| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
babylonstew
Caldari
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
   |
Posted - 2006.08.15 20:33:00 -
[1]
Can someone please tell me the point of these things?
i was fitting a cyclone today and did a little side by side comparison.
apart from 400m extra optimal, and get this, 1.4 dps more, in exchange for less tracking, and higher fitting reqs?
any chance these could get a slight boost to make them worth the trouble?
like mroe fall off, 5% minimum damage increase, you know, something???
thoughts?
Forum advice Linkage |
Still Hart
Aurora Empire
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 20:41:00 -
[2]
Side by side comparison with what??
_____________________
|
babylonstew
Caldari
Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 20:43:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Still Hart
Side by side comparison with what??
oops, didnt mention with a 220mm II did i 
ill edit it now
Forum advice Linkage |
Guurzak
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 20:46:00 -
[4]
425's have one huge advantage over 220's: a vastly superior ratio of damage to volume of ammo.
Stick with the 220's.
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 20:46:00 -
[5]
If you don't mind, I'll post a chart with large ACs and not medium ACs, as the "problem" pretty much scale across AC sizes.
BS ACs
As you can see (when including tracking it's worse) the marginal damage advantage of higher tier ACs is very questionable. Fitting requirement don't help in general, though sometimes they are irrelevant, and pretty much only ammo consumption really makes higher tier worth fitting for some uses.
The graph compares them to blasters, significantly different in that regard.
It's pretty much obvious that the various tiers of autocannons need to me made significantly different, and not just marginal variations.
NB.
In Rust We Trust |
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 21:00:00 -
[6]
I say give the large versions better falloff. That will make them worth it. I think AC's are the only weapons where the larger version don't get better falloff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Heartbreak Harriet
|
Posted - 2006.08.15 21:50:00 -
[7]
I'm pretty sure autos actually had differing falloffs a few years ago. This was before the massive turret rework/nerf, when sig radius was made a factor in tracking and falloff was modified to work the way it does projectiles all had their accuracy falloff slashed massively.
Arillery weren't dealt with much, it was mostly ACs the devs looked at. Several progressively lower falloff numbers were given for all three tiers of AC, and after several pre-release nerfs it was decided that the lower class ACs should have the same falloff as the top tier, the idea being to make lower tier ACs more attractive to fit since you wouldn't be sacrificing as much range as hybrid or laser users have to. This change ended up going through on artillery, as well.
I wouldn't mind seeing an increase to falloff for higher tiered ACs and artillery, but the lower tier guns will probably just have their range cut instead.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |