have about 25% more cap use then Pulse so 50% reduction would bring it more inline. hopefully my calcs are somewhat acurate. I'm not ingame atm The only good fix is a DEAD fix
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:10:00 - [202] Edited by: j0sephine on 05/05/2006 16:10:32 "I dont understand why the cap use of rails and blasters are so high? They are even higher than energy weapons, and makes it much harder to do missions in ships that uses rails or blasters." Technically, they aren't really higher. Lasers on Amarr ships have ridiculously low cap usage in comparison, because the cap use gets reduced to half on these ships, thanks to the bonus. But i don't think suggestion to change that laser cap use bonus from 10% to 5% per level would go well >>;;
Rinaw	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:17:00 - [203] I see the missile changes as needed, BUT u are forgeting the non overpowered ones, its only nerf nerf nerf, but the ones that need some love are left alone as allways: Light pressicion and rage missiles are useless, penalties are just stupid for a frig size ship. So caldari can not use tII ammo in their frigs/interceptors, while other races uses their tII ammo. Are u going to do something about it?? Javelin ammo is much worse in caldari ships than gallente ships. Try to use javelin in a harpy or an eagle and say bye to your shields.... caldari lose again. Are u going to do something about it?? Rage torps are a joke, as allways caldari "wins" the prize of frig killer (nighthawk 4tw??) or capital ship killer (absurd 1000exp on rage torps).... Cardari is the only race that can not use their tII high damage ammo for battleships. (and dont tell me that your gang m8s bring some painters cos ALL the other races can perfectly use their most damaga ammo without need of 6 painters II) Are u going to do something about it? Can u just for once make a NORMAL caldari ship, with normal guns and bonuses, capable of using the tII ammo and not being the stupid support ship on all the ship classes, and able to compete with the other races ships please. Thank u,
Alex Harumichi	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:26:00 - [204] Originally by: j0sephine I think the crux of the matter is in your latter half of the last sentence. Why fly AFs, period? While the idea of "damage dealing frigate" is nice on paper, the truth is, there's no need for such ship if it comes with 'balancing drawbacks' that effectively make it a rich man's cruiser at 4x the price. Because of this, nerfing interceptors in the ground ain't gonna help squat -- interceptors don't 'take over AF role', the AFs simply have no role that's sought after, to begin with. Well, yeah. Agreed. And I'm really not advocating "nerfing interceptor into the ground", I fly the things myself and like them. Thing is... I also like AFs, but I'm all too aware of their shortcomings. Maybe that's why I'm reacting to this -- by itself -- small nerf, since the role of AFs is so precarious as is. Maybe just giving the things more speed (i.e. less mass) would balance things out. At the very least, their current cruiser speed is a bit of a joke.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.05.05 16:29:00 - [205] "Maybe just giving the things more speed (i.e. less mass) would balance things out. At the very least, their current cruiser speed is a bit of a joke." Aye, am quite curious how it'd work if AFs were given speeds similar to what interdictors can use... now, interdictors don't get much of that with their really huge signature, but AF with the signature of regular frigate and speed similar to what tech.1 frigates can move at.. hmm o.O;
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.05 17:01:00 - [206] Originally by: Darpz Edited by: Darpz on 05/05/2006 16:07:04 OK quick senerio here to illustrate the issue with blasters Geddon Pilot with BS 5 Large Pulse 4 Surgical 5 Rapid Fire 5 NO damage mods 5.4432DM 4.4325ROF 515 DPS with conflag with an optimal of 15km+8km Falloff or 378 DPS with scortch and has an optimal of 45km with 8km falloff in adition to instant range change Megathron with Neutrons and Simlar Skills 7.938 DM 5.91 ROF 564 DPS with Void with an optimal of 3.5km and a falloff of 10km 416 DPS with Null a 8.57km optimal and a falloff of 12.5km with 10 second ammo change not to even mention the fact there is no way to fit a useful setup with neutrons on a mega, or the fact that the cap use is still about the same as Pulse but we have to use a MWD to get into range and added to that the MWD nerfs our Cap. so for about 10% more damage a mega starting a fight at 20km with a geddon will need to travel 15km with an MWD to outdamage that ship. which would take about 15 seconds depending on starting speed. in those 15 seconds the geddon has given the mega 7725 Damage and mega amybe a fraction of that thru lucky hits. Not to mention the Mega now has very low cap from the aproach and now must catch up damage wise and tank what damage its taken. with the measly 50 dps diferential it would take nearly 3 min for the mega to out damage the geddon in this senerio. or the mega pilot could use Null and be able to deal meaning ful damage the whole fight but would still be out DPSed by the Geddon. The changes I see that are needed: Electrons - 15% CPU Reduction, Damage is fine. Ions - CPU of Electrons Now, 5% damage boost Neutrons - CPU of Ions now, 10% Damage boost some tracking enhancement across the board (10-20% more) Cap Reduction by 50% across the board since with the MWD penalty factored in we have about 25% more cap use then Pulse so 50% reduction would bring it more inline. hopefully my calcs are somewhat acurate. I'm not ingame atm Fits that should fit but they don't you should keep in mind when fixing blaster fittings. Electron Mega: 7xElectron IIs 1xHeavy Nos MWD Web Scram Injector 2xLARII 3xHards IIs 2xMagstabs IIs Ion Mega: 7xIon IIs 1xMedium Nos MWD Web Scram Injector LARII 3xHards 3xMagstab IIs Neutron Mega: 7xNeutron IIs 1xwhatever MWD Web Scram Injector LAR II 2xEAN II 2xMag Stab II 2xRCU II Dmg boost is not required.
