EVE Search - Change to the horrible "Dual Rails"

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Change to the horrible "Dual Rails"

» 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)
Padma Sky Lumen Et Umbra	Posted - 2007.03.29 08:56:00 - [31] I think the main point is: Cruisers ALREADY can be fitted as frig killers ( using small sized guns and uber tank). No news here. The idea to make "dual" medium guns exactly identical as small sized ( with medium sized fitting requirements), will give them just a cruiser bonus , but will also force to use a significant portion of powercore ( so no longer 800/1600mm plate). A 20% damage bonus ( cruiser skill L4 ) is anyway easily reachable with a single damage mod. Really cannot be told that is unbalanced ( becaus people can already have this damage) or unfair ( since people cave already this oprion with smaller guns). The whole idea is to give a little bonus at cost of an unreal tank. It's quite balanced if ask me.
Ryoma Sakamoto	Posted - 2007.03.29 09:11:00 - [32] Flying a Dominix now, I am familiar with the issue regarding the ineffectiveness of Medium and Large railguns against Frigates. My proposed solution is slightly different to the dual/quad gun approach: I propose a "shotgun" ammunition with lower base damage and higher target resolution. Call it "Type-3 canister warhead" (Kudos for anyone spotting the origin of this concept). Since Tracking is not affected, this is effectively a "one-shot" weapon that can only be used as the Frigates close in to range. Maybe make them a little more effective when fired from "dual" railguns so that they become the preferred platform for this ammunition. I haven't made up my mind on whether to make this ammunition Tech II or not, as the technology needed to bring this about is fairly rudimentary (VT fuses were invented in WW II after all), and I want to see low SP users firing these ammos. There is my 0.02 isks.
Avataris The first genesis Myriad Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.29 09:22:00 - [33] To the OP: Love the idea. Would be nice to give BS some decent defence capabilities. Another good reason this would work is that if a BS resorts to fitting downsized turrets at the moment it is giving up anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of it's BS effectiveness. This might encourage people to fit less NOS as the BS finally have another option when it comes to defending against inties/frigs. To draw a real life comparison, large Battleships all still have small guns fitted too, but in a sufficient number to be of use.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.03.29 09:39:00 - [34] Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 29/03/2007 09:41:07 The simplest way to boost 'dual' weapons is to give them the same signature resolution as the smaller turret, and change nothing else. Changing the RoF and making them into ætrueÆ dual versions adds pitfalls given how close small, medium and large weapons are in terms of Damage output: 425mm II (antimatter); 3.3 x (48)/9.56 = 16.57 dps 250mm II (antimatter); 3.3 x (24)/6.38 = 12.41 dps 150mm II (antimatter); 3.3 x (12)/4.25 = 9.32 dps As you can see, the medium turret does 75% of the damage output of the large turret, the small does 75% of the damage output of the medium turret. Doubling the Rof of 'dual weapons' is simply not an option because they would then out-damage the top tier of turret. Edit: Dual, lighter weapons putting more 'raw damage' down onto a target would not be a problem if Eve modelled armour penetration, and light weapons simply struggled against the stronger/thicker shields/armour on large ships, however it doesn't, so having dual weapons out-do the top tier would simply mean everyone fits those instead... ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Chavu The Shadow Order Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.29 09:50:00 - [35] Originally by: Snikkt Edited by: Snikkt on 28/03/2007 21:22:20 All guns have 3 variations. Short, medium, and long, to be blunt. Blasters get the 3 well known, and well used flavors. Electron, Ion, and Neutron. I'm no Minmatar, but I'm fairly sure all 3 types of AC get used a to a decent degree. Why should rails just have to stick with 2? Suggestions, comments, tell me how much of a noob I am, all welcome. Actually I think Minmatar guns levels are borked too because while tracking is better on smaller guns, the optimal range also gets shorter. Minmatars don't care about optimal, it's all about falloff. While I hope they won't nerf my lovely 180mm IIs, I have to admit 200m of optimal range difference is nothing to any autocannon user and us Minmatar pilots exploit the low grid requirements on the smallest guns to fit every toy we can (like a 1600mm plate with MWD and t2 medium guns on a rupture) I don't use railguns but I approve of more differences between the 2-3 "tier's" of guns in each size. But let's not make Battleships easily kill frigates/cruisers, they can already disable them with a few heavy NOS, guns that can hit them easily would be too brutal :)
