EVE Search - Proof for racial concerns

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Proof for racial concerns

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 03:13:00 - [1] Edited by: DrEiak on 30/08/2006 03:13:32 I started a thread in development forums. IT IS NOT A WHINE THREAD SO DONT DO IT, please keep whining on this page, or on several of the amarr need help pages. My post is focused on numbers math, and HARD EVIDENCE! FEEL FREE TO CRUNCH SOME NUMBERS ON IT BUT DONT GIVE ARBITRARY ARGUMENTS! Anyways the amarr race have some VERY legitimate concerns regarding game ballence at the moment, as the minmataar. Gallente are decent in their rolls, and caldari are on top. If you want to see some of my work go here: Ballence and Rolls
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.30 03:33:00 - [2] Originally by: DrEiak Edited by: DrEiak on 30/08/2006 03:13:32 I started a thread in development forums. IT IS NOT A WHINE THREAD SO DONT DO IT, please keep whining on this page, or on several of the amarr need help pages. My post is focused on numbers math, and HARD EVIDENCE! FEEL FREE TO CRUNCH SOME NUMBERS ON IT BUT DONT GIVE ARBITRARY ARGUMENTS! Anyways the amarr race have some VERY legitimate concerns regarding game ballence at the moment, as the minmataar. Gallente are decent in their rolls, and caldari are on top. If you want to see some of my work go here: Ballence and Rolls Its "Roles" not Rolls. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2006.08.30 04:27:00 - [3] Ammar doesnt seem to realise that not everyone flies around with 3X adaptive 2 and 1 damage control....you actually have people that still prefer normal hardeners or dropping 1 adaptive membrane so they can boost up explosive. I have some ships that would be very very very happy if ammar got more therm da damage, you wanna know why? that would mean that thermal would be the most used damagetype in the game and i would tank up my hac to CRAZY lvl's of thermal resistances. And my bs aswell...60% EM will stop enough damage than _________________________________________________
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 04:52:00 - [4] Read the post before you assume I mention a single thing about EM damage
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 04:54:00 - [5] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: DrEiak Edited by: DrEiak on 30/08/2006 03:13:32 I started a thread in development forums. IT IS NOT A WHINE THREAD SO DONT DO IT, please keep whining on this page, or on several of the amarr need help pages. My post is focused on numbers math, and HARD EVIDENCE! FEEL FREE TO CRUNCH SOME NUMBERS ON IT BUT DONT GIVE ARBITRARY ARGUMENTS! Anyways the amarr race have some VERY legitimate concerns regarding game ballence at the moment, as the minmataar. Gallente are decent in their rolls, and caldari are on top. If you want to see some of my work go here: Ballence and Rolls Its "Roles" not Rolls. hah yeah I caught that in my post sorry.
Cthulhette	Posted - 2006.08.30 06:11:00 - [6] As a player who has friends playing Amarr, I see the need of some tweaking in their damage dealing and turret requirements. The frigate/cruiser stages of the life of any present Amarr are just dreadful. It takes a lot of stamina to get to fly heavier ships, where, although the problem persists, it is alleviated somewhat. However, as a Minmatar, I am quite content with our offensive/defensive capabilities. We have a role in battle, and we fulfill it adequately. However, having said that, I think it is very difficult to tweak the Amarrian plight. It would be so easy to screw up the "balance" that exists at the moment. We have to undestand that balance with more than 1 variable is simply impossible.
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.08.30 06:17:00 - [7] Im trying to stay out of balance threads, even though its difficult. I do agree that amarr and minmatar needs some boosts because frankly, gallente doesnt have many weeknesses. Caldari is in their own class. There is caldari and then there is the 3 "others". --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United	Posted - 2006.08.30 06:30:00 - [8] Originally by: Jim McGregor Caldari is in their own class. There is caldari and then there is the 3 "others". I think I will soon "cave in" and start training missiles, shields and Caldari cruiser lvl5. Sadly, my Caldari BS is only lvl4. I think I need to upgrade it to lvl5. Say bye bye to amarr bs lvl5, 11mil in gunnery and all maxed up armor tanking skills. I will surely miss you guys Unnerf Amarr! "Just because you can utterly ruin another player's game doesn't mean that you must."
