EVE Search - Nerf T2 long range ammo

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Nerf T2 long range ammo

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:17:00 - [31] Originally by: Hey You Edited by: Hey You on 18/06/2006 20:13:39 Originally by: Stamm Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 18/06/2006 19:59:36 Right now Tremor L is by no means overpowered. It: A.) Has less range than Spike L or Aurora L. B.) Inflicts less damage per second than the above two. and C.) Misses. A lot. 1400 tracking sucks to begin with, and Tremor just makes it worse. Earlier today I was about 120km from a wolf and shot it with six 1400 II's loaded with Tremor; every shot missed. My friend with tachyon laser II's and Aurora hit with every shot. The worst part about this is that I was running two tracking computer II's, and he was only running one. EDIT: He was also 20km closer to the wolf, so that should've made it harder for him to hit as well. A) False. B) False. C) False. A) False. B) False. C) False. I can make statements without proof too! Oh for christs sakes do I really need to prove it? Just look at the stats in game. Tremor = Aurora. Same total damage, same range bonus, same tracking multiplier.
Shadowsword	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:19:00 - [32] The long range T2 ammo need to do Iridium/Microwave-like damage with a 70% range mod. And their tracking penalty to go from -75% to -60%Then they'll be fine. ------------------------------------------ Don't make War, War is messy. Make love instead, so your kids will do the War part for you.
Aeaus	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:19:00 - [33] Stamm you're forgetting that Minmatar generally suck anyways and the tremor ammo doesn't really change all that much for them =) My Guides (Recomended Reading)
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:21:00 - [34] Originally by: Aeaus Stamm you're forgetting that Minmatar generally suck anyways and the tremor ammo doesn't really change all that much for them =) As funny as that is... this thread was full of agreements apart from. Missiles suck at PvP at range. Artillery suck at um, ROF and tracking. These issues don't relate to a comparison between T2 long range ammo and T1 ammo, so please, can we try not to let the thread go off topic, and at least then it'll be a thread where there's almost a complete agreement of opinion. Or perhaps a debate about the ammo itself.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:21:00 - [35] Stamm is talking about the ammo and Wrayeth (and Hey You) are talking about the ammo+ships. Bound to be mix-ups there. New sig coming soonÖ Tuxford's good for EVE.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:21:00 - [36] Edited by: Ithildin on 18/06/2006 20:21:12 FFS! Stupid wrong edit button New sig coming soonÖ Tuxford's good for EVE.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:28:00 - [37] Originally by: Stamm Artillery suck at um, ROF and tracking. These issues don't relate to a comparison between T2 long range ammo and T1 ammo The price you pay for T2 long-range ammo is the god-awful tracking. If your target gets up a traversal you generally don't have a chance of hitting, where-as you can with long-range T1 ammo as it doesn't have the tracking penalty (assuming you're in range). Tremor + God-Awful Tracking = Stationary or Miss. Make Khanid Useful!
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:36:00 - [38] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Stamm Artillery suck at um, ROF and tracking. These issues don't relate to a comparison between T2 long range ammo and T1 ammo The price you pay for T2 long-range ammo is the god-awful tracking. If your target gets up a traversal you generally don't have a chance of hitting, where-as you can with long-range T1 ammo as it doesn't have the tracking penalty (assuming you're in range). Tremor + God-Awful Tracking = Stationary or Miss. You're being too specific about artillery. If you do feel that the penalty to long range ammo is too harsh for Minmatar, but not for Amarr or Railgun users then could you start a thread about it and not take this one off topic? Artillery is low rate of fire, high alpha strike, low tracking, high falloff. The ammo is the same across the board - high damage, high range, same tracking penalty.
CivrGrrl19	Posted - 2006.06.18 21:01:00 - [39] Originally by: Stamm Can we please ignore launchers? One really can not ignore launchers. The reason being this: a long range "sniper" BS and a missile boat engage each other at a long distance. The missile boat starts firing. The "sniper" bs must warp out. If the sniper BS warps back in, this rinses and repeats. Unless, of course, the sniper BS can actually hit decently at that range. Now also consider that long range sniper BS can not tank. However, the missile boat can. It means nothing that "nobody will stay around" for missiles to hit them. If the turret ship runs from the missiles, the missile ship has won. It now has the upper hand - end of story. It can run and hide, or it can stay and wait for the other guy to warp back in.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.06.18 21:03:00 - [40] Edited by: Ithildin on 18/06/2006 21:03:38 Let's just get the thred straight: it's not about launchers, it's about T2 long range ammo in general (no such missiles since precision are about hitting smaller things). That also means it's not about Aurora or Tremor specifically. It's all about the OP and not about association. New sig coming soonÖ Tuxford's good for EVE.

