| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenny Spitfire
   |
Posted - 2006.06.27 10:59:00 -
[1]
My thoughts...
A prep into Kali - Racial Hatred.
Ammos should have been T1 versions with a little bit of damage buff and little or no penalties. How? Give a secondary dmg. E.g. Thorn primary is Kinetic and secondary is Thermal. Shuffle dmg type between missiles. Amarr, give them different dmg type than usual EM, Thermal. Minmatar, shuffle dmg type and buff a little because they are already doing three kinds of dmg types.
Easier to balance game and make those ammos useful this way though. At least, no need to think too hard on how to bring 220km engagements to 110km.
What do you people think?
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Nastro Azzura
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:00:00 -
[2]
Oooh...Did you get any good loot from Marko's kill? Sorry, off-topic, but I'm bored/intrested. 
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:01:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Nastro Azzura
Oooh...Did you get any good loot from Marko's kill? Sorry, off-topic, but I'm bored/intrested.
Some T2s, some named and T1s. Most T1s went popped. 
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Nastro Azzura
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:03:00 -
[4]
Hm...Anyway, I tend to agree. Some of the t2 ammos are useless, while some are generally considered to be overpowered. (Spike comes to mind. And IIRC, null.)
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:05:00 -
[5]
For all the training required to use tech 2 guns and ammo, it has to be worth it. Im really looking forward to be able to use t2 guns because of their sheer damage potential...after months of training, it will feel great.
Next is t2 drones.
---
The Eve Wiki Community Portal | Eve Tribune |
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:08:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
For all the training required to use tech 2 guns and ammo, it has to be worth it. Im really looking forward to be able to use t2 guns because of their sheer damage potential...after months of training, it will feel great.
Next is t2 drones.
Well the power of sheer dmg comes from T2 ship bonuses with T2 weapons and ammos because of all the stacking effects. T2 ammos do not need to have too much dmg potential, IMHO. Given them too much dmg potential and you also give them too much penalties. Some penalties are useless in practical sense.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:13:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Well the power of sheer dmg comes from T2 ship bonuses with T2 weapons and ammos because of all the stacking effects. T2 ammos do not need to have too much dmg potential, IMHO. Given them too much dmg potential and you also give them too much penalties. Some penalties are useless in practical sense.
Yeah, I think the whole penalty system definently could use some improvements. Right now im going to avoid it by only loading t2 ammo into the guns when im in range. Not sure if thats what the devs intended. 
I do agree that the t2 ammo system needs a redesign, but i think t2 guns should always do alot more damage compared to the t1 scout versions, otherwise there is simply no point in training for t2. Getting tech 2 is like a milestone, a goal one sets for himself in the beginning. It has to be good.
That being said, yeah, the whole system could use a redesign. Definently.
---
The Eve Wiki Community Portal | Eve Tribune |
Bazman
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:15:00 -
[8]
T2 ammo should have had the high damage short range versions, and a mid range, mid damage ammo that could inflict secondary effects/different abilities. Taking lasers for example, the short range high damage ones are fine, but the other ammo could have been made to have the ability to neutralise 5% of the enemies capacitor depending on how much damage a shot did to the target. i.e You hit with a laser for 100 damage, it neutralises 5 cap. A Railgun T2 ammo could maybe slow down the target being hit due to kinetic damage. An Artillery T2 ammo could have had a 0.5% chance of knocking a module offline due to explosive damage etc.
It's a shame they didn't brainstorm something like this instead of giving these lame 200km ammo types :P
-----
Hi TUXFORD! Blasterboat for tier 3 Gallente battleship please! Make it look cool too. Thanks.
I am a Gallente whiner. |
Stanis
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:16:00 -
[9]
100% range t2 ammo has to go. That is a fact, and whoever thought of that one made a big mistake. You are getting more DMG at safer range wich actualy means more dmg for zero risk?
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:21:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Well the power of sheer dmg comes from T2 ship bonuses with T2 weapons and ammos because of all the stacking effects. T2 ammos do not need to have too much dmg potential, IMHO. Given them too much dmg potential and you also give them too much penalties. Some penalties are useless in practical sense.
Yeah, I think the whole penalty system definently could use some improvements. Right now im going to avoid it by only loading t2 ammo into the guns when im in range. Not sure if thats what the devs intended.
I do agree that the t2 ammo system needs a redesign, but i think t2 guns should always do alot more damage compared to the t1 scout versions, otherwise there is simply no point in training for t2. Getting tech 2 is like a milestone, a goal one sets for himself in the beginning. It has to be good.
That being said, yeah, the whole system could use a redesign. Definently.