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:01:00 - [9] Edited by: DrEiak on 30/08/2006 07:03:23 DPS is not the answer to the amarr problem. My math shows that Tachyons need more damage though (mega pulse out DPS tachyons). I have a very intricate solution, that involves a lot of changes. I can also prove that damage types are fine. Really my only gripe is that amarr ships cant tank like they SHOULD be able to. People play amarr because our ships are supposed to be the hardest nuts to *****. Ravens are grossly overpowered right now, but I do not think they need to be changed. Please read my WHOLE thread, it is VERY in depth and describes the whole lot of problems and breaks them down into numbers so that it is retarded proof. I appreciate if anyone catches an error in my math, but I can clarify/fix that with a quick edit. I refuse to reiterate everything I have posted, but please dont post here assuming I talk about EM and thermal damage types, boosting damage mods on lasers, or explosive crystals. Quite the opposite, I am trying to include how ALL races fall into a ballance by having a strenghth that no other race can rival. With amarr that strengh should be in their tank. With gallente that strengh should be in DPS (pure). With caldari it should be in debilitating effects (ew). With minmataar it should be speed/flexibility. EDIT: LOL apperently Krack spelled correctly is a bad word in iceland :P
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:14:00 - [10] ***** is a name for a drug in mainstream english. Also, keep in mind when you write "the amarr race have some VERY legitimate concerns", it is a very legitimate and logical conclusion that you refere to the concerns brought up in those threds, and lately the fashion has been to complain about the EM damage. "With gallente that strengh should be in DPS (pure)." Ok, this is nit-picking from someone who's a bit tired of calls for nerfing his favourite civilization (been a fan of Gallente since 2003, and we didn't become "uber" until late 2005). However, you write "DPS (pure)" as if Gallente's only advantage would be the dps calcs on paper, but when you get in game we'd have some serious drawbacks so that the others did a similar normalized dps. In either case, we need more shield tanks in EVE. Dark skies torn apart Heavens open before me I, the light of death
Asnar Evil Strangers Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:20:00 - [11] Originally by: Ithildin ***** is a name for a drug in mainstream english. Also, keep in mind when you write "the amarr race have some VERY legitimate concerns", it is a very legitimate and logical conclusion that you refere to the concerns brought up in those threds, and lately the fashion has been to complain about the EM damage. "With gallente that strengh should be in DPS (pure)." Ok, this is nit-picking from someone who's a bit tired of calls for nerfing his favourite civilization (been a fan of Gallente since 2003, and we didn't become "uber" until late 2005). However, you write "DPS (pure)" as if Gallente's only advantage would be the dps calcs on paper, but when you get in game we'd have some serious drawbacks so that the others did a similar normalized dps. In either case, we need more shield tanks in EVE. Yeah definetly need to get some shield tanks back. EW has broken a lot. :-(
Farjung Gallente TAOSP	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:23:00 - [12] Originally by: DrEiak My math shows that Tachyons need more damage though (mega pulse out DPS tachyons). Neutron blasters (well all blasters) out DPS 425mm rails. 800mm AC (well all AC) out DPS 1400mm artilleries. Torpedoes out DPS cruise missles. (though with t2 torps they're not exactly short range any more) Short range weapons out DPS long range, it's a fundamental game concept. --- Wave of Mutilation 2
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:42:00 - [13] Originally by: Farjung Originally by: DrEiak My math shows that Tachyons need more damage though (mega pulse out DPS tachyons). Neutron blasters (well all blasters) out DPS 425mm rails. 800mm AC (well all AC) out DPS 1400mm artilleries. Torpedoes out DPS cruise missles. (though with t2 torps they're not exactly short range any more) Short range weapons out DPS long range, it's a fundamental game concept. Your comparing weapons in the same family. I dont think autocannons were meant to be blasters improved. Plus you completly ignore fitting requirements. With range comes stiffer fittings (and sometimes less SLIGHTLY less DPS) but you should check how much DPS autocannons are cranking out. Can you honestly say that 800mm autocannon II's deserve to do 150% tachyon II damage? It is true that mega pulse should out DPS mega BEAMS, but should they out DPS tachyons? That is my point. It is not a matter of should blasters out DPS rails, that is a no brainer.
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:45:00 - [14] Originally by: Ithildin ***** is a name for a drug in mainstream english. Also, keep in mind when you write "the amarr race have some VERY legitimate concerns", it is a very legitimate and logical conclusion that you refere to the concerns brought up in those threds, and lately the fashion has been to complain about the EM damage. "With gallente that strengh should be in DPS (pure)." Ok, this is nit-picking from someone who's a bit tired of calls for nerfing his favourite civilization (been a fan of Gallente since 2003, and we didn't become "uber" until late 2005). However, you write "DPS (pure)" as if Gallente's only advantage would be the dps calcs on paper, but when you get in game we'd have some serious drawbacks so that the others did a similar normalized dps. In either case, we need more shield tanks in EVE. By pure damage I do mean paper and pencil dmg. But there is a reason for that, resistances on ships are set up so that racial damage types apply differently depending on tanking type ect. You cant compensate damage for a ship that hasnt been set up yet. I am surprised gallente arnt whining that blasters use cap when autocannons dont and deal similar/superior damage, and have the versatility of damage type. autocannons are broken because artillery require RoF to work. You want math for this, read my post.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:48:00 - [15] Originally by: Farjung Originally by: DrEiak My math shows that Tachyons need more damage though (mega pulse out DPS tachyons). Neutron blasters (well all blasters) out DPS 425mm rails. 800mm AC (well all AC) out DPS 1400mm artilleries. Torpedoes out DPS cruise missles. (though with t2 torps they're not exactly short range any more) Short range weapons out DPS long range, it's a fundamental game concept. Thank you. I have no idea why the OP thinks long range guns should out-DPS close range ones. FFS play the game, you may realize how it works. Amarr have a few issues but they really aren't that bad. Everyone is like zmog unnerf amarr lolzor they are teh suck. Those people are wrong, amarr are a quite capable race when flown properly. You do realize that your close range guns are really more like mid range and can hit at some pretty rediculous distances? That the Zealot has good damage and can have a rather stupidly good tank? That your recons are the best recons in the game? That your command ships have both uber tank and great damage . Arguably the best commandships ingame. Please, for the last time STOP SAYING AMARR NEEDS FIXED. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:51:00 - [16] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Farjung Originally by: DrEiak My math shows that Tachyons need more damage though (mega pulse out DPS tachyons). Neutron blasters (well all blasters) out DPS 425mm rails. 800mm AC (well all AC) out DPS 1400mm artilleries. Torpedoes out DPS cruise missles. (though with t2 torps they're not exactly short range any more) Short range weapons out DPS long range, it's a fundamental game concept. Thank you. I have no idea why the OP thinks long range guns should out-DPS close range ones. FFS play the game, you may realize how it works. Amarr have a few issues but they really aren't that bad. Everyone is like zmog unnerf amarr lolzor they are teh suck. Those people are wrong, amarr are a quite capable race when flown properly. You do realize that your close range guns are really more like mid range and can hit at some pretty rediculous distances? That the Zealot has good damage and can have a rather stupidly good tank? That your recons are the best recons in the game? That your command ships have both uber tank and great damage . Arguably the best commandships ingame. Please, for the last time STOP SAYING AMARR NEEDS FIXED. You cant seriously think that autocannons should outdamage a tachyon beam? Especially by such a large marin.
Farjung Gallente TAOSP	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:53:00 - [17] You're looking at fitting vs dps in isolation from real in game setups and applications. Of course if you land your AC fitted tempest on top of a tachyon fitted apoc it will shred it, but tachyons are used for sniper and fleet fittings, so the apoc has screwed up by allowing the close range fitted ship into range. Short range guns do more dps and have lesser fitting requirements because they need more tank to survive getting in range, and once they get in range they need to make up the damage they lost on the approach into range. Weapons that are only viable up to 30km or so really ought to do more damage than weapons that have use between 10 and 180km, so I don't see the problem. --- Wave of Mutilation 2
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:54:00 - [18] Oh and viscous next time read my thread before you post. For this you get -5 smartness points. I said at the top of the post this is bigger then amarr. and its not about nerfs/un-nerfs. Its about change. Change does not always = nerf does blue = nerf of yellow? NO they are different colors, as our races should be different colors, not just better and worse reiterations of each other.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:56:00 - [19] Originally by: DrEiak I am surprised gallente arnt whining that blasters use cap when autocannons dont and deal similar/superior damage, and have the versatility of damage type. autocannons are broken because artillery require RoF to work. You want math for this, read my post. Blasters out-damage autocannons every time. No autopest kills a blasterthron because they have superior damage. Also, artillery performs better with a DAMAGE bonus, not RoF. Why? The whole point of artillery is the alpha-strike. Damage bonus helps more with that and the DoT ends up being the same either way. And you do realize that an RoF bonus is the same as a damage bonus as far as damage over a set time goes? Finally, autocannons can select their damage, but then we have to switch to lower dmg ammo, so generally if range isn't a concern the highest overall damage ammo is used. (Most ships have resists that are pretty much flat anyway these days) CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:57:00 - [20] Originally by: Farjung You're looking at fitting vs dps in isolation from real in game setups and applications. Of course if you land your AC fitted tempest on top of a tachyon fitted apoc it will shred it, but tachyons are used for sniper and fleet fittings, so the apoc has screwed up by allowing the close range fitted ship into range. Short range guns do more dps and have lesser fitting requirements because they need more tank to survive getting in range, and once they get in range they need to make up the damage they lost on the approach into range. Weapons that are only viable up to 30km or so really ought to do more damage than weapons that have use between 10 and 180km, so I don't see the problem. That is why I am not including range into my calculations. But your not going to convince me that autocannons should outdamage tachs (at each of their respective optimals). Autocannons are just that much easier to fit then any other weapon in the game,that the RoF bonus minnies are getting to make projectiles USABLE is making autocannons UBER. That is my big argument. give artillery -25% RoF and change the Rof Bonus (but only on ships with doulbe damage bonuses) to something else. AGAIN WHY DONT YOU PEOPLE READ MY POST BEFORE YOU POST! Trust me i have addressed it all....
