EVE Search - Pls remove the falloff penalty on Void, thanks

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Pls remove the falloff penalty on Void, thanks

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Butter Dog Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.01.03 23:41:00 - [1] Edited by: Butter Dog on 03/01/2007 23:41:27 It makes the ammo totally useless. Small T2 guns? Forget it, unless you are comfortable working in a 1km window. Large T2 guns? Well I get 7km optimal on Neutron II... and 6km Falloff. Which means that during extreme close range <3km engagement, my guns barely scratch the target if there is so much as 1m/s of transversal. Yes, I am using antimatter. But whats the point of Void, someone please tell me. ----------
slothe Caldari Forsaken Empire The Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2007.01.03 23:48:00 - [2] hails similar there needs to be a drawback so what do you suggest instead? *Before complaining about any ship try flying Minmatar*
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.03 23:49:00 - [3] LOL youre just too funny. Lets switch. You get my "uber" lasers with "uber" ammo and I get your "crappy" hybrids+ammo.
Dread Phantom Caldari Project-Chaos	Posted - 2007.01.03 23:51:00 - [4] its the only ammo i use
CherniyVolk	Posted - 2007.01.03 23:53:00 - [5] Originally by: Butter Dog Yes, I am using antimatter. But whats the point of Void, someone please tell me. Gallente got screwed with the T2 ammo from the beginning. Secondly, it got far worse with Kali nerfing T2 ammunition. Void M provided no benefit at all. Zilch. It reduced tracking to that of a fumbling idiot, kinda like running around permanently tracking disrupted. The range stunk so bad that by the time you got into distance damage gained is damage lost. Fit Antimatter... best all around. Because of the useless range of all Void ammo, forget ever putting it in a frigate. The most useless T2 component in EVE is Void S. Null M was a joke even before the nerf. Now, it's completely worthless in any application. It's range bonus was nice, but it simply didn't deliver any punch. Most of the time we are using Null we are within range of Antimatter... so most of the time you could have been dealing much better damage. Now you have a tracking nerf on Null S/M/L so with the added range it's scant damage gets even thinner. Fit Antimatter. Null S... this was useful I admit. In those small instances where you are 1KM short... you can have Null S loaded and start pinging them. But now, with the tracking nerf, and how fast frigates fly around... I wouldn't be surprised if Gallente frigates, again, fit Antimatter. T2 Blaster Ammunition should have only two things associated to it. Better range, better damage. Nothing else. I'd remark on other racial T2 ammo, but I can't use any other race T2 ammo. I'm sure Minmatar, Ammar and Caldari probably result into using best T1 ammo for their engagements. Here's the bottom line. Faction ammo is far superior to T2 ammo by a long shot. Probably, much cheaper too. Before, I found uses for some T2 blaster/rail ammo. After Kali, it's all 100% worthless and a waste of money. Odds are, using T2 ammo will get you killed before it actually helps you.
El Yatta Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolance	Posted - 2007.01.03 23:59:00 - [6] Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 03/01/2007 23:41:27 It makes the ammo totally useless. Small T2 guns? Forget it, unless you are comfortable working in a 1km window. Large T2 guns? Well I get 7km optimal on Neutron II... and 6km Falloff. Which means that during extreme close range <3km engagement, my guns barely scratch the target if there is so much as 1m/s of transversal. Yes, I am using antimatter. But whats the point of Void, someone please tell me. You've lost me a bit with your second point - you state your op and falloffs, 7 and 6, and instead of talking about the 7-13km range where those two figures matter, you start talking about sub3km - are you under the delusion that falloff also works inwards of you optimal as well as outside it? Because that is a common mistake. I find void of ALL sizes useful, as long as you use it situationally, namely when your target isnt moving around much and you are ok with sitting still yourself because you can tank or he is shooting someone else, incapacitated or otherwise a sitting duck. AM and null are still superb for general purpose. ---\|\|---
Butter Dog Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:00:00 - [7] Originally by: slothe hails similar there needs to be a drawback so what do you suggest instead? Well its already had the damage reduced, and suffers a massive tracking penalty, what more do you want? The problem now is that its simply not worth using. Thats all I'm pointing out. Hey, if its intended to make it totally useless, thats fine. I'll stick to antimatter I guess. ----------
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:00:00 - [8] You know, all the other short range tech 2 ammos have the exact same tracking penalties... And blaster track the best out of any weapon type. So train some freaking tracking skills and quit your stupid and uninformed whining ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Butter Dog Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:01:00 - [9] Originally by: El Yatta Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 03/01/2007 23:41:27 It makes the ammo totally useless. Small T2 guns? Forget it, unless you are comfortable working in a 1km window. Large T2 guns? Well I get 7km optimal on Neutron II... and 6km Falloff. Which means that during extreme close range <3km engagement, my guns barely scratch the target if there is so much as 1m/s of transversal. Yes, I am using antimatter. But whats the point of Void, someone please tell me. You've lost me a bit with your second point - you state your op and falloffs, 7 and 6, and instead of talking about the 7-13km range where those two figures matter, you start talking about sub3km - are you under the delusion that falloff also works inwards of you optimal as well as outside it? Because that is a common mistake. I find void of ALL sizes useful, as long as you use it situationally, namely when your target isnt moving around much and you are ok with sitting still yourself because you can tank or he is shooting someone else, incapacitated or otherwise a sitting duck. AM and null are still superb for general purpose. I've been testing it quite a bit. Void is simply not any better than antimatter within its range. It should be. ----------
Butter Dog Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:02:00 - [10] Edited by: Butter Dog on 04/01/2007 00:03:19 Originally by: Goumindong You know, all the other short range tech 2 ammos have the exact same tracking penalties... And blaster track the best out of any weapon type. So train some freaking tracking skills and quit your stupid and uninformed whining lol I'm not whining about the tracking penalty, and I have more SP in gunnery than your character probably has in total. My tracking skills are maxed out, there is no other skill I could train to improve it. I'm talking about the falloff penalty. ----------
CherniyVolk	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:04:00 - [11] Edited by: CherniyVolk on 04/01/2007 00:04:54 Originally by: slothe hails similar there needs to be a drawback so what do you suggest instead? There needs to be a drawback? What about a reward for training up to use T2 guns? Seriously, maybe they can add another skill just for T2 ammo... but a drawback? Drawback is having to skill the hedious (compared to missles) skill tree just to fit the T2 turrets. What about the costs of updating a clone that can keep all those skillpoints? There needs to be a reward, and breaking even for so much cost is not "balance" or "compensation". Risk vs. Reward... the reward must be much better than the risk otherwise noone would strive or take a chance.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:06:00 - [12] Edited by: Goumindong on 04/01/2007 00:05:58 Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 04/01/2007 00:03:19 Originally by: Goumindong You know, all the other short range tech 2 ammos have the exact same tracking penalties... And blaster track the best out of any weapon type. So train some freaking tracking skills and quit your stupid and uninformed whining lol I'm not whining about the tracking penalty, and I have more SP in gunnery than your character probably has in total. My tracking skills are maxed out, there is no other skill I could train to improve it. I'm talking about the falloff penalty. You want a tech 2 ammo that doesnt have a meaningful range penalty? Yea, you can have that as soon as conflag has no optimal penalty. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Butter Dog Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:09:00 - [13] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 04/01/2007 00:05:58 Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 04/01/2007 00:03:19 Originally by: Goumindong You know, all the other short range tech 2 ammos have the exact same tracking penalties... And blaster track the best out of any weapon type. So train some freaking tracking skills and quit your stupid and uninformed whining lol I'm not whining about the tracking penalty, and I have more SP in gunnery than your character probably has in total. My tracking skills are maxed out, there is no other skill I could train to improve it. I'm talking about the falloff penalty. You want a tech 2 ammo that doesnt have a meaningful range penalty? Yea, you can have that as soon as conflag has no optimal penalty. Again, you miss the point. Optimal and falloff are not the same thing. If you have a problem with Conflag, start your own thread, stop trolling this one. ----------
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:11:00 - [14] Edited by: Goumindong on 04/01/2007 00:16:25 Originally by: Butter Dog Again, you miss the point. Optimal and falloff are not the same thing. If you have a problem with Conflag, start your own thread, stop trolling this one. No, they are not the same thing. However you first complained about the falloff penalty, then you complained about tracking. [If i have a 1m/s transversal i cant hit anything]. I.E. you are complaining about range and about tracking. Void without a falloff penalty essentialy has no meaningful range penalty. You want a no falloff penalty with void. I.E. you want no meaningful range penalty on void. So that make sense right about the same time that conflag doesnt have an optimal penalty[because that is the meaningful range penalty on conflag] Which is why its dumb. Void, like all the other tech 2 ammo, needs a meaningful penalty or it becomes overpowered[the reason for the penalties, as tech II guns already do more damage than any other type of guns with ammo that was better in all situations they become much too good] they become "be all end alls". [ed; had null and void backwards, fixed] ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Glarion Garnier Solar Wind	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:18:00 - [15] Dont whine ppl there is nothing wrong with VOID, Null and most other tech 2 ammos. Sarcasm off.
Butter Dog Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:19:00 - [16] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 04/01/2007 00:13:39 Originally by: Butter Dog Again, you miss the point. Optimal and falloff are not the same thing. If you have a problem with Conflag, start your own thread, stop trolling this one. No, they are not the same thing. However you first complained about the falloff penalty, then you complained about tracking. [If i have a 1m/s transversal i cant hit anything]. I.E. you are complaining about range and about tracking. Null without a falloff penalty essentialy has no meaningful range penalty. You want a no falloff penalty with null. I.E. you want no meaningful range penalty on null. So that make sense right about the same time that conflag doesnt have an optimal penalty[because that is the meaningful range penalty on conflag] Which is why its dumb. Null, like all the other tech 2 ammo, needs a meaningful penalty or it becomes overpowered[the reason for the penalties, as tech II guns already do more damage than any other type of guns] they become "be all end alls". Look, let me make this really simple for you. * I started a thread called 'please remove the FALLOFF PENALTY on Void', what do you think that means? Hint: I'm not asking for the tracking to be improved. * Opimal and Falloff.. are NOT the same things. You make yourself look very silly saying they are. * Null doesnt have a falloff penalty, it has a falloff bonus. It also has a range bonus. * Void (the ammo I am talking about, I have no issue with Null) has a 25% range penalty, and a 50% falloff penalty. If I were you, I wouldn't pass comments in threads like this until you actually know about a) what the grown ups are talking about, and b) some facts about the items we are discussing. ----------
El Yatta Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolance	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:26:00 - [17] Im still confused by what you are saying BD, you say you have tested it extensively, but you dont explain how this is possible that it is NEVER better than AM. Simple mechanics: Neutron with an optimal of say 4k, falloff of 12 or so (I am not in my mega to check). AM has a 50% optimal penalty, void only 25%, so it will have a longer optimal, but much reduced falloff (6 and 7 as you quote). So the AM does its best damage, against a stationary target at 0-4k, and then down to 50% of that at 16k. The Void does its best damage at 0-6km, and it reduces much faster, to 50% at 13k, and by the time it equals the AMs range at 16km has reduced a further 25% or so. Now, voids base damage is higher than AMs, so it will be doing more damage than AM up to 6k, guaranteed, and probably to 7 and 8, as even with falloff reducing its damage more severely its starting from a higher point. AM should outdamage it at 8-16 I should imagine, and somewhere in there Null will easily take over. This is how guns work. There is no disputing this. Any reduction of void's damage that you are seeing, to be equal or worse than AM, is due to its tracking penalty of 50% - against stationary targets it is simply as I have written above. You must therefore use it when you have great tracking - when the enemy is being held still and you yourself are reducing or stopping your own movement. Please explain any other mechanic by which you beleive the reduced FALLOFF on void is making it worse than AM - it is merely a narrower window between Opt and Opt+Falloff in which you have to work (not to mention you have a window between AM opt and the greater Void Opt which it will perform well in). ---\|\|---
Butter Dog Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:33:00 - [18] What I mean is that the broad 'package' of penalties mean that Void simply is not worth using over antimatter. The DPS over time, when you take into effect the falloff, reduction in damage post-Kali, and yes the tracking penalty, make AM a more attractive option is just about every situation imaginable. Now, previously, the raw damage difference was enough to make up for the penalties. But that is no longer the case. DPS over time is simply better with AM in almost every possible scenario. Null is still useable, and while not as good as it was is still worth loading into your guns. Void is not, when AM is there instead. ----------
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:41:00 - [19] Originally by: Butter Dog Look, let me make this really simple for you. * I started a thread called 'please remove the FALLOFF PENALTY on Void', what do you think that means? Hint: I'm not asking for the tracking to be improved. * Opimal and Falloff.. are NOT the same things. You make yourself look very silly saying they are. * Null doesnt have a falloff penalty, it has a falloff bonus. It also has a range bonus. * Void (the ammo I am talking about, I have no issue with Null) has a 25% range penalty, and a 50% falloff penalty. If I were you, I wouldn't pass comments in threads like this until you actually know about a) what the grown ups are talking about, and b) some facts about the items we are discussing. Although I wish to ask you a question. What reason would I have for using Void over Antimatter? 1. Yes, and the first thing you did was say. Quote: Large T2 guns? Well I get 7km optimal on Neutron II... and 6km Falloff. Which means that during extreme close range <3km engagement, my guns barely scratch the target if there is so much as 1m/s of transversal. This was the first post. The first paragraph in the first post. Transversal as nothing to do with falloff. Ergo if you are complaining that you cant hit due to transversal you are complaining about tracking and not falloff. 2. Optimal and falloff are not the same thing. However they do have roughly the same effect of increasing the range on the guns. A weapon with a high optimal and a low falloff hits great all the way up to the optimal and then half of the time at optimal+falloff distance. You want void to only have an optimal penalty[because you want the falloff penalty to be removed]. I.E. you want void to have no meaningful range penalty[in fact right now, its optimal is more than antimatter, it would be basically better in every situation!] 3+4. Typo. I meant Void when i typed Null, i went back and fixed it. As for your snarky comments... It is abundantly clear that i know more about what is gone on here than you do. Void is a shockingly great ammo if you can afford the tracking penalty[I.E. your target is webbed well and you arent at 0 meters where any transveral results in "infinite" angular velocity] It does 16% more damage than Antimatter against targets that are close to and under its optimal range. So there, that is a reason to use Void over AM. 16% more damage at a longer range[despite dropping off faster than AM] ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:43:00 - [20] Originally by: Butter Dog What I mean is that the broad 'package' of penalties mean that Void simply is not worth using over antimatter. The DPS over time, when you take into effect the falloff, reduction in damage post-Kali, and yes the tracking penalty, make AM a more attractive option is just about every situation imaginable. Now, previously, the raw damage difference was enough to make up for the penalties. But that is no longer the case. DPS over time is simply better with AM in almost every possible scenario. Null is still useable, and while not as good as it was is still worth loading into your guns. Void is not, when AM is there instead. If the target is the same size as you, and you cant hit them with Void[at its optimal] then you are doing something horrendously wrong. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
El Yatta Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolance	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:44:00 - [21] Originally by: Butter Dog What I mean is that the broad 'package' of penalties mean that Void simply is not worth using over antimatter. The DPS over time, when you take into effect the falloff, reduction in damage post-Kali, and yes the tracking penalty, make AM a more attractive option is just about every situation imaginable. Now, previously, the raw damage difference was enough to make up for the penalties. But that is no longer the case. DPS over time is simply better with AM in almost every possible scenario. Null is still useable, and while not as good as it was is still worth loading into your guns. Void is not, when AM is there instead. Ok thanks, your OP had me convinced you had no idea how falloff worked, what you are saying now makes sense and I think you might not be wrong. I guess the question is, is it worth removing the falloff penalty. Personally I think it would be much more in keeping with blasters style to get it bumped back up to its original damage. I dont see why they cant differentiate the ammos of the 3 gun races a bit. E.g. if void is abit underpowered make it have more damage than Conflag and Hail, if Hail needs a boost reduce its tracking penalty, if Conflag needs the same give it less cap need or a smidgen less optimal penalty. Certainly T2 ammo started out crazy different and very imabalanced (in that half of it was USELESS and half of it was OMGWTFoverpowered), and then in the rebalances as time went on became all very similar, with each race having the same 4 ammos but with different damage types. Im surprised they let Scorch, Null and Barrage stay as 50% optimal, 25% op and 25% falloff, and 50% falloff, respectively - its only because it'd be a massive nerf to Scorch and barrage if they were all 25/25. T2 ammo is now more balanced, but still pretty far away from where it needs to be, with the downside that it is now very dull. ---\|\|---
Jin Steele Fatalix Inc. Schism.	Posted - 2007.01.04 00:44:00 - [22] stop whining and look at the stats. Every other race, except possibly caldari, have been screwed over with the T2 ammo. Ever try flying minmatar? Hail was absolutely useless with the speed penalty, because your main bonus was gone. Im not sure why you are whining about void, it still does more damage than antimatter, and a blasterthron will have similar range and far more damage than say, a tempest loaded with hail, as well as much better tracking. You have had it so good for so long that you forget what it is like to not have the most damage. If you cant manage to get a thron into your optimal then you need to learn how to fly it. The main reason not to use void is because it costs over 8k a volley to use, but it is for a reason: it is the highest damaging ammo in the game. It has the exact same penalties as the other short range T2 ammo, and more damage. Fatalix IS RECRUITING!