Main problem is methinks Devs are giving what people want, more DPS. Everyone is just DPS/gank obsessed that battles are a little borkish at the moment. I think before T2 ammos were released, battles were a bit more interesting. From strategical point of view, ammo variants/difference would have been better than DPS.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Main problem is methinks Devs are giving what people want, more DPS. Everyone is just DPS/gank obsessed that battles are a little borkish at the moment. I think before T2 ammos were released, battles were a bit more interesting. From strategical point of view, ammo variants/difference would have been better than DPS.
Yeah, that could work, as long as it has distinct, worthwhile advantages over t1 ammo. It has to be worth the months of training for the average joe. People must feel happy once they reach the milestone that is tech 2. Reward for the effort. Very important if you want to keep players in the game, aiming for stuff. New ships might be a goal too, but alot of us love a certain ship and want to maximize its potential. 
---
The Eve Wiki Community Portal | Eve Tribune |
Ernest Graefenberg
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:37:00 -
[12]
Tech 2 ammo is really a somewhat unnecessary concept at the moment, and leaves T1 highly uncompetitive. Whereas current T1 ammo is very well balanced for damage versus range in most cases.
Just to take a quick look, heres Turret IV/max named T1 versus Turret V, Spec IV, T2 high damage ammo :
1.05*1.08*1.25 = 1.4175
Thats a 41.75% difference in damage output between a Tech1 user and a Tech2 user with high damage ammo. That's a whole freakishly large lot.
Whereas if T2 ammo did not have a high-damage variant, we'd be looking at a measly 13.4% advantage for training up for T2 over max named T1. That's still huge, but at least not unfairly so.
In addition to that, theres the 100% range ammo that everyone has mentioned. This actually applies for both long and short range, the difference being most dramatic with Autocannons - not only is trajectory analysis tied to Gunnery V and a high rank skill, but AC falloffs are basicly balanced around getting a freaking 50% bonus ontop. It's similar for Null/Scorch, but at least you do have the option of extending your range with long range T1 with damage hit that Null/Scorch don't take whatsoever (god knows why). But in the case of autocannons it's simply impossible to get a similar effect with T1 at all.
So yeah, variant damage types for T2 ammo and possibly other fringe benefits would be better than the current uber-bonuses that go to shorten combat by alot. Training T2 will always be worthwhile simply for the damage increase, theres no reason to have T2 ammo that is this badly imbalanced.
Or at least as a temporary fix, allow it to be loaded into T1 guns until a satisfactory rebalancing is achieved :/
|
McCool
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:43:00 -
[13]
t2 ammo is fine. nos is fine. what a wonderful world..
Sig removed, lacks game related content. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a url link to your picture) -Pirlouit |
Xendie
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:45:00 -
[14]
one idea might be that the T2 ammo should be changed completely.
today the ammo is high dmg and got severe drawbacks
why not swap the stuff around some, dmg equal to T1 but with bonuses to other things instead of drawbacks
the bonuses would be the plus side wich could be +cap recharge, +speed and such.
that would also make battles abit longer with less dmg but other bonuses would enhance tanking due to better cap recharge and speed to make ppl hit alittle less.
any thoughts on this concept?
Originally by: F'nog
This would be great, because lag is not at all a problem currently.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:47:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Ernest Graefenberg
Thats a 41.75% difference in damage output between a Tech1 user and a Tech2 user with high damage ammo. That's a whole freakishly large lot.
Whereas if T2 ammo did not have a high-damage variant, we'd be looking at a measly 13.4% advantage for training up for T2 over max named T1. That's still huge, but at least not unfairly so.
You want to spend all that time training for t2 guns to get the extra damage worth of 1 damage mod? I dont think so. Me, i definently would not have bothered with it if that had been the case.
To get large t2 ammo, you need to get Small AND medium AND large gun skills to V, and also the specialization skills to IV for small and medium. This takes a long frigging time. Months of training. It has to be worth it. No way 13% extra damage cuts it.
Im all for adding some other advantages than dps though, as long as its worth training for.
---
The Eve Wiki Community Portal | Eve Tribune |
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:50:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/06/2006 11:50:34
Originally by: Jim McGregor
To get large t2 ammo, you need to get Small AND medium AND large gun skills to V, and also the specialization skills to IV for small and medium. This takes a long frigging time. Months of training. It has to be worth it. No way 13% extra damage cuts it.
Im all for adding some other advantages than dps though, as long as its worth training for.
E.g. for Amarr, different dmg types and 10% to 20% extra dmg would go well for NPCers and PvPers who cant break armour tanking because of DCU and EANM2. That will be worth training, isnt it?
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:54:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
E.g. for Amarr, different dmg types and 10% to 20% extra dmg would go well for NPCers and PvPers who cant break armour tanking because of DCU and EANM2. That will be worth training, isnt it?