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:58:00 - [21] Edited by: DrEiak on 30/08/2006 07:58:41 Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: DrEiak I am surprised gallente arnt whining that blasters use cap when autocannons dont and deal similar/superior damage, and have the versatility of damage type. autocannons are broken because artillery require RoF to work. You want math for this, read my post. Blasters out-damage autocannons every time. No autopest kills a blasterthron because they have superior damage. Also, artillery performs better with a DAMAGE bonus, not RoF. Why? The whole point of artillery is the alpha-strike. Damage bonus helps more with that and the DoT ends up being the same either way. And you do realize that an RoF bonus is the same as a damage bonus as far as damage over a set time goes? Finally, autocannons can select their damage, but then we have to switch to lower dmg ammo, so generally if range isn't a concern the highest overall damage ammo is used. (Most ships have resists that are pretty much flat anyway these days) PROVE IT! I think I can easily say that if a blasterthon wins then it is because of a superior tank, or lack of EW on the tempest.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:59:00 - [22] Originally by: DrEiak Oh and viscous next time read my thread before you post. For this you get -5 smartness points. I said at the top of the post this is bigger then amarr. and its not about nerfs/un-nerfs. Its about change. Change does not always = nerf does blue = nerf of yellow? NO they are different colors, as our races should be different colors, not just better and worse reiterations of each other. I did read your thread. And you complain about amarr guns. This in my book constitutes calling for an un-nerf. And my name is spelled Vicious. Viscous is a term used to describe fluids. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
Farjung Gallente TAOSP	Posted - 2006.08.30 07:59:00 - [23] But my whole point is that you have to take range into account, otherwise you're missing a rather important factor. --- Wave of Mutilation 2
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.30 08:02:00 - [24] Originally by: DrEiak Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Farjung Originally by: DrEiak My math shows that Tachyons need more damage though (mega pulse out DPS tachyons). Neutron blasters (well all blasters) out DPS 425mm rails. 800mm AC (well all AC) out DPS 1400mm artilleries. Torpedoes out DPS cruise missles. (though with t2 torps they're not exactly short range any more) Short range weapons out DPS long range, it's a fundamental game concept. Thank you. I have no idea why the OP thinks long range guns should out-DPS close range ones. FFS play the game, you may realize how it works. Amarr have a few issues but they really aren't that bad. Everyone is like zmog unnerf amarr lolzor they are teh suck. Those people are wrong, amarr are a quite capable race when flown properly. You do realize that your close range guns are really more like mid range and can hit at some pretty rediculous distances? That the Zealot has good damage and can have a rather stupidly good tank? That your recons are the best recons in the game? That your command ships have both uber tank and great damage . Arguably the best commandships ingame. Please, for the last time STOP SAYING AMARR NEEDS FIXED. You cant seriously think that autocannons should outdamage a tachyon beam? Especially by such a large marin. Yes they should, because they are SHORT RANGE. Learn how EVE works for the love of God. SHORT RANGE ALWAYS OUT DPSs LONG RANGE. Also, because they have uber range LONG RANGE GUNS ARE HARD TO FIT. Thats how its supposed to be. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Vox Imperium	Posted - 2006.08.30 08:04:00 - [25] Neutron Blaster II: 4.2x/7.88 = .533 800mm AC II: 2.31/5.63 = .41 NOW lets add ship bonuses: Tempest gets double damge bonus Mega gets single dmg bonus Neutron blaster II (with skills): 8.3015625/5.91 = 1.40 800mm AC II (with skills) = 4.565859375/3.166875 = 1.44 Heh some proof that gun/gun a autocannon tempest out DPS's a thron.