Akkarin Pagan Minmatar Raddick Explorations NxT LeveL	Posted - 2007.03.29 10:38:00 - [36] Drones 5 has always been enough for me to kill off any attacking ships that require it. Just the other day I quite happily anihalated a Hawk with my Tempest (duel webs and dual 650s 4tw) in a handfull of volleys, using kinetic dealing ammo. I'm failing to see the need for point defence. If your flying a ranged BS and frigates get close enough to cause you trouble, something has already gone horribly wrong for you already. Point defence shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for those situations. Smaller sized long range guns at medium or above are always going to be less preferable to the larger variants no matter what you are doing in pvp. Akkarin <3 - Immy
Laboratus Gallente BGG Alektorophobia	Posted - 2007.03.29 10:44:00 - [37] Originally by: Akkarin Pagan D Point defence shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for those situations. Smaller sized long range guns at medium or above are always going to be less preferable to the larger variants no matter what you are doing in pvp. Akkarin Ofc not, they shouldn't. But there should be something you can do. A skilled inty pilot easily outruns drones, and if you are in a close range setup, or at a gate you cannot avoid being in scramble range. But there should be some point defence so that the intie pilot is at least at some risk. At least so much that he might have to consider disengaging. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.29 11:15:00 - [38] Originally by: Laboratus Originally by: Akkarin Pagan D Point defence shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for those situations. Smaller sized long range guns at medium or above are always going to be less preferable to the larger variants no matter what you are doing in pvp. Akkarin Ofc not, they shouldn't. But there should be something you can do. A skilled inty pilot easily outruns drones, and if you are in a close range setup, or at a gate you cannot avoid being in scramble range. But there should be some point defence so that the intie pilot is at least at some risk. At least so much that he might have to consider disengaging. But the battleship then has no risk for the ships designed to intercept them? Originally by: Dixon Originally by: Goumindong Big ships are vulnerable to multipule small ships. Its a good thing. Indeed, but I wouldn't say it's unbalanced to have cruisers able to use a medium gun with severely reduced range and dps (which they already have) but good enough tracking to defend themselves from frigates. And the same goes for the dual BS guns, they wouldn't be unbalanced if they could track cruisers well but they shouldn't be able to track frigs. But these weapons already exist, and they are called small turrets. Furthermore, due to the larger amounts of fitting, slots and hardpoints, the bigger ships still perform that frigate killing role better than their smaller counterparts. Originally by: Avataris To the OP: Love the idea. Would be nice to give BS some decent defence capabilities. Another good reason this would work is that if a BS resorts to fitting downsized turrets at the moment it is giving up anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of it's BS effectiveness. This might encourage people to fit less NOS as the BS finally have another option when it comes to defending against inties/frigs. To draw a real life comparison, large Battleships all still have small guns fitted too, but in a sufficient number to be of use. Battleships already have decent defense ability. If they want to be able to defend themselves against frigates they have to downfit weapons. If they want to be able to be strong against frigates and strong against battleships they cannot. Why? Because it breaks the mechanics of the game. You cannot get uncompromising downfitting, and that is what this is. If you want frigate point defense, then you need to give up your battlecruiser/cruiser/battleship sized gank. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.29 11:16:00 - [39] Originally by: Chavu Originally by: Snikkt Edited by: Snikkt on 28/03/2007 21:22:20 All guns have 3 variations. Short, medium, and long, to be blunt. Blasters get the 3 well known, and well used flavors. Electron, Ion, and Neutron. I'm no Minmatar, but I'm fairly sure all 3 types of AC get used a to a decent degree. Why should rails just have to stick with 2? Suggestions, comments, tell me how much of a noob I am, all welcome. Actually I think Minmatar guns levels are borked too because while tracking is better on smaller guns, the optimal range also gets shorter. Minmatars don't care about optimal, it's all about falloff. While I hope they won't nerf my lovely 180mm IIs, I have to admit 200m of optimal range difference is nothing to any autocannon user and us Minmatar pilots exploit the low grid requirements on the smallest guns to fit every toy we can (like a 1600mm plate with MWD and t2 medium guns on a rupture) I don't use railguns but I approve of more differences between the 2-3 "tier's" of guns in each size. But let's not make Battleships easily kill frigates/cruisers, they can already disable them with a few heavy NOS, guns that can hit them easily would be too brutal :) If you are fighting in a decent amount of falloff it makes a reasonable amount of difference. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Tolomea Gallente 5th Front enterprises New Eve Order	Posted - 2007.03.29 11:50:00 - [40] Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 29/03/2007 09:41:07 Changing the RoF and making them into ætrueÆ dual versions adds pitfalls given how close small, medium and large weapons are in terms of Damage output: knew I shoulda looked up the DPS values, you raise an excellent point, the dps of a dual small (so a mid sized gun) can not under any circumstances be better than normal mid size guns, however given the range differences it can have about the same dps
Tolomea Gallente 5th Front enterprises New Eve Order	Posted - 2007.03.29 11:52:00 - [41] Originally by: Chavu But let's not make Battleships easily kill frigates/cruisers, they can already disable them with a few heavy NOS, guns that can hit them easily would be too brutal :) NOS needs tracking, the ability to hit a frig with heavy NOS is an abomination that needs to be delt with, unfortunately every time you suggest that people go "oh no what about frigs", fixing the dual rails would help shut them up.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.29 12:16:00 - [42] Originally by: Tolomea Originally by: Chavu But let's not make Battleships easily kill frigates/cruisers, they can already disable them with a few heavy NOS, guns that can hit them easily would be too brutal :) NOS needs tracking, the ability to hit a frig with heavy NOS is an abomination that needs to be delt with, unfortunately every time you suggest that people go "oh no what about frigs", fixing the dual rails would help shut them up. By making the problem worse? Bwa? The problem isnt that NOS drains cap on frigs, its that it kills frigs. If the frigates didnt explode/let the enemy ship get away shortly after all their modules shut off there wouldnt be an issue. Heck, without the NOS and with tue dual rails you actualy cut the middle out of the situation and go straight from alive to dead, isntead of from alive, to dead in the water, to dead But the biggest deal is that there already is a way for larger ships to do this effectivly if they so want. All they have to do is fit smaller guns. I mean, heck lets take an apoc. An apoc can fit 8 Medium Beam lasers, with 3 heat sinks in the lows it has 4 mids and 4 lows left to play around with. This gives it roughly: 209 DPS @ 27km 313 7.5km 365 3.75km And 5 medium drones so final DPS of 367 471 523 And it can run an injected dual rep tank with plenty of options in the mids, like two webs. Which basically means with standard ammo they have enough damage and range to toast anything that doesnt want to get within web range, and if does get within web range they can really start dealing damage. Any 8 turret BS can do this. Some do it better, some worse. But in order to do so, they need to give up the total damage that a battleship provides. By introducing cruiser and battleship sized guns that track as well as frigate guns and have similar ranges as long range frigate weapons you will let battleships or battlecruisers have their cake and eat it too. No one is opposed to letting the battleships eat cake, its just that it requires smaller ships to protect the cake from the enemy while it is being eaten, and should stay that way. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.03.29 13:18:00 - [43] Idea is very nice... we do need the smaller guns to be buffed - but only by giving them better tracking. Everything is fine, because now they are pretty much equal to the frigate variant except fitting but benefits from medium gun bonus. BUT if it gets buffed like you want it will make Eve go Bigger-IS-Better which currently isn't true (and thank CCP for that). Why would anybody fly a smaller ship than he is capable of, if a big ship could rip apart a small ship with ease?? - I'm a nice guy!! and OMG I love Team Tuxford for the speedbalancing...
Laboratus Gallente BGG Alektorophobia	Posted - 2007.03.29 13:53:00 - [44] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Laboratus Originally by: Akkarin Pagan D Point defence shouldn't be a get out of jail free card for those situations. Smaller sized long range guns at medium or above are always going to be less preferable to the larger variants no matter what you are doing in pvp. Akkarin Ofc not, they shouldn't. But there should be something you can do. A skilled inty pilot easily outruns drones, and if you are in a close range setup, or at a gate you cannot avoid being in scramble range. But there should be some point defence so that the intie pilot is at least at some risk. At least so much that he might have to consider disengaging. But the battleship then has no risk for the ships designed to intercept them? I suggest you reread the highlighted parts. Or well, I'll just repost it: But there should be some point defence so that the intie pilot is at least at some risk. At least so much that he might have to consider disengaging. But the battleship then has no risk for the ships designed to intercept them? Yet again. The ceptor should have some risk, if the BS decides to sac slots for it and thus gimp his setup. At the moment if the ceptor just fits 1 small not or cap injector he can sustain the jam long enough to keep the BS down long enough for a gang to finish a few beers, maybe bears too, sober up, drive home, log in and gank the BS. Even if you get webs on the intie, the diminutive sig radius and still high orbit speed is enough to keep the intie alive, if he just chooses to do so. So asking for a little bit of a risk for the ceptor seems reasonable, don't you? btw who necromanced the interceptor lobby back to life? I kinda hoped we got rid of them last spring. Or might be the spring. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Laboratus Gallente BGG Alektorophobia	Posted - 2007.03.29 13:56:00 - [45] Originally by: Goumindong By making the problem worse? Bwa? The problem isnt that NOS drains cap on frigs, its that it kills frigs. If the frigates didnt explode/let the enemy ship get away shortly after all their modules shut off there wouldnt be an issue. Seems like you need to learn how to manage a frigs cap with injectors and small nos. By setting nos and injector autorepeat off you can always just get more cap to keep your modules running. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.29 14:02:00 - [46] Edited by: Goumindong on 29/03/2007 13:58:54 Quote: But there should be some point defence so that the intie pilot is at least at some risk. At least so much that he might have to consider disengaging. But the battleship then has no risk for the ships designed to intercept them? These exist. They are 1) Light Drones 2) friendly frigates and destroyers 3) Webs 4) NOS 5) Small guns fit on that battleship. Due to the hit point disparity between battleships and interceptors, the slightest "risk" in terms of being targeted by battleship guns makes tackling a suicide job. It should not be. If you want to kill interceptors, bring small guns or destroyers. That is their risk. Their risk should not be battleships, just like there is no risk of an interceptor killing a BS solo there should be little to no risk of a BS killing an interceptor solo. Originally by: Laboratus Originally by: Goumindong By making the problem worse? Bwa? The problem isnt that NOS drains cap on frigs, its that it kills frigs. If the frigates didnt explode/let the enemy ship get away shortly after all their modules shut off there wouldnt be an issue. Seems like you need to learn how to manage a frigs cap with injectors and small nos. By setting nos and injector autorepeat off you can always just get more cap to keep your modules running. I dont see how your suggest making the problem better instead of worse. In fact its not, it makes the problem worse instead of better. P.S. i know how to manage cap in a frigate, large NOS are still overpowered in that manner. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2007.03.29 14:50:00 - [47] Edited by: Washell Olivaw on 29/03/2007 14:48:04 Originally by: Snikkt All guns have 3 variations. Short, medium, and long, to be blunt. Blasters get the 3 well known, and well used flavors. Electron, Ion, and Neutron. I'm no Minmatar, but I'm fairly sure all 3 types of AC get used a to a decent degree. Why should rails just have to stick with 2? _________short_____medium____long small____75________125_______150 Medium___dual 150__200_______250 Large____dual 250__350_______425 Looks to me all 3 are there. Something felt wrong when I first read you thread, thought you forgot the damage bonus but after looking through the item database I noticed it was more fundamental. The dual 150 is a cruiser sized gun meant to attack other cruisers. The dual 250 is a battleship sized gun meant to attack other battleships. Unfortunately, they're pretty much like the 75mm, there's a very limited to no use for them. Comparing the dual 150 to the 150 is comparing hammers to saws. They're both tools but meant for different jobs. If you want to turn them into point defense and make them actually useful, the only thing that should be touched is the signature resolution. This means cruisers can become frigate killers and battleships can become cruiser killers. But those roles are already filled by destroyers and, to some extent, battlecruisers. Still more ship choices for a certain role is a good thing. In the end, if you want the battleship to become a frigate killer, you'll still have to equip the right tools. CCP is unlikely to add guns that'll do the job from frigate to titan.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.29 15:29:00 - [48] Washell, if a battleship wants to be a cruiser killer, why doesnt it just fit cruiser sized guns? ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Sadayiel Caldari Black Lance NBSI Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.29 15:32:00 - [49] Edited by: Sadayiel on 29/03/2007 15:29:28 IMHO i think the point defense must be done just to actually, force players to fully play they ships instead just play for the fastest ship. just give dual same track as small weapon and OMG frigate/cruiser killer!!!! yeah sure but the simple fact it's that with a med gun signature 2x 150mm weapons dmg is similar to a merlin, want to avoid the dmg then fly closer to the ship instead orbit at 15km, oh wait webber, then decide when to aproach and when to leave to maximize your tackling time. sorry but tbh a speedboat can't tackle forever a battleship on real life, so neither they would be able in EVE, slow them and let the reinforces come sure it's they duty but not hold forever the ship until the gank it's here, 15 to 30 min later Every man know he's going to die, but no one believes such thing can happen
Janice Forge House Ordos	Posted - 2007.03.29 20:09:00 - [50] interesting.... seems the biggest issue is DPS and drones.... currently small guns are just about the only thing that can even HIT frigs much less drones.... to fix the dps issue, just alter the dps of medium and large guns up, a lot. and then add a equivalent amount of HP (rep increased values as well) the dual rails should be able to track as fast as smalls and have 2x the firing rate (or close to it) a way to compensate would be to reduce the optimal and fall off of them under the singles....? 150 : Dual 150 Tracking - same .07 : .07 Range - longer 12:6 : shorter 8:3.5 (less range due to increased firing rate Rate of fire - 4250 : 2125? damage mod - SAME sig res - 40 : 60 (less likely to hit with duals due to increased firing rate) thus recieved dps would be higher with the dual but not as much as a hit from a 'true' medium turret... this would also let BS's and CA's have a shot at hitting drones.... dual 250's would be normalized as well... hell you could merely have a 3000 RoF for the dual 150's (more than half with reduced range and accuracy but better than it was with higher tracking) then quad 150's would have even less range (less than half) the same tracking speed and damage mod, a even bigger sig res and a 2000? or 2500? RoF? inties, and fast moving frigs in orbit would still be pretty much impervious... to anything but drones.... (need to be webbed) but a slower frig could be eaten.... or they could simply just beef up DD's (reduce sig radius or something)
n0thing Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.	Posted - 2007.03.29 20:30:00 - [51] /signed. Increase tracking on dual guns so they will be worth to fit. Better fit 6x 250s then 6x dual 250s. About twice bigger damage mod and better tracking. ---
J'Mkarr Soban Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2007.03.29 20:30:00 - [52] I love this idea. It's been done before, it makes sense. I don't do guns anymore (too complicated for me) but if a 150 did 20 DPS, then 4 of them do 80 DPS, no? Whether you reduce it so that they fire one after each other (1/4 the speed) or all at once (4x the damage) it's still the same thing. And an argument against the 'it can therefore beat any swarms of frigates', and all the numbers thrown in to disprove this - can we get a true DPS? Including lock on time? Uh huh, that's right, it would still take several eons to lock them all and shoot them. Once they were locked, fine, but getting to that stage would be a nightmare. And can we also get the same numbers people to work out the overall effectiveness of the ship? All too often in these arguments the numbers thrown around are based on what the people are trying to prove, one way or the other. Take a ship, add two of these guns instead of something else, analyse it in detail against every other ship type. So yes, this may completely pwn frigates (once you'd locked them) but then you might be completely useless against anything else. -J --------------------------------- "He who 'hah hahs' last, 'hah hahs' best." - Nelson Balanced != Nerfed