Yeah, Amarr players would probably kill for the ability to use all damage types, so yeah, i think that would definently be worth training for if you are Amarr.
Now you just have to find similar things the other races wants.
---
The Eve Wiki Community Portal | Eve Tribune |
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:57:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
...From strategical point of view, ammo variants/difference would have been better than DPS.
I definately agree.
Giving t2 ammo high dps and penalities to "balance" it was a dumb move from the start. Either people use them where these penalities do not matter at all (like extreme-longrange sniping) or circumven them (like loading ammo only when in range) or..do not use the ammo.
Making t2 with only slightly more dps, no penalities but some special abilities (like the laser crystal which removes some cap).
As for the "but t2 weapons must be worth training for" argument..2 things:
- IMO the "must have all previous guns at lvl 5" t2 gun training method should go the way of the kodo. You do not need frig lvl 5 to use a HAC. It should be gunnery 5 + weapon type 5 to be able to use it's t2 version. Perhaps add another skill to it, like controlled brusts 5 for lasers, rapid fire 5 for projectiles, sharpshooting 5 for rails and motion prediction 5 for blasers.
- the best nonfaction named <-> t2 boost for items is in general not really that big. Med accommodati has 90% of the effeciency of MAR2. T2 active harderners are 55% vs the 50% of the t1 ones.
With the 8% from the specialisation skill and ammo which does 15-20% more dps t2 guns would have pretty much the same boost as other items.
|
Dawn Princess
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 11:59:00 -
[19]
The long range stuff is crazy atm.
If you are facing hostiles in BS with long range ammo and a dictor then unless you have a greater number of T2 long range BS you simply cannot jump in as you cannot hit or jam the hostiles. It becomes a simple turkey shoot.
Fun for those sitting out at range I am sure but I cant believe that this is what was intended.
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:01:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 27/06/2006 12:02:38
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
E.g. for Amarr, different dmg types and 10% to 20% extra dmg would go well for NPCers and PvPers who cant break armour tanking because of DCU and EANM2. That will be worth training, isnt it?
Yeah, Amarr players would probably kill for the ability to use all damage types, so yeah, i think that would definently be worth training for if you are Amarr.
Now you just have to find similar things the other races wants.
Some ideas...
Missiles - 0% to some extra dmg. Give missiles secondary dmg type.
Projecties - 20% to 30% dmg buff and/or remove third dmg type. Minmatar are supposed to be heavy alphastrike hitters.
Hybrids - 10% to 20% dmg buff and different secondary dmg type. Instead of usual Kinetic and Thermal, Kinetic and something or Thermal and something.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
DarKDruG
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:10:00 -
[21]
I think atm the range/damage on t2 ammo is just fine, it's well worth the long training time. What offsets it tho is the ridiculous stacking of penalties. getting penalized in a way for extra damage is fine with me, but please rid us of the stacking ;). On an eagle with 2 large shield extender II's and a pdu II (standard 7973 shield hp) you're left with 6.3k shield if i'm not mistaking. can you imagine what'd be like for the tier3 bs that's coming up with 7/8 turrets? you lose roughly 21% shield for 4 guns wether it's stacking or not, it means you lose roughly 40% for 7/8 guns. gallente using rails won't take much notice of this but caldari gunships kinda get bumr*ped by this.
Sig Removed. The max size for a sig is 400*120 pixels and 24000 bytes. -ReverendM ([email protected]) |
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:13:00 -
[22]
Originally by: DarKDruG
I think atm the range/damage on t2 ammo is just fine, it's well worth the long training time. What offsets it tho is the ridiculous stacking of penalties. getting penalized in a way for extra damage is fine with me, but please rid us of the stacking ;). On an eagle with 2 large shield extender II's and a pdu II (standard 7973 shield hp) you're left with 6.3k shield if i'm not mistaking. can you imagine what'd be like for the tier3 bs that's coming up with 7/8 turrets? you lose roughly 21% shield for 4 guns wether it's stacking or not, it means you lose roughly 40% for 7/8 guns. gallente using rails won't take much notice of this but caldari gunships kinda get bumr*ped by this.
Current balance is deemed to be fair because you guys want uber DPS so you get uber penalties. TBH, me quite skeptical with range/dmg on T2 ammos is fine but I prefer to let the community to talk about it.
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:13:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Missiles - 0% to some extra dmg. Give missiles secondary dmg type.
Projecties - 20% to 30% dmg buff and/or remove third dmg type. Minmatar are supposed to be heavy alphastrike hitters.
Hybrids - 10% to 20% dmg buff and different secondary dmg type. Instead of usual Kinetic and Thermal, Kinetic and something or Thermal and something.