Kaleeb	Posted - 2006.05.05 17:03:00 - [207] Originally by: Rinaw So caldari can not use tII ammo in their frigs/interceptors, while other races uses their tII ammo. Are u going to do something about it?? Hail
Dreez	Posted - 2006.05.05 17:32:00 - [208] I really dont meen to hijack this thread, but after 2 years of spamming the forums, i got 1 thing left to say to the Devs. Action talks, Bullshlt walks. Current Location: After 2 years of waiting, getting ready for another hunt.
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.05 18:05:00 - [209] Edited by: dalman on 05/05/2006 18:05:08 Originally by: Kenan Waroria Vindicator is close to being a blastership, but it would be better with a cap reduction to blasters rather than tracking bonus. The problems with blasters isn¦t the tracking so why use it on a ship with tracking bonus? Because Megathron can "almost" fit 7xBlasters, tanking, cap injector and MWD no other ship is close in doing it with blasters but it¦s still "only" almost the right ship. Personally I think the Dominix was designed for Blasters and drones, Megathron was designed for Railguns. You think wrong. Here it comes again, When released, the bonus on the megathron was: +5% damage to large blasters per lvl Not to hybrids. As blasters = gallante, and railguns = caldari. Second, Dominix was obivously not designed for blasters: It has so low powergrid because TomB consider the dominix as a shield tanked ship (which makes me wonder wtf the ac tempest has loads of both CPU and grid to spare). Which can't be done with MWD fitted. And a blaster fitting without mwd... yea, right. Third, you obviously doesn't understand tracking. Tracking is not about the number displayed on the gun. Tracking is that number multiplied with the range you're supposed to use the gun at. And then the fact is: Blasters has the worst tracking of all weapons, even with a 37.5% megathron tracking bonus included. 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
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.05 18:27:00 - [210] Originally by: Nafri still the best documented change was the boost to projectiles, which still suck, but well And here it is. To quote myself from that thread: Originally by: dalman If the tempest had a 4-7 slot layoutand 2500 m^3 drones instead of 5-6 and 1500, none would be using a megathron for closerange after this. Ie: Autocannons are better than blasters with this change. Thank God (or TomB), the megathron can still stand thanks to better layout. Well, since then we've had a whole lot of changes to the game. And all of them working against the blasterthron. For example: The introduction of T2 with higher CPU, which totally ****ed the thron over. The chance based and stupidly overpowered EW that now makes a 5/6 layout alot better. Drones vs smaller targets nerf that means a thron "can't" fill it's bay with 5 heavies to rly make use of it. And a whole lot of other changes. Like generally higher damage/tracking/range of others today due to higher skillpoints and T2 weapons, which makes it harder to get into blaster range. 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
sgt spike	Posted - 2006.05.05 19:29:00 - [211] i havent read all the replies to this thread as i dont have a spare week , i dont imagine you do either i think the blaster changes although for the better dont fix blaster combat at bs level (although they probably do at cruiser level) or bc level, however i do think that this is mainly due to the ships . how about a look at the megathron and the brutix rather than just these minute changes to blasters? and how about testing the changes? can you put a price on peace?
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:05:00 - [212] Originally by: sgt spike how about a look at the megathron and the brutix rather than just these minute changes to blasters? No. Because the issue is with blasters, not the ships. The only thing that could help ship-wise is alot better agility, which simply can't be done for alot of reasons. It is very simple: CCP's (imo retarded) development of EVE into a blobtastic game (that neither the server nor the clients can handle) has made the whole concept of blasters obsolete. So, the only real use of blasters can be in (the more and more unusual) BS solo or small gang action. In small gang action, the blasterthron still fails. The small damage increase still isn't worth the time it takes to get in range (nor the still huge fitting reqs vs AC and pulse), and the overpowered EW (that bthron can't fit due to CPU and few meds) makes it a really bad choice. And even for solo-action, the bthron fails horribly. Not only because CCP decided to change it so that a thron without sensor booster can't lock a cruiser-sized target (nor haulers) before it warps (which kinda ruined much of the solo-BS-concept), and made frigate-sized target totally immune vs blasterthrons. Because when you find a BS target you will still die if that pilot is anywhere near as good as yourself. Even without considering how easy most BSs can stay out of a blasterthron's optimal range, the bthron will still die even if the fight starts within 5km range. It's so simple: the damage doesn't make up for the cap use + fitting reqs. Not even to mention for the crippled range*tracking. As such, once a blasterthron comes up against another BS that is fitted for a 1vs1 it will die even if the fight starts within 5km range (provided that person has half a clue how to set up a ship for 1vs1). 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
Two step	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:46:00 - [213] If AF's suck so much, how come they aren't cheaper than inties? There must be a reason people are buying them, right?
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:53:00 - [214] Originally by: Two step If AF's suck so much, how come they aren't cheaper than inties? There must be a reason people are buying them, right? they are used by the agent whoring market and general NPCing market! where a cepter doesnt stand up to a af in pvp its the other way around! and this sig boost is gona hurt AF quite a bit! -------------------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
ElCoCo	Posted - 2006.05.05 20:56:00 - [215] Edited by: ElCoCo on 05/05/2006 20:56:43 It's a step towards the right direction. Still not enough but it's a start. (edit: meaning the blasters) But seriously now, it's taking you forever to do this, very disappointing... especialy with all the "cancelations" for next patch.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:09:00 - [216] Originally by: Gronsak they are used by the agent whoring market and general NPCing market! where a cepter doesnt stand up to a af in pvp its the other way around! Because AF's used solo are a gross misuse of the ships, sure. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:11:00 - [217] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Gronsak they are used by the agent whoring market and general NPCing market! where a cepter doesnt stand up to a af in pvp its the other way around! Because AF's used solo are a gross misuse of the ships, sure. what are you talking about, i dont even have an opinion on the AF issue, im just stating why AF cost a lot of isk. it isnt their uber pvp abilites since i definitly see less AF than any other ship type in pvp -------------------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
Joerd Toastius	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:11:00 - [218] Originally by: Tuxford Now to address two concerns. First the assault frigate's signature radius increase isn't a whooping 2000% increase. Its a very modest one, they have very slightly lower signature radius than the tech 1 variant. I hope this is gonna be tested... Again, I understand the motivation, but given that AFs aren't overpowered as it is, nerfing them because it "looks better" would be a pretty lousy way to break an entire class of ships :P
Lily Savage	Posted - 2006.05.05 21:15:00 - [219] Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Two step If AF's suck so much, how come they aren't cheaper than inties? There must be a reason people are buying them, right? they are used by the agent whoring market and general NPCing market! where a cepter doesnt stand up to a af in pvp its the other way around! and this sig boost is gona hurt AF quite a bit! What he said. If the nerf to AFs reduces their tanking ability in PVE too much, solo mission runners will be reduced to something sad and pathetic like using a BS with frigate weapons. Plexes will become a group activity only (soloing a level 4 in an AF is a slow but fun thing atm).
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.05.05 23:16:00 - [220] Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Gronsak they are used by the agent whoring market and general NPCing market! where a cepter doesnt stand up to a af in pvp its the other way around! Because AF's used solo are a gross misuse of the ships, sure. what are you talking about, i dont even have an opinion on the AF issue, im just stating why AF cost a lot of isk. it isnt their uber pvp abilites since i definitly see less AF than any other ship type in pvp Only in your OWN QUOTE, right. Shrug, you see few AF's because dessies are more cost effective for fleet defence and bombers more effective for anti-frig firepower at range. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
dalman	Posted - 2006.05.05 23:41:00 - [221] Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Maya Rkell Originally by: Gronsak they are used by the agent whoring market and general NPCing market! where a cepter doesnt stand up to a af in pvp its the other way around! Because AF's used solo are a gross misuse of the ships, sure. what are you talking about, i dont even have an opinion on the AF issue, im just stating why AF cost a lot of isk. it isnt their uber pvp abilites since i definitly see less AF than any other ship type in pvp Only in your OWN QUOTE, right. Shrug, you see few AF's because dessies are more cost effective for fleet defence and bombers more effective for anti-frig firepower at range. Errrrrr, what are you on about here Maya? You should know damn well that the price on all items are decided from total supply on open market vs demand, and demand is in almost all cases driven by pve ability. Look at for example the price on Cerbs (good for Pve) vs price on Rook, Curse etc (awesome for PvP but not rly good for PvE). 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
Redblade	Posted - 2006.05.05 23:42:00 - [222] With the lowerd dmg on the heavy precission missiles is there any chance that we might get some better range with them. ~35k max range without range bonuses is not what i would concider "long range weapon" as the heavy missile is supposed to be. This is most obvious on the Nighthawk and the Rook that is forced to use t1 missiles to get any range at all, t2 ships that can't make good use of t2 ammo is ... just wrong imo.
Mag's	Posted - 2006.05.06 00:03:00 - [223] Originally by: Tuxford Got some bad news. Another is the blaster changes not being very drastic. Well of course they aren't. The changes will get hardly any public testing on sisi. These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. Bad news indeed. How long has the blaster problems been known about? 2+ years? So why such a bad and rushed fix?
Sadist	Posted - 2006.05.06 00:38:00 - [224] Quote: Not to hybrids. As blasters = gallante, and railguns = caldari. Says who? Just because bonuses on some gallente ships lean towards blasters, doesnt mean that rails are caldari only toys, and any creative railgun setup on gallente ship should suck total arse. Then, gallente are also left with 2 primary weapon systems, drones and blasters, both of which are close range, making them essentially gimp and skewing the balance. That's a faulty assumption made by many players, sadly. Gallente AFs use rails, megas use rails, even domi's fit rails, if they arent going totally vampi-. --------------- VIP member of the [23] Quote: - Numbers alone do not win a battle - No, but I bet they help.
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.06 02:51:00 - [225] While we are at it.. can we boost the grid of 425 railguns plz. Make them use 3000 grid.
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2006.05.06 04:13:00 - [226] Originally by: Sadist Quote: Not to hybrids. As blasters = gallante, and railguns = caldari. Says who? Just because bonuses on some gallente ships lean towards blasters, doesnt mean that rails are caldari only toys, and any creative railgun setup on gallente ship should suck total arse. Then, gallente are also left with 2 primary weapon systems, drones and blasters, both of which are close range, making them essentially gimp and skewing the balance. That's a faulty assumption made by many players, sadly. You misunderstand. The Megathron's bonus upon release of this game was in fact "5% damage bonus to blaster" and "5% tracking bonus to blasters" and the scorpion had the bonuses "5% damage bonus to railguns" and "10% optimal range bonus to railguns". The entire blasters = Gallente and Rails = caldari thing was invented by CCP. It was abandoned somewhere around Castor (just after?) and Caldari have been steadily going towards missiles ever since. I wonder... does anyone have an item database from release? And possibly through all revisions? I'm wondering how many times the ship bonus on the Scorpion was changed - its at least three times. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.05.06 04:50:00 - [227] Originally by: Tuxford Projectile Capacitor need removed from all projectiles 1200mm, 650mm and 250mm artillery get a 10% damage increase [ I've waited over a year for this, you know. Projectiles never should have used cap in the first place, as that is supposedly their main advantage. Is anything going to be done to make larger autocannons worth using?