CivrGrrl19	Posted - 2006.06.18 21:09:00 - [41] Originally by: Ithildin Edited by: Ithildin on 18/06/2006 21:03:38 Let's just get the thred straight: it's not about launchers, it's about T2 long range ammo in general You simply can not balance something that is overpowered withing balancing other overpowered things. I can't wait to see nothing but ravens camping gates
Shaemell Buttleson	Posted - 2006.06.18 21:26:00 - [42] Originally by: Dragerest yes nerf t2 ammo, i mean i trained for weeks to use t2 guns and ammo and i don't like how they blow stuff up better than t1. it just isn't fair. Yeah I agree totaly and I bet the majority of pilots who have specialised in it wouldn't care if it was nerfed either!
GO MaZ	Posted - 2006.06.18 21:29:00 - [43] Originally by: Frools t2 long range ammo should just give you more damage at the same range as +60% t1 ammo that way you dont completely obsolete t1 turrets but you still get a good advantage to using t2 /signed this ****
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.18 21:30:00 - [44] Originally by: CivrGrrl19 Originally by: Ithildin Edited by: Ithildin on 18/06/2006 21:03:38 Let's just get the thred straight: it's not about launchers, it's about T2 long range ammo in general You simply can not balance something that is overpowered withing balancing other overpowered things. I can't wait to see nothing but ravens camping gates It's just not possible to discuss everything in this thread and hope to achieve any kind of relevant and productive debate. And I'd rather have one less thing overpowered than leave it because something else is overpowered. And if you're talking about gates in lowsec, that's yet another issue. They're perfectly campable with short range ammo anyway.
CivrGrrl19	Posted - 2006.06.18 21:42:00 - [45] Originally by: Stamm And if you're talking about gates in lowsec, that's yet another issue. They're perfectly campable with short range ammo anyway. How do you figure? You aren't ever going to see a blasterthron camping a gate! I've never seen a autopest camping a gate either. I think I've heard of it being done in a pulse apoc... but I'm not sure. Anyway man - while I can respect your dedication to general balance, I think that "balance" is too arbitrarily defined here. You seem to know very well that missiles are overpowered, but I don't understand your frame of reference for what makes long distance T2 ammo overpowered. Or do you just mean that it is your opinion that it is too powerful? I for one will be **ed as hell if guns are made useless and missiles are left to be king **.
Tadis	Posted - 2006.06.19 00:20:00 - [46] Originally by: Frools t2 long range ammo should just give you more damage at the same range as +60% t1 ammo that way you dont completely obsolete t1 turrets but you still get a good advantage to using t2 This I agree with, and I believe should be the fix. ___________________________________ NRG Recruiting
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.19 00:27:00 - [47] Originally by: Stamm Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Stamm Artillery suck at um, ROF and tracking. These issues don't relate to a comparison between T2 long range ammo and T1 ammo The price you pay for T2 long-range ammo is the god-awful tracking. If your target gets up a traversal you generally don't have a chance of hitting, where-as you can with long-range T1 ammo as it doesn't have the tracking penalty (assuming you're in range). Tremor + God-Awful Tracking = Stationary or Miss. You're being too specific about artillery. If you do feel that the penalty to long range ammo is too harsh for Minmatar, but not for Amarr or Railgun users then could you start a thread about it and not take this one off topic? Artillery is low rate of fire, high alpha strike, low tracking, high falloff. The ammo is the same across the board - high damage, high range, same tracking penalty. You said ROF and tracking don't relate to T1 & T2 long-range ammo, where-as in fact they do. Poor tracking results in more shots missed. Low rate of fire results in more time spent waiting to get another volley off. Every missed shot punishes artillery DPS in a way that isn't so apparent in railguns and beams due to their higher rate of fire. It is every Minmatar pilot's nighmare to see shots that miss as every one is vital. The trade-off you make for fitting T2 ammo is that when they hit, they hit harder, but it's far more likely they'll miss compared to long-range T1 ammo. Make Khanid Useful!
