EVE Search - Nerf T2 long range ammo

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 17:36:00 - [1] Simple enough. It does too much damage at too much range. Taking frequency crystals as an example... The Aurora gives 100% to range compared to 60% from radio. And does ultraviolet damage (which is -12.5 (minus not plus) to range). So either reduce the range to 60% bonus and the damage a touch. Or reduce the damage to the same as t1 long range ammo, but keep the 100% range.
MadGaz	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:38:00 - [2] Radio's suck beyond all doubt, don't nerf aurora aswell --------------------------- What can I put here without getting banned?
chaos98	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:42:00 - [3] correct me if im wrong, but does it not also have a tracking gimp? so...it's supposed to be better than tech1, but it also gimps the ship, im not seeing a problem with it....
Ortu Konsinni	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:43:00 - [4] Originally by: chaos98 correct me if im wrong, but does it not also have a tracking gimp? so...it's supposed to be better than tech1, but it also gimps the ship, im not seeing a problem with it.... At the ranges people use the long range T2 ammo, tracking isn't really an issue. --- High quality pics of ALL EVE ships!
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:45:00 - [5] Edited by: Ithildin on 18/06/2006 17:44:54 I can do nothing but agree with the OP. Long range (long range turret) ammo completely obsoletes all T1 turrets, even best officer turrets. EDIT: Also, T2 long range ammo nerfs Caldari turret ships. As for Radio, it does too low TH damage, need to do 3 EM and 2 TH on Radio S. (And then extrapolated up to the larger ammos, of course) New sig coming soonÖ Tuxford's good for EVE.
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:46:00 - [6] T2 ammo needs to be balanced atm its stupidly overpowered, -------------------Sig----------------------- welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s
CardboardSword42	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:47:00 - [7] Agreed It's not just a laser problem, Spike and Tremor also need to be looked at. I'm Ex-Biomass, that makes me cool But now I'm KOS and it's all about the manlove
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:49:00 - [8] I can snipe slow-moving cruisers from 80km with Tremor L. Tracking REALLY isn't an issue. Make Khanid Useful!
Gronsak	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:49:00 - [9] Originally by: CardboardSword42 Agreed It's not just a laser problem, Spike and Tremor also need to be looked at. NO ALL T2 AMMO NEEDS A NERF not just the long range sniper ammo the only ones that might be acceptable are the blaster/ac/pulse ammo that does less dmg but more range [ie null does less dmg than AM but gives u a bit more range] the rest are pretty much ftw -------------------Sig----------------------- welcome to eve, a game for the unemployed, the t2 bpo winners, GTC sellers, macro miners and agent *****s
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.18 17:53:00 - [10] I think 200++ km engagements seriously need looking into. Missiles over 200++ km dont even look or feel scary. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! Quote: Tier 3 Minmatar BS needs Target Painting for bonuses.
Hey You	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:04:00 - [11] Edited by: Hey You on 18/06/2006 18:05:04 Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: CardboardSword42 Agreed It's not just a laser problem, Spike and Tremor also need to be looked at. NO ALL T2 AMMO NEEDS A NERF not just the long range sniper ammo the only ones that might be acceptable are the blaster/ac/pulse ammo that does less dmg but more range [ie null does less dmg than AM but gives u a bit more range] the rest are pretty much ftw YES! NERF HAIL! Oh, Conflag isn't overpowered. It drains cap like a *****. ------------------------------
Frools	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:10:00 - [12] 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
Luc Boye	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:11:00 - [13] its the only defence against everybody and their mother fitting ECM tho.
wierchas noobhunter	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:12:00 - [14] get of from my spike or die _\|_ join soar angelic
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:24:00 - [15] /me breaks the upraised finger T2 amo should be T1 damage+special effect
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:25:00 - [16] Originally by: Luc Boye its the only defence against everybody and their mother fitting ECM tho. Or buff up EWAR on battleships? So hard to jam or dampen sniping BS at 200++ km. T2 EWAR mods are hard to reach 200++ km. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! Quote: Tier 3 Minmatar BS needs Target Painting for bonuses.
Hey You	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:28:00 - [17] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Luc Boye its the only defence against everybody and their mother fitting ECM tho. Or buff up EWAR on battleships? So hard to jam or dampen sniping BS at 200++ km. T2 EWAR mods are hard to reach 200++ km. YES! BOOST ECM! ------------------------------
Wizie	Posted - 2006.06.18 18:29:00 - [18] Agreed, a lot of the tech II ammo is either obscenely overpowered or completely useless. ----------------- Sig removed by some noob
Lienzo	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:24:00 - [19] I see it as a problem that extends from a lack of specialization in the t1 mods themselves. The fact that regulated ion blaster isn't more specialized to RoF or optimals, or tracking instead of simply being better all around that t1 ion blaster that there is any problem with further specialization from t2 mod components like ammo. Also, if there was no decent t2 range ammo, inties might never die to an opening barrage unless they ran into a double web at close range. T2 long range ammo that nerfs the mobility or tanking of the shooter is ideal for the shooter's niche. Nobody needs to do more than one thing well at a time. I also see no reason to not allow t2 ammo to be used in t1 weapons. I don't have a L60 elf with an Epic loincloth in warcraft online for exactly this reason. Assault Missile Launcher Improvement
Kaeten	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:26:00 - [20] When they remove the ability that ravens have which is doing the smae constant damage at those extrememe ranges then I can say we can talk, until then... High-Sec Piracy Recruitment
Dragerest	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:32:00 - [21] 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.
Kaeten	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:34:00 - [22] 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. High-Sec Piracy Recruitment
Fistme	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:40:00 - [23] Originally by: Kaeten When they remove the ability that ravens have which is doing the smae constant damage at those extrememe ranges then I can say we can talk, until then... No one is going to sit around and let 35 torpedos from a fleet of ravens hit them. However you don't really have that option when you are getting called primary by a blob of turret ships 200k away. I think most of us would love to see large mixed fleets engage eachother at a variety of ranges with a variety of tactics. Nerfing the hell out of the long range tech 2 ammo is a good start. Either need to nerf the range, or nerf the damage, ideally both by a good amount.
Hey You	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:41:00 - [24] Originally by: Fistme Originally by: Kaeten When they remove the ability that ravens have which is doing the smae constant damage at those extrememe ranges then I can say we can talk, until then... No one is going to sit around and let 35 torpedos from a fleet of ravens hit them. However you don't really have that option when you are getting called primary by a blob of turret ships 200k away. I think most of us would love to see large mixed fleets engage eachother at a variety of ranges with a variety of tactics. Nerfing the hell out of the long range tech 2 ammo is a good start. Either need to nerf the range, or nerf the damage, ideally both by a good amount. So turret ship have one advantage over missile users? NERF! ------------------------------
Dragerest	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:45:00 - [25] Originally by: Fistme Originally by: Kaeten When they remove the ability that ravens have which is doing the smae constant damage at those extrememe ranges then I can say we can talk, until then... No one is going to sit around and let 35 torpedos from a fleet of ravens hit them. However you don't really have that option when you are getting called primary by a blob of turret ships 200k away. I think most of us would love to see large mixed fleets engage eachother at a variety of ranges with a variety of tactics. Nerfing the hell out of the long range tech 2 ammo is a good start. Either need to nerf the range, or nerf the damage, ideally both by a good amount. main?
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:54:00 - [26] Can we please ignore launchers? This thread is about T1 ammo versus T2. Here's something else to back up my arguement. Look at the difference between T1 and T2 stuff. Generally it's harder to fit, but does 20% extra damage and range. By that logic the T2 Aurora should do 20% range and 20% damage over a Radio. If they want to flavour it more then have it do the same range and more damage, or higher range and the same damage. But not a massive amount more range, and a MASSIVE amount more damage. Also please note I'm using frequency crystals as an example. All turret T2 ammo is in the same position.
HippoKing	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:58:00 - [27] Originally by: Wizie Agreed, a lot of the tech II ammo is either obscenely overpowered or completely useless. qft
Dragerest	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:58:00 - [28] Originally by: Stamm Can we please ignore launchers? This thread is about T1 ammo versus T2. Here's something else to back up my arguement. Look at the difference between T1 and T2 stuff. Generally it's harder to fit, but does 20% extra damage and range. By that logic the T2 Aurora should do 20% range and 20% damage over a Radio. If they want to flavour it more then have it do the same range and more damage, or higher range and the same damage. But not a massive amount more range, and a MASSIVE amount more damage. Also please note I'm using frequency crystals as an example. All turret T2 ammo is in the same position. whats the point of T2 than?
Wrayeth	Posted - 2006.06.18 19:59:00 - [29] 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. -Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Hey You	Posted - 2006.06.18 20:13:00 - [30] 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! ------------------------------
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)
Prestis	Posted - 2006.06.19 08:15:00 - [61] The long range T2 ammo might be slightly overpowered, but it's the only one worth using at all. As a projectile user the rests varies from nearly identical to T1 (Barrage vs EMP) to ship-crippling junk (Hail and Quake). The months of training, extra costs and higher fitting reqs should give more benefit than that.
Doc Punkiller	Posted - 2006.06.19 08:20:00 - [62] The only T2 ammo that need to be looked at are some of the worst missiles that make your ship like an asthmatic whale. Other T2 ammo are fine and it's not because you have been instapoped while approching a gate with no bm that they are overpowered. Now, stop sniffing acetone and go back to your mining op.
Namtuk	Posted - 2006.06.19 09:56:00 - [63] Edited by: Namtuk on 19/06/2006 09:56:44 whine whine whine ffs guys the reason people train for so long is so they can have these nice toys. I bet u got blasted from 200km for big dmg and now are anoyed about it well live with it, its part of the game don`t like it then leave. T2 ammo is suppose to give u that advantage why do u think it takes that long to tarin. These threads are always created by people that can`t use the stuff yet and just can`t accept that there are people that have been playing for longer and have the skills to use. This game requires time invested in training skills but u get something outa all the training in the end so just stop whining about stuff like this.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.06.19 10:47:00 - [64] Edited by: j0sephine on 19/06/2006 10:47:15 "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)." This is, sadly enough, quite not applicable in practice. At long range distances hardly anyone "gets their transversal up" since doing this penalizes in exactly same way their own chance to hit. So it's more of stationary hit-and-run thing. In addition, the difference of base damage and range is large enough, that at distances past 130 km vs battleship sized target tech.2 artillery with tech.2 ammo still outdamages tech.2 artillery with tech.1 ammo even with targets moving at ~400 m/sec or so. (chance to hit at this point is ~40% vs ~60% with tech.1 ammo loaded... this is without tracking comps, just the skills) That means even vs targets with afterburner and moving at straight angle, you're better off with the 'sucky tracking' tech.2 ammo... and when the targets are moving slower than that, the difference in damage output can go as high as 60% or more :/
Shadowsword	Posted - 2006.06.19 11:05:00 - [65] Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 19/06/2006 10:47:15 "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)." This is, sadly enough, quite not applicable in practice. At long range distances hardly anyone "gets their transversal up" since doing this penalizes in exactly same way their own chance to hit. So it's more of stationary hit-and-run thing. When I'm in a fleet battle, I always align my ship with something. So I generate some transversal. Originally by: j0sephine In addition, the difference of base damage and range is large enough, that at distances past 130 km vs battleship sized target tech.2 artillery with tech.2 ammo still outdamages tech.2 artillery with tech.1 ammo even with targets moving at ~400 m/sec or so. (chance to hit at this point is ~40% vs ~60% with tech.1 ammo loaded... this is without tracking comps, just the skills) I'd be inclined to agree with you, if long range T1 ammos were worth using. they simply don't do enough damge, your target will always warp away, even in a laggy environment, unless tackled. T2 long range ammos are filling a gap. Now, they do it too well, and they need some nerf, but not to the point of not being worth using. And the tacking penalty really kick you in the bottom when it comes to killing cruiser and frig-sized targets. Originally by: j0sephine That means even vs targets with afterburner and moving at straight angle, you're better off with the 'sucky tracking' tech.2 ammo... and when the targets are moving slower than that, the difference in damage output can go as high as 60% or more :/ While those ammos certainly are a little overpowered, they allow you to engage superior forces in numbers with a realistic chance, which make the notion of outmanoeuvering something usefull. If you nerf them too much, we'll return to a situation called "who has the biggest blog win", and the outnumbered side simply won't engage->less pvp, less fun for both sides... ------------------------------------------ Don't make War, War is messy. Make love instead, so your kids will do the War part for you.
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.19 11:16:00 - [66] Originally by: Doc Punkiller The only T2 ammo that need to be looked at are some of the worst missiles that make your ship like an asthmatic whale. Other T2 ammo are fine and it's not because you have been instapoped while approching a gate with no bm that they are overpowered. Now, stop sniffing acetone and go back to your mining op. I've never been instapopped approaching a gate with no BM. I'm not that stupid. But if I was, it certainly wouldn't be by your lot, now shouldn't you go dock like the 27 of you did last time I took a gang of 8 down to gank you?
Das Yad	Posted - 2006.06.19 11:17:00 - [67] So i spend a month and a half training up t2 guns that use MORE CPU and MORE GRID than the best named t1 and the only real bonus i get is some nerfed ammo cause some whiner got naled by a sniper? people arent looking at the penalties propperly, the penalty for using t2 ammo is training the skills = month and a half t2 use more grid , cpu and cap than the t1 variety. and tbh while we're nerfing long range ammo and alpha strike lets all whine for more mids on our ships so we can fit more points for the close range combat. some people do fit 4 stabs on a tempest =\
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.19 11:42:00 - [68] Originally by: Das Yad So i spend a month and a half training up t2 guns that use MORE CPU and MORE GRID than the best named t1 and the only real bonus i get is some nerfed ammo cause some whiner got naled by a sniper? people arent looking at the penalties propperly, the penalty for using t2 ammo is training the skills = month and a half t2 use more grid , cpu and cap than the t1 variety. and tbh while we're nerfing long range ammo and alpha strike lets all whine for more mids on our ships so we can fit more points for the close range combat. some people do fit 4 stabs on a tempest =\ Absolute nonsense. Someone accuses me of being nailed by a sniper and all of a sudden it's true? I have NOT been nailed by a sniper. Why would I let that happen? Also, I care nothing for the whiners who are wailing that they specifically trained for T2 long range ammo. Why? Because they're liars. Simple as that. You train to use T2 weapons, which give you a considerable boost over T1 weapons. And the training time is not the pemalty, rubbish. If you had read this thread AT ALL, you would have realised NOBODY wants to nerf T2 ammo to kingdom come. It's a pretty simple thing. T2 long range ammo makes T1 long range ammo 100% obsolete. And for christs sakes stop whining that the tracking nerf means you can't hit frigates, you're talking about battleships, you're not supposed to easily hit frigates. So let's summarise. 1) I've never, ever been killed by a sniper. 2) I use T2 ammo. 3) I'm a turret user, not a missile user. 4) I'm sorry if I shouted a bit Das Yad, but I tend to lose my temper with complete idiots.
DarK	Posted - 2006.06.19 11:44:00 - [69] Lol at some of these replies. Since when does finding a particular feature unbalanced = having been "owned" by it? People want it nerfed because fleet battles at 200km are ***** boring as **. The devs are trying to prolong combat, long range tech2 ammo works against that. So boohoo you spent 3 months training up tech2 weapons. EVERYONE already did BEFORE there ever was tech2 ammo in the first place! Jesus, spare me.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:04:00 - [70] Originally by: Shadowsword When I'm in a fleet battle, I always align my ship with something. So I generate some transversal. The number of fleets I fight where people dont align is laughable. But still, aligning does not always transversal make; often you'll be aligning back to the safe you just came from. Also, as mentioned above, with transversal not being truly accurate and decreasing hit chances for both of you, it's kind of moot whether you do or not. Sarmaul, Naughty Boy, Weirda, Kaylana, readme please :)
Azirapheal	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:15:00 - [71] t2 mods and ammo are fine, we all get to work towards them and invest a few months getting that raven with t2 heavy launchers and t2 missiles... for the time and evemoney investment it should be good. same with all t2equipt tbh
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:22:00 - [72] OK. Controversial idea. T2 EWAR mods in game long before HACs and T2 ammos. HACs and T2 ammos make T2 EWAR mods and T1 EWAR BS borked. T2 ammos and T1 BS now fight at 200++ km. T2 EWAR mods and T1 BS cant jam/reach 200++ km. Cant support frigates, tacklers. Why not keep T2 ammos as they are and buff up EWAR a little? EWAR is only imbalanced because of CCP's imbalanced randomness in random. Rook and Falcon can out-jam Scorpions easily ATM. /me thinks EWAR needs to be buffed a little to bring them inline with T2 ammos. EWAR boats cant support tacklers ATM unless battles are around 150km. Current EWAR needs a little update TBH. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Doc Punkiller	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:30:00 - [73] Originally by: Stamm Originally by: Doc Punkiller The only T2 ammo that need to be looked at are some of the worst missiles that make your ship like an asthmatic whale. Other T2 ammo are fine and it's not because you have been instapoped while approching a gate with no bm that they are overpowered. Now, stop sniffing acetone and go back to your mining op. I've never been instapopped approaching a gate with no BM. I'm not that stupid. That was an image... that obviously you failed to understand. Originally by: Stamm But if I was, it certainly wouldn't be by your lot, now shouldn't you go dock like the 27 of you did last time I took a gang of 8 down to gank you? lol, drugs are bad ok ? anyway... If you dont like 200km battle then force the opponent to do close fight. The game is the same for everyone... End of story.
Nadec Ascand	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:35:00 - [74] Originally by: wierchas noobhunter get of from my spike or die _\|_ QFT can someone tell me also what i should do with my eagle if u remove T2 long range ammo?
Namtuk	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:38:00 - [75] Edited by: Namtuk on 19/06/2006 12:39:37 1) I've never, ever been killed by a sniper. 2) I use T2 ammo. 3) I'm a turret user, not a missile user. 4) I'm sorry if I shouted a bit Das Yad, but I tend to lose my temper with complete idiots. U have never been killed by a sniper I find that hard to believe. If ur using T2 ammo then why are u whining about it. I still think u are ****ed off by something that happend to u because of t2 ammo but hey thats only my opinion.
Hinik	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:39:00 - [76] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire OK. Controversial idea. T2 EWAR mods in game long before HACs and T2 ammos. HACs and T2 ammos make T2 EWAR mods and T1 EWAR BS borked. T2 ammos and T1 BS now fight at 200++ km. T2 EWAR mods and T1 BS cant jam/reach 200++ km. Cant support frigates, tacklers. Why not keep T2 ammos as they are and buff up EWAR a little? EWAR is only imbalanced because of CCP's imbalanced randomness in random. Rook and Falcon can out-jam Scorpions easily ATM. /me thinks EWAR needs to be buffed a little to bring them inline with T2 ammos. EWAR boats cant support tacklers ATM unless battles are around 150km. Current EWAR needs a little update TBH. no way in hell. Long range T2 ammo is what it is BECAUSE of the way EWAR works... you have 2 or 3 rooks in a gang of 10 fighting another gang of 10 that doesn't have 3 rooks and guess what till happen inf you DON'T use that T2 long range ammo. Everyone in your gang is jammed, end of fight. at least the long range T2 ammo gives you a bit of space to opperate in relative safety from the jammers of doom. Buff EWAR so it can jam someone 200km away using long range ammo and you'll have the death of PVP. It will turn into a battle of which gang's EWAR pilot has the fastest lock. end of story.
PeopleDamager	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:40:00 - [77] Edited by: PeopleDamager on 19/06/2006 12:40:09 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. correction: months
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:49:00 - [78] Originally by: Hinik Originally by: Jenny Spitfire OK. Controversial idea. T2 EWAR mods in game long before HACs and T2 ammos. HACs and T2 ammos make T2 EWAR mods and T1 EWAR BS borked. T2 ammos and T1 BS now fight at 200++ km. T2 EWAR mods and T1 BS cant jam/reach 200++ km. Cant support frigates, tacklers. Why not keep T2 ammos as they are and buff up EWAR a little? EWAR is only imbalanced because of CCP's imbalanced randomness in random. Rook and Falcon can out-jam Scorpions easily ATM. /me thinks EWAR needs to be buffed a little to bring them inline with T2 ammos. EWAR boats cant support tacklers ATM unless battles are around 150km. Current EWAR needs a little update TBH. no way in hell. Long range T2 ammo is what it is BECAUSE of the way EWAR works... you have 2 or 3 rooks in a gang of 10 fighting another gang of 10 that doesn't have 3 rooks and guess what till happen inf you DON'T use that T2 long range ammo. Everyone in your gang is jammed, end of fight. at least the long range T2 ammo gives you a bit of space to opperate in relative safety from the jammers of doom. Buff EWAR so it can jam someone 200km away using long range ammo and you'll have the death of PVP. It will turn into a battle of which gang's EWAR pilot has the fastest lock. end of story. Not asking EWAR to have optimal of 200 km. Optimal with skills, ship bonuses, whatever should be about 150km and falloff should be 70km to 80km? Anything after 150km is really a roll on a dice, IMHO. Current EWAR BS have problems supporting ship to reach targets at 200 km. All get insta-pop before they reach 50% of their journey. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:51:00 - [79] Originally by: Namtuk Edited by: Namtuk on 19/06/2006 12:39:37 1) I've never, ever been killed by a sniper. 2) I use T2 ammo. 3) I'm a turret user, not a missile user. 4) I'm sorry if I shouted a bit Das Yad, but I tend to lose my temper with complete idiots. U have never been killed by a sniper I find that hard to believe. If ur using T2 ammo then why are u whining about it. I still think u are ****ed off by something that happend to u because of t2 ammo but hey thats only my opinion. Well, you can call me a liar, but go chase around in killmails and stuff - although the NBSI ones have all gone - or just take my word for it. Because I don't want an I-WIN button, or more accurately I just don't like fleet battles at 200KM, nor do I like the idea of T2 obsoleting T1. One of the key aspects of Eve is that a player can very quickly in their carerr be in a Battleship and make a noticable contribution to a fleet, and with skills they increase their abilities by small increments, and larger increments as they pass certain thresholds. The T2 ammo breaks that. Sure with lots of skills and time players get into T2 ships with specific roles, but the nuts and bolts of this game make it so that everybody can participate. It's honestly not my intention when posting on these forums to get personal upgrades and nerfs for everybody else. I want to play a fun game, and it's not fun if it's not balanced.
Doc Punkiller	Posted - 2006.06.19 12:55:00 - [80] Originally by: Hinik Buff EWAR so it can jam someone 200km away using long range ammo and you'll have the death of PVP. It will turn into a battle of which gang's EWAR pilot has the fastest lock. end of story. Long range jamming is very 'luck based', when you are in the very limit of the 2*falloff + optimal even with very good skills, you will fail a lot of jamming. Then if there is enought hostile snipers, you know that you'll be primary. -> If you are in a rook you are instapopped -> If you are in a platted scorpion, and that the lag is not so bad, you may warp out in structure. But i think that this is ok, if you cannot jam at longrange, just make sure you engage at a resonable optimal. No need to buf ECM, no need to nerf T2 ammo, just adapt your fighting style.
Nadec Ascand	Posted - 2006.06.19 13:14:00 - [81] Originally by: Stamm One of the key aspects of Eve is that a player can very quickly in their carerr be in a Battleship and make a noticable contribution to a fleet, and with skills they increase their abilities by small increments, and larger increments as they pass certain thresholds. The T2 ammo breaks that. Sure with lots of skills and time players get into T2 ships with specific roles, but the nuts and bolts of this game make it so that everybody can participate. False Bs are supposed from start to be end user ship, Ppl should start pvp in frig tackling then in cruiser dmging then in Inty/assault => heavy assault or BS Stop thinking about noobs in BS this is not supposed to happen.
Namtuk	Posted - 2006.06.19 13:16:00 - [82] Isn`t T2 stuff suposed to be better than T1 or am I getting stuff mixed up there. Whats the point in tarining skills if T2 is not worth the time invested to get it. a 3 month old character that gets into a battleship is not much use in PvP, it almost means certain death to that pilot. I think there should be a diff in a 3 month old character and a 3 year old character, that diff being the older character is able to use all those nice T2 toys and be dangerous in the game, T2 longrange ammo or guns are not an I-Win button u can always warp out, unless CCP bring out the uber scrammachine 200km scram +2 neone
Stamm	Posted - 2006.06.19 13:25:00 - [83] Originally by: Namtuk Isn`t T2 stuff suposed to be better than T1 or am I getting stuff mixed up there. Whats the point in tarining skills if T2 is not worth the time invested to get it. a 3 month old character that gets into a battleship is not much use in PvP, it almost means certain death to that pilot. I think there should be a diff in a 3 month old character and a 3 year old character, that diff being the older character is able to use all those nice T2 toys and be dangerous in the game, T2 longrange ammo or guns are not an I-Win button u can always warp out, unless CCP bring out the uber scrammachine 200km scram +2 neone Of course there should. But for gods sakes, bringing long range T2 ammo into balance doesn't mean it's going to be completely useless. nor does it mean your T2 weapons will be equal to T1. They'll still get a 20% range, 20% damage increase over T1, they'll still allow for the 8% (well, 10% if you really want) specialisation damage bonus, and T2 ammo will still be noticably better than T1. You're talking about at least 50% more damage than T1. It's hardly useless, so please, give over on the knee jerk whines.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.06.19 13:41:00 - [84] @ Tracking :: This is a non-argument. T2 long range ammo is severely unbalanced in a particular situation - and in this particular situation tracking is of no consequence. @ ECM :: That one thing works too well and is unbalanced is not an argument not to balance another thing. Classic case of two wrongs not making right, only more wrong. Correct one of the errors and you are half way there, allow both to exist and you've failed. @ T2 being better than T1 :: At one point one has to examine the difference between the concept of T1 being "less good" than T2 versus T1 being "useless" to T2. In this case, T1 is useless compared to T2. By comparison, T2 turrets take more fitting and does about 0% to 32% more damage (depending on skill levels and what meta T1 item you compare) - this is by no means useless since it does not exclude the use of T1 in any way. Given that range is absolute whether you reach or not, T2 long range ammo does indeed obsolete T1 perfectly in a competative environment. Please note that gate camps cannot be classified as "competative environment" New sig coming soonÖ Tuxford's good for EVE.
Kye Kenshin	Posted - 2006.06.19 15:36:00 - [85] Originally by: Testy Mctest 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. I agree, this is exactly my problem with T2 long range ammo. Its boring! so boring it makes mining look like fun and as Testy says it make EW obsolete. Lets look at EW modules like sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors, they lack the necessary range to deal with T2 snipers and thus they have very limited use.(Ignore ECM for the moment as we all know its problems and is getting sorted) This contributes to the boredom factor of fleet battles as you've removed an enitre tactical element of the battle and reduced it down to nothing but numbers. So you really need to increae EW range or decrease T2 LR ammo range. Of course people are gonna want to protect T2 LR Ammo as it basically makes them invunerable to EW, tackling and close range ships. Oh and to all those tards who flame stamm because you reckon he died to snipers and thats why hes whining why dont you think for a second and realise that some people care more about balancing the game then being quiet about overpowered mods/ships. P.S Civrgrrl19 i have actually gate camped in a blasterthron wiht a mate in an Autopest with great success.
Das Yad	Posted - 2006.06.19 16:16:00 - [86] T2 ammo doesnt make t1 ammo useless. sure its a bonus to be able to shoot from outside EWAR range cause frankly a scorp can lock down say 4-5 bs depending on the pilots micro. megathron pilots use tracking disrupts and tempest pilots use damps. so fighting inside a range where you can be either locked down, TD'd or damped isnt the best idea. T2 ammo is supposed to be better than t1 for a reason =\ sure they hit from longer do more damage and totally outrange t1 ammo users but theres these things called covops and when you use them correctly theres a whole world of tactics to use. and i am actually training for long range ammo for the advantage of the range it gives frankly i'd like to be able to range a fair bit so i'm not sat 80-120km off the gate and be top of the name down list. do you think i actually want to fly around in my mega with 425's? and gimp my speed using javelin or sit out at 200km with spike? Quote: And for christs sakes stop whining that the tracking nerf means you can't hit frigates, you're talking about battleships, you're not supposed to easily hit frigates. and where in my previous post did i mention tracking? Quote: 4) I'm sorry if I shouted a bit Das Yad, but I tend to lose my temper with complete idiots. Complete idiots whine about imbalances. smart people adapt and work out tactics go figure...
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.06.19 17:14:00 - [87] "When I'm in a fleet battle, I always align my ship with something. So I generate some transversal." It'll depend on alignment of boths sides ^^ and even then, considering the latter part of reply (how even with afb-like transversal tech.2 ammo still outdamages tech.1) the point of lower tracking is moot -- there's literally _zero_ reason to use long range tech.1 ammo when tech.2 outdoes it in the end no matter the circumstances. "I'd be inclined to agree with you, if long range T1 ammos were worth using." Long range tech.1 ammo was used quite a plenty before tech.2 was introduced. It's this very difference in performance that made tech.1 long range ammo obsolete overnight, as the difference in performance is simply too large. To realize easier just how out-of-whack it is: if tech.2 damage mods were to follow the same power curve long range tech.2 ammo does, they would have to provide ~30% bonus to both damage and RoF, instead of the current ~10% "they simply don't do enough damge, your target will always warp away, even in a laggy environment, unless tackled. T2 long range ammos are filling a gap." Who is to say this is actually "gap" as opposed to intended drawback of long range weaponry? Maybe you _are_ supposed to tackle things you want to kill from the long range. At least this is what missile users are always told... "And the tacking penalty really kick you in the bottom when it comes to killing cruiser and frig-sized targets." Good, tracking was put in there for good reason. Asking to be perfectly able to kill ships that can't even lock back at these ranges, let alone do any kind of damage... just meh. "While those ammos certainly are a little overpowered (..)" No, let's make it clear. They are _not_ "little" overpowered. They are well and beyond any sort of power increase that any other tech.2 module experiences, in comparison to tech.1 counterpart. They aren't little overpowered, "totally ****** up" is closer to calling it the right name. "they allow you to engage superior forces in numbers with a realistic chance, which make the notion of outmanoeuvering something usefull." Warp to covert so you land at 150+ is outmaneuvering? Where is this "maneuvering" part here? o.O; "If you nerf them too much, we'll return to a situation called "who has the biggest blog win", and the outnumbered side simply won't engage->less pvp, less fun for both sides..." I can very easily turn the table here and using your very point how tech 2 ammo allows one to snipe with impunity much larger groups of enemies that can't use tech.2 weapons ... draw conclusion this will only result in people refusing to pvp until they have their gun specializations trained, because otherwise they'll think they stand no chance. No engagements -> less pvp -> less fun. Isn't that just as right..?
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.19 17:19:00 - [88] Originally by: j0sephine Good, tracking was put in there for good reason. Asking to be perfectly able to kill ships that can't even lock back at these ranges, let alone do any kind of damage... just meh. pardon? Make Khanid Useful!
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.06.19 21:08:00 - [89] "pardon?" sigh yes, i suppose a single tech.2 heavy assault with double optimal bonus proves me wrong that frigate and cruiser sized targets generally don't run with setups that allow them even lock back on sniping battleships, let alone hit it back. if someone needs me, i'll be busy in next thread, calling for nerf to all frigates and cruisers because Vagabond is just too fast which clearly means they all are. --;;
xenodia	Posted - 2006.06.19 21:32:00 - [90] Originally by: Stamm Simple enough. Im a noob, who doesnt want to spend the weeks (or months) needed to train up for large tech2 guns. Since I am a noob, I think everyone else should be a noob too, and not be able to use anything that I cant. Fixed Check out my recruiting post here
Jazz Bo	Posted - 2006.06.19 22:09:00 - [91] Originally by: CivrGrrl19 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!) . I've camped gates with all three personally, and succesfully too. What do I win?
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.19 22:26:00 - [92] Originally by: j0sephine "pardon?" sigh yes, i suppose a single tech.2 heavy assault with double optimal bonus proves me wrong that frigate and cruiser sized targets generally don't run with setups that allow them even lock back on sniping battleships, let alone hit it back. if someone needs me, i'll be busy in next thread, calling for nerf to all frigates and cruisers because Vagabond is just too fast which clearly means they all are. --;; I believe what you meant to say was "Sarmaul, as usual, you were right and I was wrong. I apologise and will sell you discounted HACs even though you buggered off after a month. Also, I'm sure DBP won't mind sharing me if you ever get lonely", or something to that extent. TEAM MINMATAR - In Rust We Trust -
Dekein	Posted - 2006.06.19 22:32:00 - [93] I don't think anyone has a problem with T2 ammo being quite a bit better than T1. If the naysayers would look a little closer to responses like Josephine and Ithildin(Butchered the spellings I am sure), they would see that the problem is not that it is better, but that it invalidates not only T1 ammo, but ecm and missiles as well. This is in the case of large gang encounters or fleets. Josephine was right that when a fleet is faced with an opponent that outranges them due to T2 ammo and refuses to engage at anything but max range, the outranged side will refuse to engage at all. You can't fire back, you can't use ecm to balance things. Even if missiles can range, they take so long for the initial hit that anyone who dies to them can be considered a victim of natural selection anyway. T2 ammo has just invalidated everything else on the field to the point that one side is just targets. T2 guns are better than T1. Please give up the arguements on that. If it had any truth, no one would have used them prior to T2 ammo. T2 ammo should be better as well, but not so much better that T1 becomes completely useless and a whole seperate class of modules(EW) become useless as well, including their T2 versions.
Yazoul Samaiel	Posted - 2006.06.19 22:53:00 - [94] Well as far as hybrid ammo goes spike is the most effective for usage , i never use javlins coz i dotn see any point of them realy . Spike how ever is way much better sicne it just boosts up my sniping mega to 200 + kill range so no way i would be usign T1 any more so that realy kinda made T1 ammo for sniping purpose flies out of the window. Sniping has be coem a rather common habbit now for gate campers which is rather annoying sicne u can not counter a warping sniping bs + covert unless u go and refit for sniping as well which is quite bugger off sicne ur EW wont even be reaching that range so i cant say which will be better , reducing snipign range will gimp snipers and if we boost ecm then u will have scorps or ew ships sitting at 240 km jamming the livign crap out of anything that comes through . The way i see it that snipe range for T2 ammo to be equal to ecm max range also so it gives a fair chance to both at least . "What ever that doesn't Kill me just makes me stronger"
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.06.19 23:06:00 - [95] "I believe what you meant to say was "Sarmaul, as usual, you were right and I was wrong. I apologise and will sell you discounted HACs even though you buggered off after a month. Also, I'm sure DBP won't mind sharing me if you ever get lonely", or something to that extent." ... am too lazy to deny that. maybe ;s (and wtf is with the forum today, keeps forgetting the whole reply when i press post button >.<;
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.19 23:09:00 - [96] It's been doing it for a while now. Just hit the back button and then "Post Reply" and it'll work (assumimg your browser is sensible enough to remember what you typed in the text box). TEAM MINMATAR - In Rust We Trust -
Yazoul Samaiel	Posted - 2006.06.19 23:11:00 - [97] Originally by: j0sephine "I believe what you meant to say was "Sarmaul, as usual, you were right and I was wrong. I apologise and will sell you discounted HACs even though you buggered off after a month. Also, I'm sure DBP won't mind sharing me if you ever get lonely", or something to that extent." ... am too lazy to deny that. maybe ;s (and wtf is with the forum today, keeps forgetting the whole reply when i press post button >.<; Both of u need a room , and i will pay for it "What ever that doesn't Kill me just makes me stronger"
Ab Initio	Posted - 2006.06.19 23:27:00 - [98] I'm surprised to see that the main reasons people are coming up with for the nerf are: A. I find it boring. B. Its just too far to be shooting. C. Newer players cant contribute in BS fleet combat because of T2 long range ammo. Well.. A. If finding a part of EVE boring was reason enough to nerf it, we really should be removing ECM. Given the choice of engaging a fleet with T2 ammo, or a fleet of ECM ships, I know which one I would find more 'interesting'. B. It adds variety to the game. It gives a way for people to fight outnumbered and still have a shot at survival. The people who have invested the time in training for it, should get a usable advantage. Damage alone is fine when you are fighting even numbers, but the range bonus really opens up some new ways of engaging. C. This point just annoys me. If your FCs are putting you in a position where your flying a BS, and cant even contribute to the fight, blame your FCs, not your ammo. Nerfing ammo so that alliances can get 3mill sp characters into BS as quickly as possible is not balancing. If you can't contribute in a BS, fly a ship that you can contribute in. If the ranges are brought back down so that T1 / T2 are identical, all that will happen is more blobbing. At the moment, you need to think about how to counter an enemy in a T2 turret fleet. Bring the ranges back down, and it just reverts to alliances bringing 300 3mill sp mining characters, with no counter. Numbers should not always play such a large part in dictating the outcome of a battle, nerfing this ammo just serves to take away another interesting style of warfare.
Vikram Bedi	Posted - 2006.06.19 23:46:00 - [99] Edited by: Vikram Bedi on 19/06/2006 23:50:50 Originally by: Gronsak Originally by: CardboardSword42 Agreed It's not just a laser problem, Spike and Tremor also need to be looked at. NO ALL T2 AMMO NEEDS A NERF not just the long range sniper ammo the only ones that might be acceptable are the blaster/ac/pulse ammo that does less dmg but more range [ie null does less dmg than AM but gives u a bit more range] the rest are pretty much ftw won't argue there, but I will say that I wouldn't mind the T2 sniper ammo as much if it carried a warpoff penalty of some sort (to make the tracking penalty reasonably exploitable). Say, a slightly lower tracking penalty, and 50% added to the time it takes for your warp engines to warm up.
Nadec Ascand	Posted - 2006.06.20 07:55:00 - [100] "sniper (snī'pər) pronunciation n. 1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place. 2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place." another definition say sniper are elite fighters... So we have here elite weapon allowing you to fire from a concealed place... this with ammo made for sniping... I still dont see the pb.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.20 09:45:00 - [101] Originally by: Nadec Ascand "sniper (snī'pər) pronunciation n. 1. A skilled military shooter detailed to spot and pick off enemy soldiers from a concealed place. 2. One who shoots at other people from a concealed place." another definition say sniper are elite fighters... So we have here elite weapon allowing you to fire from a concealed place... this with ammo made for sniping... I still dont see the pb. But CCP did say Battleships are not supposed to be solo pwnmobiles? T2 ammos especially for turrets are solo pwnmobiles IMHO. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Lodhi	Posted - 2006.06.20 10:05:00 - [102] Originally by: Ithildin Edited by: Ithildin on 18/06/2006 17:44:54 I can do nothing but agree with the OP. Long range (long range turret) ammo completely obsoletes all T1 turrets, even best officer turrets. EDIT: Also, T2 long range ammo nerfs Caldari turret ships. As for Radio, it does too low TH damage, need to do 3 EM and 2 TH on Radio S. (And then extrapolated up to the larger ammos, of course) Um both my harpy and eagle works just fine with spike. So i fail to c how it nerfs Caldari turret ships
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.20 11:17:00 - [103] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire But CCP did say Battleships are not supposed to be solo pwnmobiles? T2 ammos especially for turrets are solo pwnmobiles IMHO. yes, my tremor kills everything at any range... TEAM MINMATAR - In Rust We Trust -
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.20 11:21:00 - [104] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Jenny Spitfire But CCP did say Battleships are not supposed to be solo pwnmobiles? T2 ammos especially for turrets are solo pwnmobiles IMHO. yes, my tremor kills everything at any range... But missiles take time to reach target... ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.20 11:23:00 - [105] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Jenny Spitfire But CCP did say Battleships are not supposed to be solo pwnmobiles? T2 ammos especially for turrets are solo pwnmobiles IMHO. yes, my tremor kills everything at any range... But missiles take time to reach target... What are on about woman? I was making a sarcastic remark about your T2 ammo for turrets turning battleships into solo pwnmobiles. TEAM MINMATAR - In Rust We Trust -
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.20 18:16:00 - [106] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Jenny Spitfire But CCP did say Battleships are not supposed to be solo pwnmobiles? T2 ammos especially for turrets are solo pwnmobiles IMHO. yes, my tremor kills everything at any range... But missiles take time to reach target... What are on about woman? I was making a sarcastic remark about your T2 ammo for turrets turning battleships into solo pwnmobiles. Turret BS with T2 guns and T2 ammos is a solo pwnmobile from what I have seen. ECMs are useless against uber 200++ km sniping BS. Frigs no chance to fly to target. Faction guns also lost their values, me think. You love game balance so much, are you very certain there isnt any imbalance with T2 ammos to support yout love for game balance, Mr. Minmatar President. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.20 18:37:00 - [107] I'm not denying it's inbalanced, I'm just not agreeing it turns battleships into solo pwnmobiles. TEAM MINMATAR - In Rust We Trust -
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.06.20 19:26:00 - [108] Edited by: j0sephine on 20/06/2006 19:26:58 "So we have here elite weapon allowing you to fire from a concealed place... this with ammo made for sniping... I still dont see the pb." When was the last time you saw real military conduct mass scale warfare using teams of hundreds of snipers and nothing but? That's how much application real world definitions have here. As someone once nicely put it "try to spend week fully submerged in bathtub of jello with long metal probes sticking up your ass before you try to use real life definitions for EVE-related arguments"... -.o
Laboratus	Posted - 2006.06.21 15:24:00 - [109] Originally by: Stamm Simple enough. It does too much damage at too much range. Taking frequency crystals as an example... The Aurora gives 100% to range compared to 60% from radio. And does ultraviolet damage (which is -12.5 (minus not plus) to range). So either reduce the range to 60% bonus and the damage a touch. Or reduce the damage to the same as t1 long range ammo, but keep the 100% range. Say again? Does too much damage? Here we go again... Long range ammo does mid damage. It does the same damage as the -12.5% range ammo(lasers projectiles and hybrids). You can outdamage it with ease with any t1 short range ammo. The basic problem is, the t1 long range ammo is total bull. It does half the damage the mid range ammos do. The proggression is simply too steep. Another thing most ppl who whine about T2 ammo havent taken into account is the fact that it kills you tracking. As you fit your guns with t2 long range ammo, the only "window" where you can hit effectively is 150-200km. And that stinks. You get a huge penalty for a small benefit. If the opponent gets some transvectral you can completely forget about hitting him. As a short summary, T2 long range ammo is good for alpha strikes, and thats about it. Originally by: Stamm A) False. B) False. C) False. Very good argument and very constructive...
XGS Crimson	Posted - 2006.06.21 16:22:00 - [110] ok i know this thread is about t1 vs t2 but if t2 guns had to use t1 ammo no1 would train for em the only reason t2 weapons are so powerufl is the skills put into them.... t2 spike ammo for example has a huge range but only does the same amount of damage as iron ammo.... but the gun + skills is what makes them so good. So technicly with my current skills i could get a prototype gauss railgun and use iron ammo in it have a bit less range and still hit as hard. this thread is all about people hu cant stand being picked off by gate camps. My friends and I use t1 guns t1 ammo and we still waste battlcruisers at gates and smash frigs in about 10 seconds. t2 long range ammo is all that makes artillery style weapons worth training. but think about it the t2 blaster ammo has almost double the damage so u wana nerf that too? and why did you post this thread just outa interest if its cus u got gate-camped then boohoo for u mate ur fault shouldn't fly a ship with no tank. Signature removed, please resize it to meet the 400x120 pixel and 24000 bytes max rules. Yours is currently 464x65 and 28702 bytes. - Ivan K
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.06.21 16:29:00 - [111] Edited by: Imperial Coercion on 21/06/2006 16:30:14 Originally by: Gronsak T2 ammo needs to be balanced atm its stupidly overpowered, I wonder who would possibly want to pay 5 mill per large Aurora after it too is nerfed. But maybe t2 ammo should be like hac's? Originally by: random bpo owner Hac's isnt for everyone Amarr needs love from the devs damnit!.
Ithildin	Posted - 2006.06.21 16:36:00 - [112] Originally by: Imperial Coercion Edited by: Imperial Coercion on 21/06/2006 16:30:14 Originally by: Gronsak T2 ammo needs to be balanced atm its stupidly overpowered, I wonder who would possibly want to pay 5 mill per large Aurora after it too is nerfed. But maybe t2 ammo should be like hac's? Originally by: random bpo owner Hac's isnt for everyone Who said that they should remain the same price as before? Oh, and T2 crystals are probably the only T2 ammo still over 300% profit. New sig coming soonÖ Tuxford's good for EVE.
Imperial Coercion	Posted - 2006.06.21 16:40:00 - [113] Originally by: Ithildin Who said that they should remain the same price as before? Who said they shouldnt? Quote: Oh, and T2 crystals are probably the only T2 ammo still over 300% profit. Thats why I mentioned it. Amarr needs love from the devs damnit!.
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.06.21 17:39:00 - [114] Bottom line: -Iron/Radio/Carbonized Lead are useless junk, so making Spike/Aurora/Tremor T2 Junk doesn't balance anything. -If you don't like me sniping you at 200km with Spike, engage me at 20km with short-range weaponry. I guarantee that I'll be just as unable to hit you at 20km as you're unable to hit me at 200km...only difference is that you'll kill me a lot faster at 20km than I'll kill you at 200km. Originally by: Ithildin I can do nothing but agree with the OP. Long range (long range turret) ammo completely obsoletes all T1 turrets, even best officer turrets. Meh, T2 is supposed to be better than T1, and officer turrets are just extremely expensive, extremely rare toys that don't have much relevance to balance anyway because maybe 0.01% of the population can actually use them in PVP. Hell, if it makes you really happy, officer turrets could just be made T2, solving this mostly irrelevant problem. Originally by: Ithildin EDIT: Also, T2 long range ammo nerfs Caldari turret ships. Huh? Spike ammo kicks ASS, you're going to need to explain this one better. Originally by: Gronsak NO ALL T2 AMMO NEEDS A NERF not just the long range sniper ammo Javelin hybrid charges need a boost, they're nerfed beyond any sort of usefulness. Originally by: Testy Mctest Long range T2 ammo makes the game a little boring. It's just too far to be firing, that is :S And I think firing at longer ranges is fun. It's all opinion, really...close range isn't inherently cooler than long range. Originally by: j0sephine Edited by: j0sephine on 19/06/2006 10:47:15 "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)." This is, sadly enough, quite not applicable in practice. At long range distances hardly anyone "gets their transversal up" since doing this penalizes in exactly same way their own chance to hit. So it's more of stationary hit-and-run thing. In addition, the difference of base damage and range is large enough, that at distances past 130 km vs battleship sized target tech.2 artillery with tech.2 ammo still outdamages tech.2 artillery with tech.1 ammo even with targets moving at ~400 m/sec or so. (chance to hit at this point is ~40% vs ~60% with tech.1 ammo loaded... this is without tracking comps, just the skills) That means even vs targets with afterburner and moving at straight angle, you're better off with the 'sucky tracking' tech.2 ammo... and when the targets are moving slower than that, the difference in damage output can go as high as 60% or more :/ I think that's not the point...the tracking penalty isn't designed to give T1 ammo an advantage at sniper long range, the T2 sniper ammo is supposed to be king there. The tracking penalty is to guarantee that the sniper ammo is completely useless at anything closer than sniper range, whereas T1 long range ammo still works at closer range, albeit with low damage. -------- 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!
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.06.21 17:43:00 - [115] Originally by: Stamm Also, I care nothing for the whiners who are wailing that they specifically trained for T2 long range ammo. Why? Because they're liars. Simple as that. You train to use T2 weapons, which give you a considerable boost over T1 weapons. And the training time is not the pemalty, rubbish. I will tell you that the pure improvement over named T1 mods is about 20% of my reason for training Railgun Spec...the other 80% is for Spike ammo (it's sure as hell not for Javelin, because that stuff is utterly useless). Originally by: Jenny Spitfire OK. Controversial idea. T2 EWAR mods in game long before HACs and T2 ammos. HACs and T2 ammos make T2 EWAR mods and T1 EWAR BS borked. T2 ammos and T1 BS now fight at 200++ km. T2 EWAR mods and T1 BS cant jam/reach 200++ km. Cant support frigates, tacklers. Why not keep T2 ammos as they are and buff up EWAR a little? EWAR is only imbalanced because of CCP's imbalanced randomness in random. Rook and Falcon can out-jam Scorpions easily ATM. /me thinks EWAR needs to be buffed a little to bring them inline with T2 ammos. EWAR boats cant support tacklers ATM unless battles are around 150km. Current EWAR needs a little update TBH. Maaaybe if it were done with huge falloff, rather than better optimal. Originally by: Nadec Ascand can someone tell me also what i should do with my eagle if u remove T2 long range ammo? Ummm...4x Miner II? It'll still have a great tank, I guess you could use it to go to 0.0 and tank the multiple BS spawns while you mine asteroids or something... Or you could reprocess it. Originally by: Stamm But for gods sakes, bringing long range T2 ammo into balance doesn't mean it's going to be completely useless. nor does it mean your T2 weapons will be equal to T1. They'll still get a 20% range, 20% damage increase over T1, they'll still allow for the 8% (well, 10% if you really want) specialisation damage bonus, and T2 ammo will still be noticably better than T1. You're talking about at least 50% more damage than T1. It's hardly useless, so please, give over on the knee jerk whines. Problem is, T1 max range ammo IS utterly useless, so 120% of useless is still not really worth it. You can't try to bring one item into balance with other useful items by comparing it to a useless item. Originally by: Sarmaul pardon? I'm sorry, but I'm too colorblind to properly read that thing, can you just give me a sentence saying what it's showing? -------- 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!
Angus McLean	Posted - 2006.06.21 18:53:00 - [116] Um...you guys realize the REASON it does mass damage at insane range is the whole point of being...whats that word im looking for? T2 you dults. Why else would anyone pay jacked money to buy a ton of T2 ammo? So they could get the same range and damage as T1 radio's? I think not. Now please stopp being nubs and get back to the game. Your probably just jealous because you dont have the skills to get T2 guns or your on your trial account and dont have time.
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.22 11:54:00 - [117] Originally by: Angus McLean Um...you guys realize the REASON it does mass damage at insane range is the whole point of being...whats that word im looking for? T2 you dults. Why else would anyone pay jacked money to buy a ton of T2 ammo? So they could get the same range and damage as T1 radio's? I think not. Now please stopp being nubs and get back to the game. Your probably just jealous because you dont have the skills to get T2 guns or your on your trial account and dont have time. Actually, most of the people here use T2 guns. The point is that it is so much better than the longest-range T1 ammo in both the range and damage department. Give it the same range as T1 long-range but the damage it has now and it'll be fine. TEAM MINMATAR FORUMS - In Rust We Trust -
Fred0	Posted - 2006.06.22 12:19:00 - [118] Originally by: Stamm If you had read this thread AT ALL, you would have realised NOBODY wants to nerf T2 ammo to kingdom come. It's a pretty simple thing. T2 long range ammo makes T1 long range ammo 100% obsolete. That's false. When I go out with the tempest I have both Tremor and Carb Lead in my hold. Tremor is absolutely useless if you are fighting smaller ships. It's well worth switching to carb lead and going in at 140k instead.
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.06.22 13:58:00 - [119] Edited by: j0sephine on 22/06/2006 14:04:30 "Bottom line: -Iron/Radio/Carbonized Lead are useless junk, so making Spike/Aurora/Tremor T2 Junk doesn't balance anything." Uhmm, no. long range tech.1 ammo is _made_ 'useless junk' by presence of tech.2 long range ammo. If you take out tech.2 long range out of picture, there's actually balance in the sense you can have your sniper fest from safe ranges _but_ you do **** all damage. With tech.2 long range ammo this balance goes out of window -- you hit from long ranges, and hit hard. "-If you don't like me sniping you at 200km with Spike, engage me at 20km with short-range weaponry. I guarantee that I'll be just as unable to hit you at 20km as you're unable to hit me at 200km...only difference is that you'll kill me a lot faster at 20km than I'll kill you at 200km." You'll die at 20 km faster because a sniper ship isn't equipped with tank, not because of damage difference or inability to hit. After all, last i checked you could still reload guns with short range ammo, in about the same time it takes battleship to exit warp after they close on your position and gain the lock on another battleship. So it's not like snipers with their tracking penalty on tech.2 long range are gimping themselves for the whole time while they're out of dock. "Meh, T2 is supposed to be better than T1" There's room for making things better without overdoing the improvement to silly degree. You only need to look at ahh, just about any module existing in game. "and officer turrets are just extremely expensive, extremely rare toys that don't have much relevance to balance anyway because maybe 0.01% of the population can actually use them in PVP. Hell, if it makes you really happy, officer turrets could just be made T2, solving this mostly irrelevant problem." Actually better idea would be probably making current tech.2 ammo, an "officer ammo" ... then you'd have the strength of item and rarity matched pretty well. "Huh? Spike ammo kicks ASS, you're going to need to explain this one better." What Ithildin means is, when everyone and their dog can shoot from 150+ km with long range tech.2 ammo, ability of Caldari ships to throw in some extra 50 km to that range means very little. 150 km or 200, not like anyone will really threaten you at this range. Or shorter version: tech.2 long range makes everyone a sniper when it was supposed to be Caldari niche. For similar situation imagine tech.2 ammo that say, doubles tracking... suddenly Gallente tracking bonus becomes quite irrelevant. "The tracking penalty is to guarantee that the sniper ammo is completely useless at anything closer than sniper range, whereas T1 long range ammo still works at closer range, albeit with low damage." Like already said, means nothing when close range ammo with good tracking is just a mouse click and 10 seconds away. Or in other words, the tracking penalty on tech.2 ammo only appears when you use tech.2 long range ammo, which happens in situations where effect of tracking is negligible.
Vikram Bedi	Posted - 2006.06.22 14:55:00 - [120] Originally by: j0sephine So it's not like snipers with their tracking penalty on tech.2 long range are gimping themselves for the whole time while they're out of dock. Now there's a thought provoking point... What if T2 ammo could only be fitted to the gun in a station? That way your choice to use the uber :whatever range: ammo really would be gimping you for any other type of fighting... Or even if loading times for T2 were made considerably longer? tbh I like the fact that there's an ammo out there for any range, that hits super hard. If it has to be balanced, I'd rather it was balanced by some other game factor.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.06.22 14:57:00 - [121] I actually like Sarmaul's idea. Bring them to T1 range level but T2 damage and 1/3 penalty? ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT!
Nikolai Nuvolari	Posted - 2006.06.22 15:48:00 - [122] Originally by: j0sephine Uhmm, no. long range tech.1 ammo is _made_ 'useless junk' by presence of tech.2 long range ammo. If you take out tech.2 long range out of picture, there's actually balance in the sense you can have your sniper fest from safe ranges _but_ you do ** all damage. With tech.2 long range ammo this balance goes out of window -- you hit from long ranges, and hit hard. If you're doing all damage, then you're not really being useful, are you? Originally by:** j0sephine You'll die at 20 km faster because a sniper ship isn't equipped with tank, not because of damage difference or inability to hit. Admittedly my tank won't be as good, but are you saying that antimatter-loaded blasters don't do more damage than Spike-loaded rails? Originally by: j0sephine After all, last i checked you could still reload guns with short range ammo, in about the same time it takes battleship to exit warp after they close on your position and gain the lock on another battleship. So it's not like snipers with their tracking penalty on tech.2 long range are gimping themselves for the whole time while they're out of dock. A fair point. Originally by: j0sephine Actually better idea would be probably making current tech.2 ammo, an "officer ammo" ... then you'd have the strength of item and rarity matched pretty well. So you're saying cut it off from pretty much the entire player base. No thank you, that's stupid. EVE doesn't need more equipment limited to 0.01% of the population. Originally by: j0sephine What Ithildin means is, when everyone and their dog can shoot from 150+ km with long range tech.2 ammo, ability of Caldari ships to throw in some extra 50 km to that range means very little. 150 km or 200, not like anyone will really threaten you at this range. Alright, maybe Spike L, but what about Spike S and Spike M? The Harpy and Eagle depend on those. -------- 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!
j0sephine	Posted - 2006.06.22 17:16:00 - [123] "If you're doing *** all damage, then you're not really being useful, are you?"* Dunno, seeing how people used long range tech.1 ammo before tech.2 ammo appeared, and didn't even complain about 'zomg am not doing enough damage thing' aspect... would say the utility they were getting from it was about right. "Admittedly my tank won't be as good, but are you saying that antimatter-loaded blasters don't do more damage than Spike-loaded rails?" At 20 km? i'd say it's debatable ^^ but really, if you need to bring in completely different weapon system (blasters) to make a point how a rail with long range ammo might have a drawback.... then it's not much of drawback in the end, is it? Because the blaster boat will outdamage railboat with tech.1 antimatter just the same, so it's not like this is specific handicap of long range tech.2 ammo. "So you're saying cut it off from pretty much the entire player base." Yes. How many people do you see around with 30% damage, 30% rof bonus heat sinks? _This_ is the level of boost we are talking about. And this is why "but it's tech 2 it's supposed to be better" argument just doesn't fly. "Alright, maybe Spike L, but what about Spike S and Spike M? The Harpy and Eagle depend on those." Both Harpy and Eagle were performing just fine before small and medium spike appeared. They don't _depend_ on it to be able to kill things (Eagle with thorium does spike-like damage from 100 + falloff km still)
Nyxus	Posted - 2006.06.22 18:24:00 - [124] Originally by: Jenny I actually like Sarmaul's idea. Bring them to T1 range level but T2 damage and 1/3 penalty? Yes, this is the best solution if the Devs are adamant about giving T2 ammo more damage. TBH I would rather see more damage than more range. That way it allows those without T2 guns a chance to participate more. Originally by: j0 How many people do you see around with 30% damage, 30% rof bonus heat sinks? Not many, but I would sell my soul for that BPO. Or at least one or two major bodily organs. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Dog Food	Posted - 2006.06.24 11:32:00 - [125] So lets all nerf the eagle, and the muninn, and the ferox, and every other ships snipers use now cos snipers dont suck for damage anymore...capish.. 100% range ammo is fine..completely fine... All the other t2 ammo is fine, I dont even snipe tbh... Also t1 guns should be obselite to t2...but not everyone can use t2...can they?
Ethidium Bromide	Posted - 2006.06.24 12:55:00 - [126] Originally by: Luc Boye its the only defence against everybody and their mother fitting ECM tho. absolutely right, with large aurora for example on the geddon you can't even keep firing for the time the most fleet engagements take due to the cap recharge penalty and it really is the only viable alternative to take out ECM boats. _________________________________ just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean i'm not following!
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.24 14:11:00 - [127] Exept maybe, just maybe, it would be a better solution to actually FIX ecm instead of giving another item an insane bonus? Thats like fighting a fire by dropping a nuke on it. - t2 turrets already are better than the best non-officer named guns because the damage bonus from their specialisation skill. The higher fitting requirements can negate this sometimes, though, especially at the BS lvl. Still, you cannot really argue with a straight face that t2 turrets would be "useless" without t2 ammo. - speaking of it, noone wants to make t2 ammo = t1 ammo. But right now t2 ammo gives compared to other t2 items an huge effeciency boost. It is simply not in line with the rest, it should be betetr than t1 ammo, but not to such an extend.
Laboratus	Posted - 2006.06.24 15:05:00 - [128] The higher fitting requirements totaly negate the bonus you get from the skills. Without T2 ammo, there simply would be no point in taking the pain to get the fitting skills needed to use t2 guns. At the moment the t2 ammo is fine. It does medium range damage to extreme range only, without any hope of hitting closer. So I'd say that is balanced. Outrangeing ppl is a valid tactic and the ability to use t2 ammo on tier 2 guns (350mms etc) makes fitting them viable in some cases...
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.24 18:42:00 - [129] Originally by: Laboratus The higher fitting requirements totaly negate the bonus you get from the skills. ... Only on t1 ships. For example, you will have problems fitting 6 t2 heavy beams on a prophecy, but they fit quite well on an absolution. Basically, t2 works better with t2 ships than with t1 ships. Makes sense, doesn't it? Of cource, there are no t2 BSs, so the fitting problems of t2 weapons are especially noticeable there. Although this might very well change with the tier3 BSs with Kali. And, again: Noone wants to remove t2 ammo!! But balance it. If t2 longrange ammo would have the same range as the t1 one and 20% more damage it would still be a major boost.
Crellion	Posted - 2006.06.24 19:03:00 - [130] Tech II ammo is fine. compare Medium armor repairer tech I with tech II. Difference is HUGE. Also its not as if its a faction uberrare ammo. People actually print it... + Anybody can train for it (and should... you shouldnt even be flying a BS in pvp without tech II turret skills). Prhaps, though, CCP can intoduce "named ammo". This will ease the difference impression. Comparing Spike with Iridium difference is huge like MarI and MarII. But people here compare Spike to Iridium to say that its huge compared to difference between best named (Medium accomodation) and tech II. If you could use proto 425s with Gauss compressed Iridium perhaps you would see thinks differently. Anyway, ireespective of the above idea my vote is: STFU just train for it. If anything SOME tech II ships need the gap from their tech I counterparts widened.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.24 19:15:00 - [131] Originally by: Crellion Tech II ammo is fine. compare Medium armor repairer tech I with tech II. Difference is HUGE. Also its not as if its a faction uberrare ammo. People actually print it... + Anybody can train for it (and should... you shouldnt even be flying a BS in pvp without tech II turret skills). Prhaps, though, CCP can intoduce "named ammo". This will ease the difference impression. Comparing Spike with Iridium difference is huge like MarI and MarII... Actually it isn't. MAR I vs MAR II, yes. But there is also an huge difference between a non-named t1 weapon and it's t2 counterpart. Without any t2 ammo, just the damage mod. With the best t1 (non-faction) named to the t2 you only have a 10% difference from the spec skill, but guess what: the same is true for the accommodation mar vs MAR2. The former has 90% of the effeciency of the latter (and lower fitting requirements, too, for the matter).
Crellion	Posted - 2006.06.24 19:35:00 - [132] Edited by: Crellion on 24/06/2006 19:37:15 Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Crellion Tech II ammo is fine. compare Medium armor repairer tech I with tech II. Difference is HUGE. Also its not as if its a faction uberrare ammo. People actually print it... + Anybody can train for it (and should... you shouldnt even be flying a BS in pvp without tech II turret skills). Prhaps, though, CCP can intoduce "named ammo". This will ease the difference impression. Comparing Spike with Iridium difference is huge like MarI and MarII... Actually it isn't. MAR I vs MAR II, yes. But there is also an huge difference between a non-named t1 weapon and it's t2 counterpart. Without any t2 ammo, just the damage mod. With the best t1 (non-faction) named to the t2 you only have a 10% difference from the spec skill, but guess what: the same is true for the accommodation mar vs MAR2. The former has 90% of the effeciency of the latter (and lower fitting requirements, too, for the matter). (1) in 95% of the cases the difference is 8% (or even 6%) almost nobody bothers with Large turret spec 5 before 30-35 mill SP. (2) That my point exactly. If you had "best named Iridium" the difference with Spike would be very small... but you dont. So you want Spike to perform as good as a ... say... i-a polarised armor rep (just a bit better than techI). Thats wrong. Iridium is same as mar I and spike same as mar II. We are just missing the named stuff in between. Also faction ammo needs a boost. Again because it was placed at "fractionally better than tech I" cause they were the only available option at the time. Of course thats now blatantly rubish. You need: Tech I, 3-4 degrees of named, tech II, faction, deadspace, for everything else -of course, the difference between tech I and tech II will appear huge. As an example: Compare an Atron frig with a Taranis. Is the difference not the same as comparing Iron/Iridium/Tungsteen with Spike??? (and with no penalties). EDIT: Again to clarify: all the above is largely irrelevant. If you like tech II ammo train for it and thats that really. It only needs to be balanced between different types of tech II ammo. It doesnt rly need to be balanced with tech I. Example: Caracal v Cerberus = Huge difference. Deimos v Thorax = slim difference.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.24 20:15:00 - [133] Edited by: Aramendel on 24/06/2006 20:16:24 Originally by: Crellion (2) That my point exactly. If you had "best named Iridium" the difference with Spike would be very small... but you dont. So you want Spike to perform as good as a ... say... i-a polarised armor rep (just a bit better than techI). Thats wrong. Iridium is same as mar I and spike same as mar II. We are just missing the named stuff in between. No, that is not your point. Faction ammo is largely irrellevant because unlike t2 ammo it cannot be mass produced. It has no real impact because of this, even if it would be OMGWTFBBQ. Perhaps if it would drop about 10-20 times as often... And, again, the difference between the basic t1 guns and the t2 guns is already quite large. And the difference between the best non-faction/officer named t1 vs t2 is small, but there. Just like with basically every other t1 vs t2 item. t2 guns do not need a +30% dps + 30% range ammo to make them "worth it". t2 ammo has it's place and is needed to make t2 guns balanced vs other t2 items, but not as it is now, but more like a 20% damage boost. Similar to faction ammo as it is now actually.
Crellion	Posted - 2006.06.24 20:18:00 - [134] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 24/06/2006 20:16:24 stuff Things might improve if you post again putting your answer at the bottom of my post. In any way I dont think you read it properly ... if you did then I believe you misunderstood it.
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.24 20:35:00 - [135] Edited by: Aramendel on 24/06/2006 20:36:16 I see your point quite clearly, and it is pointless. You saw mine the two times I said it so far? The t1-t2 difference is already there. In the guns themselves. Not in the ammo. Your MAR1 -> MAR2 is a perfect example there. MAR1 -> MAR 2 is a 33% boost. Heavy Beam Laser 1 -> Heavy Beam Laser 2 + lvl 4 in the spec skill is a 30% boost. You do not need a very powerful t2 ammo to make the t2 guns "worth it", a moderately powerful t2 ammo will do the job there just fine. And, yes, the additional boni from the t2 ships can be quite similar to what t2 ammo gives today. But it also takes about twice as long to train for the t2 ships as for the t2 ammo of the guns they are using. So, from the point of view t2 ammo is also too powerful.
Aeina Caeraen	Posted - 2006.06.24 21:18:00 - [136] Long Range T2 ammo: Range Bonus: 70% (down from 100%) Damage: Say, Microwave or Infrared (down from Ultraviolet) The problem is that CCP removed the only real recourse T1 users had (lots of Tracking Computer/Tracking Enhancer IIs) to even hit at applicable ranges that T2 ammo. Before "enhancement diversification :P," it was possible to compete with T2Lturret ranges, but it gimped your setup past how it gimped T2 setups (even considering the extra PG/CPU usage T2 requires). Now, there's simply no comparison. T1 is completely outdamaged, and completely outranged. Oh, and +rep j0 :P
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.06.24 22:17:00 - [137] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire I actually like Sarmaul's idea. Bring them to T1 range level but T2 damage and 1/3 penalty? So the side with T2 amo SITLL does nearly 2:1 damage...
Aramendel	Posted - 2006.06.24 22:19:00 - [138] Edited by: Aramendel on 24/06/2006 22:20:12 Well, it would be better than the current 2:0 ratio, aka the side with t2 ammo does infinite times the damage of the side without it (because they cannot shoot as far).
Xtro 2	Posted - 2006.06.24 22:25:00 - [139] Originally by: Ortu Konsinni Originally by: chaos98 correct me if im wrong, but does it not also have a tracking gimp? so...it's supposed to be better than tech1, but it also gimps the ship, im not seeing a problem with it.... At the ranges people use the long range T2 ammo, tracking isn't really an issue. So we find 1 usefull scenario for the t2 ammo and people want that removed as well, cool, why bother with t2 ammo at all then, and if they did nerf it, id want the stack nerf removed so i could achieve what i used to be able to do with standard tech1 ammo. Xtro 2 - Tactically Insane Tradesman. Insanity, or madness, is a semi-permanent, severe mental disorder typically stemming from a form of mental illness.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [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.