Imode	Posted - 2006.05.06 06:18:00 - [228] Originally by: j0sephinealthough if that was to happen, i'd hope at least half the ceptors is left in their 'assault' shape with the other half being tuned more for tackling.. or something to that effect. Rather than smacking them all ;.;[/quote I'm going to agree with this. The thing is, the damage output and fitting capabilities of some interceptors have wild discrepencies with assault frigates and other ships, including other interceptors. Take for example- Taranises and Claws have a 10% per racial frigate level damage bonus while Enyos and Wolfs have only 5%. Claws, which arguably have the lowest fitting requirements for their weapons than any other race, have an insane 40 powergrid; equal to that of a four laser hardpoint Crusader. Meanwhile its counterpart the Stiletto (or Ares, or Raptor) has a paltry and impossible to fit 30 powergrid. Taranis has an insane damage output, while the Ares' is downright laughable. To add insult to injury, the Taranis has three mid slots while the Ares has only two, making the Ares downright pointless if you can afford a Taranis. ____________________________ Signature file size to large, please keep it under 24000 bytes - Petwraith How's this? -imo
Kai Lae	Posted - 2006.05.06 07:29:00 - [229] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Well, yeah. Agreed. And I'm really not advocating "nerfing interceptor into the ground", I fly the things myself and like them. Thing is... I also like AFs, but I'm all too aware of their shortcomings. Maybe that's why I'm reacting to this -- by itself -- small nerf, since the role of AFs is so precarious as is. Maybe just giving the things more speed (i.e. less mass) would balance things out. At the very least, their current cruiser speed is a bit of a joke. If this is the first step in the introduction of true 4th bonuses and adding a 11th slot to the vengeance, hawk, and jaguar, it might not be so bad. However it seems that under current thinking this isn't planned, so not only will AF not improve (some will now be different than before, nothing more) but they'll be worse due to a signature size increase. Raptor and Ares Fix
Kaylana Syi	Posted - 2006.05.06 10:15:00 - [230] What is the time frame on the overal fixes bar Hawk and Typhoon? And since you are going to take a while to change the phoon can you make it into something nice like a 5/3 turret/missile and keep the current bonuses? I'd much rather have a sniper than torpcann'o'phoon. I can get that out of a Raven if I really wanted. Not that I am unpleased by the suggested fix but if you have to put it on hold then get it into its own groove. Also, I'd really like to see the MWD cpu drop since it really only helps the Megathron and doesn't matter for other ships like the Typhoon and Pest which have PLENTY of cpu for close range setups. For a module that really only 3 ships use... I just don't see this being such a big deal. After that... look into dropping the tracking bonus on the Thron and make that an armor repair bonus exactly like the Brutix. Right now the Brutix is the best looking blaster ship in the game ( yes that includes t2 variants ). It doesn't hurt for anything. It makes the thorax and the deimos second class citizens and for the isk it makes a Megathron look like a man in womans clothing on fight night at the pub. It would solve some tanking issues the thron might have since you'd get more bang for your cap buck and fighting at close range pretty much means you know how to use your guns. Way I see it the thron needs a definative blaster role. Give it brutix armor tank bonus or give it the thorax mwd bonus. Originally by: "Oveur" I don't react to threats any better than you do
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.06 10:38:00 - [231] changing bonus on thron to some silly armor repair amount is nerf in my eyes. It is impossible to run dual lar on thron for more than 30s... Maybe i could live with armor resists, but tbh, i'd rather see blasters fixed, as thron is okish(maybe it should still have more cpu than tempy? ) Die, die, die.
Dreez	Posted - 2006.05.06 11:05:00 - [232] Let me see if i can make this clear enough... DONT TOUCH THE MEGATHRON. Kthxbye . Current Location: After 2 years of waiting, getting ready for another hunt.
Mallik Hendrake	Posted - 2006.05.06 11:18:00 - [233] Just a side note for the phoon whiners. This thing has way more base speed than any other battleship and doesn't really trade much for it. With a siege launcher and projectile bonus it's in a unique position among bs's. It's got the speed and handling to actually be used in smaller fights, and throw a nano or two on and it'll be ridiculous with 2/3 of a raven worth of damage and 4 nosses as well as 2km/s. I for one am regretting not training minmatar tbh :) -------------------------------------------- "A plan is just a list of things that don't happen." -- Parker, _The Way of the Gun_ Mallik Hendrake E X O D U S [I do not speak for E X O or IRON]
Hakera	Posted - 2006.05.06 11:25:00 - [234] Edited by: Hakera on 06/05/2006 11:24:58 out of interest Tux - when will the next patch be after this one? because atm, the seasons role by more frequently than patches do and I wouldnt mind seeing some of those changes put live anyway. Public testing of most of those changes eg typhoon or jaguar really arnt as game changing as the hawk or precision one and I dont think weeks of public feedback from sisi 1 vs 1's will help a lot as those scenarios are so unrealistic anyway.
Hakera	Posted - 2006.05.06 11:32:00 - [235] out of all your suggested changes btw Tux - the AF one, seems very wrong. Coming from a dictor pilot myself who is used to being 1 shot killed by bs because I have the sig radius of a deathstar but sadly not the hp's (almost no exageration either) af's will always be the bastard child because ceptors are so much better, atm they struggle as is due to their lack of speed, making them worse will only heighten their demise I think. Its almost begging us to not bother with t2 and return to t1 thoraxes.
Kaeten	Posted - 2006.05.06 11:34:00 - [236] Originally by: Dreez Let me see if i can make this clear enough... DONT TOUCH THE MEGATHRON. Kthxbye . you don't fly mega do you
Recluse XXX	Posted - 2006.05.06 11:47:00 - [237] These blaster changes do jack for the Mega but I want to think one step ahead and dream a little bit. The Megathron allready is a fine longrange ship whit 425,s pew pewing away whit good dmg and working t2 ammo. Now ,lets kiss the Mega off as a blasterboat since it quite frankly sucks at it and keep it as the Gallente longe range fighter. On to my dream....the Tier 3 Gallente BS....a blasterboat whit blaster related abilitys. Its faster then a Tempest, it got mwd bonuses and a 5% tracking bonus to blasters per level...now Tux, pls tell me that this is gonna happen cus your new blaster "tweaks" are nothing but an insult to the people that have waited for these changes for a long long time. //Rec ----------- Edited by: sausage jockey on 01/02/2006 22:02:39 We will not give up until we have penetrated the rear entrance to Stain, we hope this will hurt SA to the point they start to cry.
Denrace	Posted - 2006.05.06 11:51:00 - [238] The Heavy Missile Precision nerf is YET ANOTHER factor adding to how crap the Nighthawk is. Im shockingly unimpressed with these changes to missiles. Therest seems fine. Den ________________________________________

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.05.06 13:12:00 - [239] Please put your blaster whi... comments in this thread _______________

Kauschovar	Posted - 2006.05.06 13:17:00 - [240] Reasonable role-focused AF wish-list: Vengeance: 1. +5% to armor resistance per level (like Punisher/Sacrilege instead of cap recharge rate) 1. +5% Small Energy Turret damage per level (instead of range bonus as suggested by Tux before) 3. -10% Small Energy Turret capacitor use per level (unchanged) In addition, please reduce shield and increase armor. Jaguar: 1. +5% max velocity per level (instead of range bonus as suggested by Tux before) 2. +5% Small Projectile damage per level (unchanged) 3. +10% to Small Projectile Turret falloff per level (instead of tracking speed bonus) Thanks!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.06 13:45:00 - [241] Originally by: Hllaxiu <snip> and the scorpion had the bonuses "5% damage bonus to railguns" and "10% optimal range bonus to railguns". The entire blasters = Gallente and Rails = caldari thing was invented by CCP. It was abandoned somewhere around Castor (just after?) and Caldari have been steadily going towards missiles ever since.<snip> It might be a bit late/rude to correct this now, particulary how it doesn't serve a point, but it's interesting EVE trivia. Upon release, the Scorpion had: +5% Railgun Optimal Range and +5% Shield Capacity. This was changed mid Gemini: +5% Hybrid Optimal Range and +5% Shield Capacity Which in turn was changed early Castor: +5% Missile Velocity (iirc, might've been RoF) and +5% Shield Capacity (iirc, the shield capacity remained 5%) And then came the EWar overhaul: +10% ECM optimal and +5% ECM strength. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Rexy	Posted - 2006.05.06 16:42:00 - [242] Originally by: Tuxford The changes to these ships won't go through because of technical issues. There will definitly be a change to them later though. would you consider lowering the mass/sig of a phoon and boosting grid if tweaking the damage bonusses prooves to be impossible? boosting the grid will free up a low on most setups because you could drop an rcu. a speed bonus would go well with a reduction in mass/sig
Natsuki	Posted - 2006.05.06 19:37:00 - [243] Edited by: Natsuki on 06/05/2006 19:38:11 Quote: and the scorpion had the bonuses "5% damage bonus to railguns" and "10% optimal range bonus to railguns". The entire blasters = Gallente and Rails = caldari thing was invented by CCP. It was abandoned somewhere around Castor (just after?) and Caldari have been steadily going towards missiles ever since.<snip> Incorrect. if you notice, half of caldari ships get a Hybrid damage/optimal range bonus. Optimal range is useful only on railguns. Gallente ships get damage/falloff/tracking bonuses to hybrids. Falloff is only useful on blasters. ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai RAWRRR!!!11 Sig Hijack - Imaran
Just Smith	Posted - 2006.05.07 00:12:00 - [244] Bah still no drone control mods in the next patch then as it's in italics and the blaster changes will not realy do anything major to help the blasters which they need Well you've come to the right place, then. There hasn't been a war run this badly since Olaf the hairy, King of all the vikings, ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside."
Ysolde Xen	Posted - 2006.05.07 00:31:00 - [245] Originally by: Kauschovar Jaguar: 1. +5% max velocity per level (instead of range bonus as suggested by Tux before) 2. +5% Small Projectile damage per level (unchanged) 3. +10% to Small Projectile Turret falloff per level (instead of tracking speed bonus) Which would turn it into a lame Wolf-wannabe that is outperformed by the Rifter. NO!
Gierling	Posted - 2006.05.07 01:53:00 - [246] What confuses me is that Tuxford is talking like there will be a patch soon. Tux as far as we can see there are no patches in the foreseeable future except Kali which is 6-8 months away. Please enlighten us if there is a patch planned soon. PRoposal to fix blobbing and make Charisma useful.
Natsuki	Posted - 2006.05.07 03:13:00 - [247] Originally by: Gierling What confuses me is that Tuxford is talking like there will be a patch soon. Tux as far as we can see there are no patches in the foreseeable future except Kali which is 6-8 months away. Please enlighten us if there is a patch planned soon. There is one planned... it is apparently a bug fix patch. ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai RAWRRR!!!11 Sig Hijack - Imaran
Talia Windheart	Posted - 2006.05.07 03:42:00 - [248] Blaster Fix.. barely good.. but its a change.. T2 Rage Rockets need to be fixed.. 125m explosion radius.. is the same as a heavy missile?? and more than a perscision heavy. fix'm already make them worth the BPO and isk.. or remove them
Gorion Wassenar	Posted - 2006.05.07 04:57:00 - [249] Originally by: Tasty Burger I've waited over a year for this, you know. Projectiles never should have used cap in the first place, as that is supposedly their main advantage. Is anything going to be done to make larger autocannons worth using? Unless you have optical sights and have a bunch of guys handcraking those guns, thats a lie. Gyrostabs, Targeting comps, reloading, turret tracking and tranversing the barrels, thats whats use the cap. To an RP standpoint anyways. I think that all turrets should use cap bacause they trade instant damage for cap while missles trade time for damage. ------------------ CEO of TKI Public Channel: TKI-Net http://s14.invisionfree.com/Tsuroki
Levin Cavil	Posted - 2006.05.07 05:07:00 - [250] Edited by: Levin Cavil on 07/05/2006 05:08:26 Originally by: Hugh Ruka large blasters are not the main problem, megathron is the problem: 1. too low cpu 2. guns, tank AND propulsion heavily compete for capacitor use 3. low slots divided between tank, damage and fiting 1. decrease blaster cpu as proposed AND increase mega cpu by about 50 2. give mega a amarr like bonus. either +cap per level or -blaster cap use per lever (or repairer cap efficiency) 3. above points solve this one no non-caldari ship should be ever severely CPU limited ... we are the electronics masters so we have to pay for the choices. I have never flown a mega nd will never do, so treat this post as you like. Worst idea ever. If you don't fly the ship don't give tux any ideas, we're in a rough enough spot already. ---------- <Kayosoni> I'm actually normal
Foulis	Posted - 2006.05.07 06:03:00 - [251] Originally by: LUKEC Oh well, guess gallente is the hard way to play eve. I was gonna read the whole thread but... rofl! How about you get ship, then give it the slot layout of an armor tanker with the stat layout of a shield tanker, a split weapon layout and weapons with low damage and cap usage. After you have a ship that does that, you can come the ** back and say that gallente is the "hard way" to play eve. /rant ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by:** CCP Hammer Boobies
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.07 08:05:00 - [252] Originally by: Foulis Originally by: LUKEC Oh well, guess gallente is the hard way to play eve. I was gonna read the whole thread but... rofl! How about you get ship, then give it the slot layout of an armor tanker with the stat layout of a shield tanker, a split weapon layout and weapons with low damage and cap usage. After you have a ship that does that, you can come the **** back and say that gallente is the "hard way" to play eve. /rant Oh... so you are refering to typhoon? Look, if you forget ECM it is actually better than domi. But you need to play your cards right. And i used it with medium blasters But it is too skill intensive in my eyes. Die, die, die.
Amarria Lightwielder	Posted - 2006.05.07 08:49:00 - [253] more power to amarr lasers is always good :) Looking forward to it NAGA ShopÖ
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.05.07 10:59:00 - [254] Originally by: LUKEC Originally by: Foulis Oh... so you are refering to typhoon? Look, if you forget ECM it is actually better than domi. But you need to play your cards right. And i used it with medium blasters But it is too skill intensive in my eyes. My eyes... I think the domi's drone damage bonus and massive drone bay, plus more mid slots, make up for the highs you lose out on. I fly both, and my domi would take on any phoon, any day of the week. Even without ecm, and with f all specialisation in gallente ships. Who needs to specialise to npc anyway? sgb C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details.
Nedia	Posted - 2006.05.07 13:49:00 - [255] Originally by: Drilla Okay so now Minmatar or Caldari dont need any cap to shoot = easier to make a tank. But Amarr and Gallente do, and their offensive mods are the hardest to fit? Maybe a significant boost to Amarr and Gallente BS ships CPU is what is needed the most? QFT
smallgreenblur	Posted - 2006.05.07 14:27:00 - [256] Originally by: Nedia Originally by: Drilla Okay so now Minmatar or Caldari dont need any cap to shoot = easier to make a tank. But Amarr and Gallente do, and their offensive mods are the hardest to fit? Maybe a significant boost to Amarr and Gallente BS ships CPU is what is needed the most? QFT The no cap to shoot doesn't really affect your tank as long as you have an injector, especially considering the little cap required to fire most minnie guns (mid tier acs are an exception). What it does affect is ability to continue firing whilst nossed. Not sure what you mean about ammar ships having offensive mods that are the hardest to fit, from what I hear DHP are easy to fit and run a tank with. But apparently i'm not allowed to say that because it spoils the fun of those people who worked that out already Lets not also forget that minnie ships have a correspondingly lower total cap to compensate for their lack of cap usage when firing guns. Big picture > small picture. sgb C6 is recruiting ... visit www.c6-eve.com or join channel c-6 for details.
Steppa	Posted - 2006.05.07 15:48:00 - [257] I'm not a coder or programmer, but I had the basics in college :) How hard can it be to mirror the same type of code logic that requires the covert ops cloaking device be used only on a covert ops frigates/recon cruiser because they get the huge cpu reduction? A little copying, a little pasting (oversimplifying, I know) and changing the names to the carriers and you're done :)
Jet Max	Posted - 2006.05.08 11:39:00 - [258] Originally by: Tuxford These changes probably won't fix blasters but it hardly makes the worse. So if it wont fix blasters and hardly makes them worse why you making any changes at all? Originally by: Gronsak the cap reduction on large blasters needs to be at least imo 50% reduced [this is on large blasters and medium] heavy neutron blaster PG decrease by 10% ::what exactly was the plan here? you still cant fit 5x t2 neutrons + mwd let alone anything else! but that is a deimos problem not a med blaster imo CPU by 10% :: this was mostly a large blaster problem with the deimos being a bit hard to fit but doable so lets concentrate on large blasters for a sec. i been trying to still fit an ion setup on my blasterthron without faction mods or a cpu mod i got this so far 7x ion t2 1x mwd : 1x heavy cap injecter: 1x 20km : 1x webber 1x large t2 repper: 2x dmg mod : 2x energized adaptive nano t2: 1x named DCU: now i have left 1 low slot and 1high slot with a good helping of PG: what do i fit in these slots tux i only got 6.65CPU free [using the most cpu efficent mods] you know what i have to put there tux? yeh a cpu mod that way at lest i can put something usefull in the high slot, guess what my setup atm is tux? your 10% cpu decrease justs means my current setup cpu mod has to stay. you need to make it more than 10% or its just as we started! 80% of blaster complaints where on the b-thron and as u can see these changes do NOTHING, the 10% cpu might aswell not be there, the 15% cap is a joke, and medium neutrons still dont fit on a deimos. So yeah..... like Gronsak said if after those changes blaster pilot needs to use same modules as before why make any change at all? Why is it taking so long for someone to have a look at blasters and when someone does its still crapy changes, "we will have a look at blasters LATER for more changes" why later? how about now? cant precision missile and assault ship changes wait for a month or two?
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.08 12:13:00 - [259] Jet, read the other blaster thred by Tuxford. New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
Maggot	Posted - 2006.05.08 13:31:00 - [260] Edited by: Maggot on 08/05/2006 13:32:15 edit, just saw blaster post - going for a read.
Wizie	Posted - 2006.05.08 15:27:00 - [261] Can we please fix the Armor/Shield issue with the Typhoon? It should have more armor than shields. Interchange the 2 stats please. Can we also TEST some other "fixes" for the Typhoon, since the ones you think should help Don't really help... and can't be implemented yet anyhow. Maybe a 5% velocity bonus... Or a 5% (maybe too much).. lowering of sig radius.
Hllaxiu	Posted - 2006.05.08 17:06:00 - [262] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Hllaxiu <snip> and the scorpion had the bonuses "5% damage bonus to railguns" and "10% optimal range bonus to railguns". The entire blasters = Gallente and Rails = caldari thing was invented by CCP. It was abandoned somewhere around Castor (just after?) and Caldari have been steadily going towards missiles ever since.<snip> It might be a bit late/rude to correct this now, particulary how it doesn't serve a point, but it's interesting EVE trivia. Upon release, the Scorpion had: +5% Railgun Optimal Range and +5% Shield Capacity. This was changed mid Gemini: +5% Hybrid Optimal Range and +5% Shield Capacity Which in turn was changed early Castor: +5% Missile Velocity (iirc, might've been RoF) and +5% Shield Capacity (iirc, the shield capacity remained 5%) And then came the EWar overhaul: +10% ECM optimal and +5% ECM strength. Thanks for the correction, I was going off memory from playing briefly in beta and then starting this character a few months after Castor and reading about the previous changes. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson
Cerberal	Posted - 2006.05.09 11:21:00 - [263] On the typhoon... What about giving it a smaller drone bonus, since it doesnt exactly rely on any singular weapon type (guns or missiles). Its a speedier battleship with a relatively nice amount of lowslots. It already has a goodly sized drone bay (350m3 25m3 less than a dominix). Since minmatar arent exactly specialized in drones, it could be half the bonus of the dominix (5% drone hitpoints and damage) or maybe specialized (5% drone hitpoints and 5% explosive drone damage). This wouldnt make the typhoon a nerfed domi, in fact, id say having 8 highslots gives me an advantage over most domi loadouts (except ECM), you could fit more drone upgrade modules for example, or more nosferatu overall... so my suggestion is replace the typhoons current bonuses of turret ROF and Damage with something more fitted to its current slots/dronebay/etc. 5% Bonus to Drone Hitpoints and damage per level(or specialised as explosive drones only), 5% bonus to velocity per level. This would stick true to the way of the minmatar speed ordeal, and give them a nice sturdy droneship, instead of making us quasimodo raven pilots.
Farjung	Posted - 2006.05.09 12:33:00 - [264] Originally by: Cerberal On the typhoon... It already has a goodly sized drone bay (350m3 25m3 less than a dominix). Since minmatar arent exactly specialized in drones, it could be half the bonus of the dominix (5% drone hitpoints and damage) or maybe specialized (5% drone hitpoints and 5% explosive drone damage). It has a 175m3 dronebay ;) (It got halved as all of them did with the drone changes, it used to have 350 while the domi had 750 ;p) --- Reckless Wave of Mutilation
LUKEC	Posted - 2006.05.09 17:41:00 - [265] about typhoon... Giving it half bonuses from gallente ships isn't really good idea unless it is compensated with something else, for instance 7.5% rof(just something bigger & better than domi gets... ) on guns or something. Smaller drone bay is not really such a penalty. Tbh it is only drone damage that make difference between domi & thon/geddon in most fights. You lose drones, yeah, but losing 5 heavys in domi means i have them for only one more fight and it is usually time to go home. Die, die, die.
Arashi Miike	Posted - 2006.05.10 07:21:00 - [266] So few people care about the Vengeance... Come on, my Khanid boats need love! /me pets Vengeance Some day, honey, some day. But in all seriousness, it would be nice to have an approximate timeframe for the AF boosts, particularly the Jaguar and Vengeance. And is there any any any slight chance at all that they might finally get the missing slot that makes them so "second-fiddle" to the others? "I should have been a pair of ragged claws/ scuttling across the floors of silent seas."
Wahbosiao	Posted - 2006.05.10 09:19:00 - [267] Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus: 10% reduction in Small Energy Turret cap use, 15% bonus to Shield and Armor Explosive resistance and 10% bonus to Shield and Armor Kinetic resistance per level Assault Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Energy Turret optimal range and 5% bonus to cap recharge rate per level. AF need dmg bonus, after all its an AF and AF is made to deal dmg. Take away 5% bonus recharge rate and give it a dmg bonus.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.05.10 09:49:00 - [268] 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 New sig coming soonÖ Drone musing (MC-boards)
keepiru	Posted - 2006.05.10 10:28:00 - [269] 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. ---------------- teqNo > I don't read eve-o forums, they bore me
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2006.05.10 10:38:00 - [270] 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 lol no **zle. caldari missiles/hybrids gallente drones/hybrids minmatar proj/missiles/drones amarr LASERS LASERS LASERS LASERS LASER ......... WTFOMFGBBQ A SHIP WITH MISSILE BONUSES WTF CCP CHANGE THIS CRAP!** <CCP> sure why not, you already have a HAC with uber laser bonuses but we'll change the sac to the same role <Amarr Fan Bois> YAY!!!!!! LASERS LASERS LASERS LASERS LASERS ------ FPDOMS MINER KILLBOARD
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
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!
Uggs386	Posted - 2006.05.30 02:50:00 - [331] Is apoc ever gonna get some love? still no damge bonus or any weapon bonus besides the reduction in cap. Its damage output is pathetic for a tier 2 bs. And the tachy bonus isnt enough imo, considering how much grid and cap they use. On a positive note im liking the changes to blasters and projectiles. Removed, inappropriate signature image - zhuge
Neon Genesis	Posted - 2006.05.30 03:36:00 - [332] Originally by: Nafri doubt that 10% damage will help 1200 at all, but let me do some math first I second this, atm is basically suicide to roll with 1200's,,,,, There, i just contributed nothing to your thread
Jaqs	Posted - 2006.05.30 20:25:00 - [333] Whats with the launcher rof on Hawk changed to Kinetic damage per lvl seem's kinda lazy to put a specific damage type bonus on a ship instead of actual useful bonus lol. It's a pvp ship also and kinetic is not on top of pvp ammo used. Would make alot more sense to keep rof bonus on it. Velocity bonus is aewsome but got gimped a bit with kinetic damage bonus. WTH you fix the other one's that had problems the Jaguar Vengence but still hold back the Hawk. Suppose to keep em competitive with each other Since your making the other as they should be do same with the Hawk lmao all ya did was trade the 10 percent per lvl optimal range hybrid bonus which for the kinetic. Which outright makes part of Hawk still useless. Hawk will defently still kick ass more now but youll still have to change the bonus back to rof or all damage inrease bonus. Also there was no reason to change shiled tank skills requirement from tactical manipulation to shield operation wtf lol is somebody bored over there. Those are 2 of the main gripes will be coming from everyone. Otherwise dam good on everything else mostly.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.05.30 21:48:00 - [334] Originally by: Uggs386 Is apoc ever gonna get some love? No, probably not. -------- 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!
Humera	Posted - 2006.05.31 09:46:00 - [335] [drools] Gistii Hawk Hi: 4x T2 Standard Launchers Mid: 1x Gistii A-type 1MN Afterburner 1x Gistii A-type Small Shield Booster 1x Rat Specific Shield Hardener (T2 or faction) 1x Cap Recharger II (or faction) Lo: 2x BCS II (or faction) or 1x BCS II (or faction) 1x Cap Relay (best named or faction) [/drools]
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2006.06.03 03:12:00 - [336] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 03/06/2006 03:14:05 Originally by: Uggs386 Is apoc ever gonna get some love? still no damge bonus or any weapon bonus besides the reduction in cap. Its damage output is pathetic for a tier 2 bs. And the tachy bonus isnt enough imo, considering how much grid and cap they use. So basically you want an uber armageddon? Apoc with 5% rof bonus would do ~14.3% more damage with 8 mega pulse than arma with 7, and have more cap and more HP to boot. Can someoen say, "overpowered?" Apoc doesn't have a damage/rof bonus for a reason... "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Ashvul	Posted - 2006.06.03 20:20:00 - [337] bit of a difference from the post and patch notes: Post: 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. Notes: The Hawk launcher rate of fire bonus has been changed to missile kinetic damage bonus, and the hybrid optimal bonus has been changed to missile velocity bonus. It also has a higher power output and a new high power slot. Does this mean we don't get the good missile ship we were promised, and instead it's just the same crappy railboat, but can now fit BOTH launchers (woopedy do...) while having 3 rails?
Ashvul	Posted - 2006.06.03 20:25:00 - [338] Originally by: Ashvul bit of a difference from the post and patch notes: Post: 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. Notes: The Hawk launcher rate of fire bonus has been changed to missile kinetic damage bonus, and the hybrid optimal bonus has been changed to missile velocity bonus. It also has a higher power output and a new high power slot. Does this mean we don't get the good missile ship we were promised, and instead it's just the same crappy railboat, but can now fit BOTH launchers (woopedy do...) while having 3 rails? edit: nm, found the answer here
VeNT	Posted - 2006.06.07 16:34:00 - [339] so, if we're not getting the phoon or hawk in this patch, when are we? -------------------- Selena 001 > has VeNT left system? its gone really quiet!
Chaddy	Posted - 2006.06.10 09:37:00 - [340] So, this topic is getting old. Has this things made its way in yet, or are they still to come?

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.06.14 16:16:00 - [341] Originally by: Chaddy So, this topic is getting old. Has this things made its way in yet, or are they still to come? Some stuff is already in, some has been put in the patch notes and is on sisi now. I'll better just unsticky this. _______________


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one 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.

+5% damage to large blasters per lvl