Cruz	Posted - 2006.06.19 02:09:00 - [48] Edited by: Cruz on 19/06/2006 02:09:23 Originally by: CivrGrrl19 Edited by: CivrGrrl19 on 18/06/2006 21:48:13 Originally by: Stamm And if you're talking about gates in lowsec, that's yet another issue. They're perfectly campable with short range ammo anyway. How do you figure? You aren't ever going to see a blasterthron camping a gate! I've never seen a autopest camping a gate either. I think I've heard of it being done in a pulse apoc... but I'm not sure. (I have no experience with amarr ships as of yet!) Anyway man - while I can respect your dedication to general balance, I think that "balance" is too arbitrarily defined here. You seem to know very well that missiles are overpowered, but I don't understand your frame of reference for what makes long distance T2 ammo overpowered. Or do you just mean that it is your opinion that it is too powerful? I guess what I'm saying here is that balance is relative. "Fixing" one doesn't fix anything as it just breaks another thing even more. I for one will be **ed as hell if guns are made useless and missiles are left to be king **. What are you, captain stupid? He was referring to t1 ammo, not Short Range guns. .................
Hey You	Posted - 2006.06.19 02:20:00 - [49] Actually, launchers and many other things have relevance in this thread. Why? Because what may seem "overpowered" in one category, may need to be so, because it's "underpowered" in another. So not everything is the same, and all that. ------------------------------
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.19 02:21:00 - [50] Edited by: Stamm on 19/06/2006 02:21:05 Originally by: CivrGrrl19 Edited by: CivrGrrl19 on 18/06/2006 21:48:13 Originally by: Stamm And if you're talking about gates in lowsec, that's yet another issue. They're perfectly campable with short range ammo anyway. How do you figure? You aren't ever going to see a blasterthron camping a gate! I've never seen a autopest camping a gate either. I think I've heard of it being done in a pulse apoc... but I'm not sure. (I have no experience with amarr ships as of yet!) Anyway man - while I can respect your dedication to general balance, I think that "balance" is too arbitrarily defined here. You seem to know very well that missiles are overpowered, but I don't understand your frame of reference for what makes long distance T2 ammo overpowered. Or do you just mean that it is your opinion that it is too powerful? I guess what I'm saying here is that balance is relative. "Fixing" one doesn't fix anything as it just breaks another thing even more. I for one will be **ed as hell if guns are made useless and missiles are left to be king **. I've done it in a pulse geddon, with a friend in a blasterthron. <-- Edit, and a pulse apoc. I've even low sec ganked in a Maller, and an Arbitrator (both tanked, but I tank them anyway). Those ships can't hang around for long. We even had a Vigil tackling for us, and he didn't get popped. We were just goofing off while we waited on a freighter, but the guns were no problem at all, until we actually decided to leave Empire and for some reason the drunk Vigil pilot shot a stargate on the way out. Seriously though gates in lowsec are no threat, but not related to this thread. And as for missiles, well, I have basic missile skills because I experimented with a fit on an Apoc with 2 siege to free PG for lasers, but other than that I know that missiles firing 200KM have to be cruises, they take a good long while to get there, and while you wait that time the other ship is shooting back. Compare that to turrets which do the damage instantly. With missiles you'd have to stop firing early and rely on the missiles in the air doing the damage, or you'd have to keep firing and waste damage on a ship that died before a stack of missiles hit. But this thread is supposed to be about the difference between T1 and T2 ammo. Not about Artillery tracking, missiles, gate guns...

Hey You	Posted - 2006.06.19 02:27:00 - [51] Originally by: Stamm Edited by: Stamm on 19/06/2006 02:21:05 Originally by: CivrGrrl19 Edited by: CivrGrrl19 on 18/06/2006 21:48:13 Originally by: Stamm And if you're talking about gates in lowsec, that's yet another issue. They're perfectly campable with short range ammo anyway. How do you figure? You aren't ever going to see a blasterthron camping a gate! I've never seen a autopest camping a gate either. I think I've heard of it being done in a pulse apoc... but I'm not sure. (I have no experience with amarr ships as of yet!) Anyway man - while I can respect your dedication to general balance, I think that "balance" is too arbitrarily defined here. You seem to know very well that missiles are overpowered, but I don't understand your frame of reference for what makes long distance T2 ammo overpowered. Or do you just mean that it is your opinion that it is too powerful? I guess what I'm saying here is that balance is relative. "Fixing" one doesn't fix anything as it just breaks another thing even more. I for one will be **ed as hell if guns are made useless and missiles are left to be king **. but other than that I know that missiles firing 200KM have to be cruises, .....Javelin torps can get past 300km if something is leading them. Oh, and I've killed BSs solo at gates. ------------------------------
Hinik	Posted - 2006.06.19 02:51:00 - [52] long range ammo maybe needs nerfing a little, but what people aren't mentioning that the tracking REALLY nerfs your guns. Example. If I were to camp a gate with iridium as a pirate I could sit just outside 150km and still hit most anything MWDing to the gate, including inties and shuttles. If I were to do the same with spike I'd have to sit at max range which is 211km without taking optimal into account and even then I wouldn't be able to hit anything smaller than a cruiser ABing! - Is it just me or does that seem nerfed already? it's a weapon for killing similar or larger sized targets. You can forget trying to pod your target if you're lucky enough to kill his ship! Someone mentioned short range ammo too, and said that the short range blaster ammo was overpowered... well... yeah it is, but have you seen how it drains your cap? even AFTER the blaster changes it still means you HAVE to have a cap booster on, and even that doesn't let you run everything. /me slaps maya
Ab Initio	Posted - 2006.06.19 03:30:00 - [53] You cant balance these ammos by looking at them alone, you seem to focus on range and damage without taking into account penalties and there practical applications. If I was going purely by the damage / range numbers you appear to be looking at, then a nerf would seem reasonable. However, I have trained for and use this ammo daily, and from practical experience, I wouldn't support a nerf. The penalties do have an impact, and there are down sides. You need to take them into account if you want to sell the idea to anyone.
gooofball	Posted - 2006.06.19 04:01:00 - [54] After I spend approximately 2 months and get the several million skill points it takes to fit tech 2 artilleries, I really hope CCP follows your guy's advice and nerfs Tech 2 ammo so that it is comparable to tech 1 ammo. That way my time investment in those skills will feel totally worthwhile because I can still fit the same guns I was using before or the new toys I spent so much time waiting for and there will be no change. I think they should wait until I can fit Tech 2 hardeners and then nerf them too so tech 1 hardeners aren't obsolete. I wouldn't want the tech 1 crap I was using before to feel bad.
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2006.06.19 05:15:00 - [55] Edited by: Letifer Deus on 19/06/2006 05:19:07 Lower range on spike, ect. to 150. Will still do ~63% more damage against a moving BS (~80% against stationary BS) at range than 160% T1 ammo, but will have significantly less range than it does now and thus be significantly worse against cruisers and frigates. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Brer Lapin	Posted - 2006.06.19 05:48:00 - [56] Half all optimal ranges double falloffs. Dial down the damage dealt to 50-66% on all weapons. IMHO
Letifer Deus	Posted - 2006.06.19 05:54:00 - [57] Originally by: Brer Lapin Half all optimal ranges double falloffs. Dial down the damage dealt to 50-66% on all weapons. IMHO The problem with that is that it will make blasters/ACs/pulses rediculously overpowered. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.06.19 05:54:00 - [58] Long range T2 ammo makes the game a little boring. It's just too far to be firing, that is :S Incidentally, missiles fire too far, too. Even basic ones. I dont like the recent dev idea of bringing everything down to 10/20/30km, but ranges over 100km just make everything a lil boring, as well as making all of the other things available (the whole EW family) obsolete, too. I dont agree that the T2 long range ammo does too much damage, though. DPS on Tremor sucks. Testy's Blog, Updated 15/06! Name Team Minmatar, Win A Vaga!
Jadeon	Posted - 2006.06.19 07:23:00 - [59] Range bonus on all Tech II ammo should be decreased from its current 100% value.
Sebroth	Posted - 2006.06.19 07:50:00 - [60] Originally by: Frools t2 long range ammo should just give you more damage at the same range as +60% t1 ammo that way you dont completely obsolete t1 turrets but you still get a good advantage to using t2 qft ----- Never knock on Death's door; ring the doorbell and run (he hates that)



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: 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.