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.30 08:06:00 - [26] Originally by: DrEiak Originally by: Farjung You're looking at fitting vs dps in isolation from real in game setups and applications. Of course if you land your AC fitted tempest on top of a tachyon fitted apoc it will shred it, but tachyons are used for sniper and fleet fittings, so the apoc has screwed up by allowing the close range fitted ship into range. Short range guns do more dps and have lesser fitting requirements because they need more tank to survive getting in range, and once they get in range they need to make up the damage they lost on the approach into range. Weapons that are only viable up to 30km or so really ought to do more damage than weapons that have use between 10 and 180km, so I don't see the problem. That is why I am not including range into my calculations. But your not going to convince me that autocannons should outdamage tachs (at each of their respective optimals). Autocannons are just that much easier to fit then any other weapon in the game,that the RoF bonus minnies are getting to make projectiles USABLE is making autocannons UBER. That is my big argument. give artillery -25% RoF and change the Rof Bonus (but only on ships with doulbe damage bonuses) to something else. AGAIN WHY DONT YOU PEOPLE READ MY POST BEFORE YOU POST! Trust me i have addressed it all.... You don't need an RoF bonus to make projectiles usable. My Wolf doesn't get an RoF bonus and it doesn't need one, it 1 villies inties anyway. Why would you nerf artillery? It doesn't need it. Why does it need it. And before you say "Read my post" I did read it, and most of it is illogical rabble using math and ratios that have jack s*** to do with how EVE works. Also, like others have said, guns with huge optimals do less damage because they can do that damage over suck a wide range. Thats how EVE works, deal with it. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
Gariuys Evil Strangers Inc.	Posted - 2006.08.30 08:10:00 - [27] Originally by: DrEiak Originally by: Farjung Yes, while megathrons have seven turret hardpoints, an extra low slot for more damage/tank and a 125m3 dronebay whilst the tempest has tempest has six and a 75m3 bay, with another mid allowing the possibility of EW, or possibly a shield tank if you've got a tackler with you. DPS figures really don't tell the whole story as to who will win in any given situation. your still missing the point. gun per gun your megathron is getting jacked. You're missing the point, and by so far it's not even funny. And I really can't be arsed anymore. I'll just result in me flaming myself into a forum warning. But seriously educate yourself a bit more, you're making a fool over yourself.
Farjung Gallente TAOSP	Posted - 2006.08.30 08:11:00 - [28] I'd care about that if I only fit six guns on my megathron (shh TAOSP). --- Wave of Mutilation 2
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.30 08:12:00 - [29] Originally by: DrEiak Neutron Blaster II: 4.2x/7.88 = .533 800mm AC II: 2.31/5.63 = .41 NOW lets add ship bonuses: Tempest gets double damge bonus Mega gets single dmg bonus Neutron blaster II (with skills): 8.3015625/5.91 = 1.40 800mm AC II (with skills) = 4.565859375/3.166875 = 1.44 Heh some proof that gun/gun a autocannon tempest out DPS's a thron. Issue 1 with that statement. Originally by: Farjung Yes, while megathrons have seven turret hardpoints, an extra low slot for more damage/tank and a 125m3 dronebay whilst the tempest has tempest has six and a 75m3 bay, with another mid allowing the possibility of EW, or possibly a shield tank if you've got a tackler with you. DPS figures really don't tell the whole story as to who will win in any given situation. Also, Antimatter L does more damage than EMP L, I don't see that in your calculations. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2006.08.30 08:16:00 - [30] Originally by: DrEiak I have probably played eve longer then you. I am not even going to dignify a response since you cant possibly comprehend the difference between fitting requirements range and DPS. Autocannons are too easy to fit for the damage they deal. Its completly out of line, and blasters fill the same roll. Autocannons should not be blasters improved... There is more to DPS then range.... or at least there should be. That is why ammo types exist. Autocannons would not be borked with my suggeted changes. As is, autocannons should not out DPS blasters END OF STORY. I just checked, and you are a 2003 char. I guess that just proves that some people will never learn... You really should stop before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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