If I would have to pick between todays t2 ammo and those suggestions, i think i would still pick t2 ammo. I think some other unique advantages would be good...
I only really fly minnie ships for pvp, so im going to suggest this as replacement for t2 extra damage:
Minmatar - smaller sig radius, extra tracking and more speed. Making their ships hard to hit and constantly moving around while still hitting.
People flying other races will have to give suggestions they feel would be good for their race...
---
The Eve Wiki Community Portal | Eve Tribune |
Kay Han
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:17:00 -
[24]
plz explain how a laser (e.g. pure energy) can make Explosive and / or kinetic Dmg?
The nature of lasers is EM / and therm.
Nothing more or less.
If they wnat to do another dmgtype they can use Missiles and / or hybrids / projectiles
The penatlities on Tech II ammo are to high at some points.. but overall it¦s fine now
___________________________________________
A wise man said once:
'Violence is the escape of the mentaly poor guys.'
|
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:20:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kay Han
plz explain how a laser (e.g. pure energy) can make Explosive and / or kinetic Dmg?
The nature of lasers is EM / and therm.
Nothing more or less.
E.g. laser on materials in ship building can create explosive reaction?
----------------
RecruitMe@NOINT!
|
Aramendel
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:25:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Kay Han
plz explain how a laser (e.g. pure energy) can make Explosive and / or kinetic Dmg?
The nature of lasers is EM / and therm.
Nothing more or less.
*sigh* I'll wire you 200 mil if you can explain to me how lasers can do EM damage.
(Hint: They cannot. Not even remotely. Realistically they can do more kin and exp damage (although in very small amounts) as secondary effects than anything even remotely similar to an EM field.)
|
Kay Han
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:28:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Kay Han on 27/06/2006 12:28:52
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Kay Han
plz explain how a laser (e.g. pure energy) can make Explosive and / or kinetic Dmg?
The nature of lasers is EM / and therm.
Nothing more or less.
*sigh* I'll wire you 200 mil if you can explain to me how lasers can do EM damage.
(Hint: They cannot. Not even remotely. Realistically they can do more kin and exp damage (although in very small amounts) as secondary effects than anything even remotely similar to an EM field.)
K you got me 
But science isn¦t my RL profession...
Them we must remove EM from them so they only do thermal with an very small amount of kin (0.1 maybe)
___________________________________________
A wise man said once:
'Violence is the escape of the mentaly poor guys.'
|
Grimpak
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:30:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Grimpak on 27/06/2006 12:32:39
long range ammos for long range weapons need a tune in the range.
..how about maintaining the dmg but decreasing the range to T1 long range ammo levels?
long range for short range weapons.. well dunno tbh. Barrage doesn't have penalties, but it's as big as EMP.
Null boosts blaster range, but at cost of using same cap as AM.
Don't know about the laser ones since I still haven't the opportunity of testing them.
Hail is overnerfed tbh.
-------
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Jebidus Skari
What, in EVE, is a Tyrant?
Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 12:42:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Main problem is methinks Devs are giving what people want, more DPS. Everyone is just DPS/gank obsessed that battles are a little borkish at the moment. I think before T2 ammos were released, battles were a bit more interesting. From strategical point of view, ammo variants/difference would have been better than DPS.
I think the problem is 2 fold. Too much dps on ships, however that dps is needed because tanks are oh so very strong at the moment. If dps is to be lowered then tanking (not hp amounts) must be decreased as well. Overall I think a better solution is a reasonable increase to structure of all ships across the board, lets slow down combat w/o making ships unkillable.
Now back to t2 ammos. Many of them are excelent, look at null for example. It does less damage than antimatter and gets a falloff and optimall increase, inovative but not overpowering. Spike ammo on the other hand is just foolish, as is all the t2 sniping ammo. I don't have a perfect solution, no one does, however I think we as a community can put our heads together and figure out what needs to be changed.
|
Hugh Ruka
|
Posted - 2006.06.27 13:00:00 -
[30]
to the guy complaining that training for t2 takes sooo long while there is not much of an advantage ... I thought this game was build around the concept of diminishing returns ?
t2 ammo:
crystals - cap reduction? small traces of kinetic damage ?
projectiles - kinetic only damage (like an FMJ/AP shell)? lower volume ammo ?
hybrids - small traces of EM (caldari as natural enemy do shield tank)? also cap reduction ?
missiles - AoE missiles (I know this was busted a while ago)? high damage low range missiles (I mean realy low range, like 10 km with max skills and ship bonuses)
------------------------------
if you want peace, prepare for war ...
------------------------------
Removed due to offensive content - Laqum
I realy liked my signature. Oh well |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |