EVE Search - Reasoning [T1 Ammo]

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Reasoning [T1 Ammo]

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Amthrianius	Posted - 2006.06.02 15:36:00 - [1] This has been bothering me for a while now, why does max damage projectile ammo do less damage than crystals/hybrid, what is the reasoning behind it? f.ex. XLarge EMP: 88hp XLarge AM: 96hp XLarge MF: 96hp ---------------
Mortimer Phinn	Posted - 2006.06.02 15:41:00 - [2] Maybe the damage modifier on the weapons that use the ammo make up the difference?
qyros	Posted - 2006.06.02 15:44:00 - [3] Edited by: qyros on 02/06/2006 15:45:10 Because TomB said so: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=89658&page=5#137 "Plasma and EMP are back to old damage form, some further ammo tuning as well, see starting post for details. Reason is simply high damage on these two ammo types, specially on Tempest at level 5, AutoCannons/Repeating Arties almost close to Neutron Blasters on Mega/Dom at level 5 and using no cap and 1400mm to damaging as well."
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2006.06.02 15:47:00 - [4] I believe the last time it was brought up hammerhead was already in the process of giving projectiles a damage boost, I remember him posting he'd talked to TomB about it and got the response "do you really think they need even more damage?" hammerhead said he wouldn't change it at that time and see how the damage boost did instead if I remember right. At the other end of the spectrum by the way : XLarge c. Lead: 44 Xlarge Iron: 40 XL radio: 40 . ----- Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Amthrianius	Posted - 2006.06.02 15:48:00 - [5] Mmmh well his reasoning isn't really the case 2 years on, maybe time to get this brought into line with all the other turret ammo types? ---------------
Rexy	Posted - 2006.06.02 16:17:00 - [6] wewt, more oompf would sure help
Lumel	Posted - 2006.06.02 17:36:00 - [7] I assume these are the unresisted numbers? I don't know what the modified numbers would be, but Amarr would basically blaze through shields and crawl through armor due to EM/Therm, Hybrids are sort of medium speed due to being Therm/Kin, and EMP should theoretically punch pretty hard through armor and shields since it's EM/Exp/Kin, meaning that EMP probably hits harder than the base numbers indicate. Of course, hard numbers would be useful. --- Knowledge won't help us understand
Naughty Boy	Posted - 2006.06.02 18:16:00 - [8] Edited by: Naughty Boy on 02/06/2006 18:18:41 Originally by: Lumel I assume these are the unresisted numbers? I don't know what the modified numbers would be, but Amarr would basically blaze through shields and crawl through armor due to EM/Therm, Hybrids are sort of medium speed due to being Therm/Kin, and EMP should theoretically punch pretty hard through armor and shields since it's EM/Exp/Kin, meaning that EMP probably hits harder than the base numbers indicate. Of course, hard numbers would be useful. There are many variables to control, like shield/armor hp ratio, slot layout & possible fittings of ships, racial resists, short term or long term tanks... I doubt you could get relevant information out of such an analysis, especially not if you don't start with a segmentation of ships according to their size. I'd say kinetic is better than it used to be, and em/explosive are slightly worse, simply by looking at my setups (tanking is usually quite easy to optimise given a set of constraints and a few parameters). NB.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.02 18:18:00 - [9] this thread seems to involve boosting minmatar in some way, so /signed Originally by: General Apocalypse the game is very well balanced
Tiuwaz	Posted - 2006.06.02 18:19:00 - [10] Originally by: Sarmaul this thread seems to involve boosting minmatar in some way, so /signed Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.06.02 18:23:00 - [11] Originally by: Amthrianius This has been bothering me for a while now, why does max damage projectile ammo do less damage than crystals/hybrid, what is the reasoning behind it? f.ex. XLarge EMP: 88hp XLarge AM: 96hp XLarge MF: 96hp Perhaps becase your longer range ammo > other long range ammo Carb LEAD:24 Iron:20 Radio:20 WTF 20% more dmg nerf proj!! -------------------Sig----------------------- welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s
Amthrianius	Posted - 2006.06.02 18:52:00 - [12] Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: Amthrianius This has been bothering me for a while now, why does max damage projectile ammo do less damage than crystals/hybrid, what is the reasoning behind it? f.ex. XLarge EMP: 88hp XLarge AM: 96hp XLarge MF: 96hp Perhaps becase your longer range ammo > other long range ammo Carb LEAD:24 Iron:20 Radio:20 WTF 20% more dmg nerf proj!! Im not for or against any minni boost it should just be inline with the others so that would mean, reducing e.g. carb lead dmg but increasing emp etc. ---------------
Leshrac Shepherd	Posted - 2006.06.02 18:59:00 - [13] For what I care, Carbonized Lead could be completely removed from the game. Does anyone use that ammo at all? ---------------------- (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Exavier Macbeth	Posted - 2006.06.02 19:02:00 - [14] Originally by: Leshrac Shepherd For what I care, Carbonized Lead could be completely removed from the game. Does anyone use that ammo at all? I only use it when my agent gives me 3000+ of it as a mission reward and i don't have anything else left :P
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.02 19:05:00 - [15] Originally by: Leshrac Shepherd For what I care, Carbonized Lead could be completely removed from the game. Does anyone use that ammo at all? people with low skills going into a long-range fleet fight. Originally by: General Apocalypse the game is very well balanced
dalman	Posted - 2006.06.02 19:17:00 - [16] Edited by: dalman on 02/06/2006 19:18:20 The reason for this should be quite simple. We all know that for the "short range" T1 ammo projectiles deal less raw damage, but for the "long range" they deal more raw damage. Well, "range" in this case only means optimal. And minmatar have considerably shorter optimal but longer falloff. So, using EMP, a minnie can hit much further than lasers/hybrids and so it has been given less raw damage. Using "longest ammo" a minnie hits shorter distance than the others... and so it has been given higher damage. So, this is balanced and all fine. Should this include XL is the question. Well, for a dread attacking a POS this is indeed a bit "stupid". But when/if you bring that dread into combat to kill titan/carrier/other dread/battleships... then we're again in a balanced situation... And POS guns for example use XL ammo as well, where it's also balanced... So, I find this generally all fine. 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
Grimpak	Posted - 2006.06.02 19:20:00 - [17] Originally by: Rexy wewt, more oompf would sure help I am in favour of giving more oompf OOMPF TO THE MASSES! ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.06.02 19:28:00 - [18] Originally by: dalman Edited by: dalman on 02/06/2006 19:18:20 The reason for this should be quite simple. We all know that for the "short range" T1 ammo projectiles deal less raw damage, but for the "long range" they deal more raw damage. Well, "range" in this case only means optimal. And minmatar have considerably shorter optimal but longer falloff. So, using EMP, a minnie can hit much further than lasers/hybrids and so it has been given less raw damage. Using "longest ammo" a minnie hits shorter distance than the others... and so it has been given higher damage. So, this is balanced and all fine. Should this include XL is the question. Well, for a dread attacking a POS this is indeed a bit "stupid". But when/if you bring that dread into combat to kill titan/carrier/other dread/battleships... then we're again in a balanced situation... And POS guns for example use XL ammo as well, where it's also balanced... So, I find this generally all fine. very good point! Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Leshrac Shepherd For what I care, Carbonized Lead could be completely removed from the game. Does anyone use that ammo at all? people with low skills going into a long-range fleet fight. wait til they nerf t2 ammo which they have to atm its stupidly overpowered, then my mini alt will be using the +60% again! -------------------Sig----------------------- welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s
Tachy	Posted - 2006.06.02 19:47:00 - [19] Yes, starting with lower base damage to overcome the double damage reduction by having to fight in falloff seems a logical way to balance stuff, especially when you consider that EM will always hit the strongest resists. --==*-- Megadon CCP wanted a well known artist and celebrity to test the new font so it's approval would be well known. They got Ray
Reatu Krentor	Posted - 2006.06.02 21:58:00 - [20] not sure but wasn't it the fact that emp has 3 damage types that made it have less damage in total? If that would be the case i'd vote for switching emp with fusion and get explosive/kinetic for highest damage ammo(which are minnie primary and secondary damage types after all) while doing the same structure damage as the others - phew! dodged the mods on this sig!

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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