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2007.03.29 21:56:00 - [53] Sig = same as guns size smaller. Dual 150mm = 40 sig Dual 250mm = 125 sig There. Fixed.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.30 01:22:00 - [54] Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban And an argument against the 'it can therefore beat any swarms of frigates', and all the numbers thrown in to disprove this - can we get a true DPS? Including lock on time? Uh huh, that's right, it would still take several eons to lock them all and shoot them. Once they were locked, fine, but getting to that stage would be a nightmare. Lock on time for firt Frigate 5-10 seconds. Lock on time for second frigate 0-3 seconds Lock on time for all subsequent frigates 0 seconds. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Trivas ClanKillers Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.03.30 05:14:00 - [55] How about this: The point defense modules should give huge negitive bonuses to some other factor of the ship when active. Like for instance, you cannot activate any other modules or your speed drops to zero. This means that a frig support BS would still be quite vourable to a huge group of frigs or to a BS while using PDS, but could defend against that single frig that holds you down for 10 mins while he rallies his buddies.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.03.30 05:29:00 - [56] Why not just fit small guns instead then? ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Veneth	Posted - 2007.03.30 05:52:00 - [57] Edited by: Veneth on 30/03/2007 05:49:43 I had been talking about something simular with a friend and we had sorta come to the idea that there should be slots on Cruisers and Battleships for frigate defense, a single slot (maybe two on a BS), that fits a dual frigate weapon mount, Would have the same tracking, and ammo size but possibly get the ships gun/missile bonuses, can't put the weapon into a high slots so there's no mega's fitting 7 or some junk, just a spare weapon that you can blast at frigates to try and get them to go away from you, not enough to stop a massed attack though as a solo pwn mobile.
Snikkt Time Cube Syndicate Daikoku Trade Syndicate	Posted - 2007.03.30 05:57:00 - [58] Originally by: Goumindong Why not just fit small guns instead then? Because I'm in a battleship, not a Frigate. ------------------- My opinions (ie, all of my posting here) are not my corporations. Nor should it be taken as such.
Kayl Butcher Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2007.03.30 06:09:00 - [59] Edited by: Kayl Butcher on 30/03/2007 06:06:46 Originally by: Snikkt Originally by: Goumindong Why not just fit small guns instead then? Because I'm in a battleship, not a Frigate. A.K.A. Whaaaaaa......I want to put the square peg through the round hole!!
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2007.03.30 06:56:00 - [60] Ok I agree that the dual / quad small gun turrets definately should have the same tracking and signature as the small guns used on frigates. I also believe that they should use small ammunition and have a massive ammunition capacity, Ofcourse per shot they should use 2x for dual and 4x quad small ammunition rounds. I mean they are multiple barrel turrets not single barrel turrets. Another point I believe is that they shouldn't get the turret bonus that the battleship gives, giving the simplest explanation, battleships are primarily designed to take on large vessels, tho they should have anti frigate & cruiser defences they are not specialized in their use. Next, these small multi barrel turrets should use the small turret skills for their prerequisites, including their t2 versions which get the small turret specialization 2% damage bonus. Another thing I would like to see are for battleships, decent dual medium turrets. Battleships usually have large / medium and small turrets. This ofcourse gives a disadvantage against a battleship with only large turrets. The benefit however to having small and medium turrets is that they should use a fraction of the power grid that large turrets use. Perhaps with the same cpu as 4x smalls turrets for the quad and a multiple of 50 for the 4x small turrets power. E.g. Quad 200mm Autocannon I: 36 tf (4x9tf), 800 mw ((4x4mw)x50) If we did that then the battleship with the mixed turret's will have considerable more power grid and should be able to fit a far more impressive tank.

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.