Quarantine 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.01.04 02:52:00 - [23] Originally by: Butter Dog Now, previously, the raw damage difference was enough to make up for the penalties. But that is no longer the case. DPS over time is simply better with AM in almost every possible scenario. Generally whenever you're closing in within your optimal on a (webbed) target of your size or larger, void will outdamage antimatter. What you want is void to be better than AM in any possible way, but that's obviously not what ccp has in mind for t2 ammo - it is only better under specific circumstances. I'm not even sure why you would want to remove the falloff then, since it won't change the circumstances under which void will be preferable to am in any way. Read El Yatta's post again please, he explains it thoroughly.
Xendie Forsaken Empire The Forsaken Empire	Posted - 2007.01.04 03:10:00 - [24] Originally by: slothe hails similar there needs to be a drawback so what do you suggest instead? id suggest no drawbacks at all. have T2 ammo do same dmg as tech1 but have a bonus effect instead for something. Quote: Nertzius > having fun being incompetitent?
Benglada Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.01.04 03:31:00 - [25] I use null 90% of the time, it pwns tbh --------------------------- Originally by: Arkanor 0.0 is the Final Frontier. Bring money and friends. Sig By Ortos
OrangeAfroMan Minmatar Suffoco Noctis Atrocitas	Posted - 2007.01.04 04:04:00 - [26] I heard you were retarded but didn't think I'd see it in action.
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2007.01.04 06:35:00 - [27] Use Null on a harpy.
Tania Khan	Posted - 2007.01.04 07:14:00 - [28] To OP, I have been comparing the short-range high-dammage T2 ammo on Quickfit and: They have same tracking penalties 50% range on Amarr guns 75% range and 50% falloff on Gallente guns 50% range and 50% falloff on MInmatar guns Looks balance... Range heavily affected with Amarr Both range and falloff moderately affected with Gallente Falloff heavily affected with Minmatar
Alliaanna Dalaii Gallente Does Not Compute	Posted - 2007.01.04 07:35:00 - [29] 3/10 for this whine thread 1m/s transversal means you cant hit ? I would love to see the maths or testing behind that one !! Alliaanna DNC Treasure Hunt !!
Tania Khan	Posted - 2007.01.04 07:43:00 - [30] However, Since Im at it: Let's compare the Long-range high-dammage T2 ammmo: Same tracking penalty 25% range to ALL... AMARR HEAVILY AFFECTED but does other penalties make up for it??? Amarr - Increases Signature radius... BIG BIG Bull's eye Shield HP penalty... less buffer (not an issue) Note: SHORT-range high-dammage T2 ammo has BETTER range than the LONG-range high-dammage T2 ammo... Gallente - Increase capacitor needs... Who does not have a cap booster when Pvping??? Speed penalty (see below) Minmatar - Cap recharge penalty... Guns do NOT use cap and who does not have a cap booster when Pvping??? Speed penalty (see below) NOTE ON SPEED PENALTY: Who uses speed when equipped with LONG-range guns??? ALSO, with the range penalty... you ONLY swap these ammo when you are ALREADY CLOSE to the target... My conclusion: Range Penalty + Sig radius >>>>>worst>>>>>>> than SPEED PENALTY... and cap penalty

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.