EVE Search - High damage T1 projectile ammo needs a boost

All Channels

Ships and Modules

High damage T1 projectile ammo needs a boost

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 16:42:00 - [61] Originally by: Hoshi Originally by: Veneth Wow it's amazing how a discussion about emp ammo turns into a fight about maelstrom tanks with t2 ammo vs hyperions with t2 ammo. While I in some part agree you can not have this discussion without including t2 ammo in it. The reason EMP does less damage than the others where correctly stated by Dalman. Because projectile guns relay less on optimal they will loose less range by choosing short range ammo and they will gain less range by choosing long range ammo. To balance this short range ammo does slight less damage and long range does slight more compared to the other races. This where all balanced and good until t2 ammo came onto the scene. Now the damage advantage of long range ammo is gone because for t2 long range there are no such advantage. And when we look at short range guns projectiles used to be able to do better damage at range mostly because they could always use the short range (but slight less damage) emp even for long range. This meant that if the projectile user could maintain range be could beat blasters but if he couldn't he would loose. BUT then again t2 ammo came and the range at which the projectile user had to be before he could outdamage the blaster user where pushed out so far that it ended up outside scramble range and such where useless. So you can't have this discussion without including t2 ammo because none of the things emp damage where balanced around hold true anymore. EMP does not have a damage advantage over phased plasma against shields or against armor due to the damage type differences, it never did That is the problem. Put the numbers into the tracking guide against shield and the four armor types for phased plasma and for EM taking into account the optimal range differences and you will find that EMP is only better than phased plasma against caldari armor tanks. That is the problem. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Hank Showbo Neyi Industries	Posted - 2007.04.03 16:47:00 - [62] Originally by: AKULA UrQuan errr.... -EM is the lowest resistance for sheilds. -Explosive is the weakest for armor. Projectiles is the one weapon that's graced with high damage ammo hitting on both of the above damages. So like what's the problem? Also explosive is rubbish on shield. EMP is rubbish on armour. So it balances it out no? Anyway I use 3 phased plasma and 3 EMP, seems to do a good job tbh.
Morreia The Celestial Element	Posted - 2007.04.03 16:56:00 - [63] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: morreia I consider 15km optimal to be mid range byt frig standareds. Compared to BS's this obviously doesn't seem mid ranges but neither do the 30km optimal long range frig guns. You would be wrong, Frigs dont get 15km optimals with scorch, more like 11km. What good is a 11km "mid ranged" gun on frigs when other frigs can close the distance in 3 seconds? Sorry. I was thinking of retributions when I said 15km. And to close that gap any frig apart from an inty with take 5 seconds... in that time about 1k of damage will have been dealt. Also if your gona put it like that what the point in long range guns on frigs unless they have a range bonus because they can close the gap quickly. Whats stoppping the fiting frig flying away from the close range frig. This would mean to close on the retri it would actually take bout 10seconds in which time about 2k of damage will have been dealt. Originally by: gamesguy Originally by: morreia Also in that 10 seconds you can have gone through the enemy's sheild and a bit of their armour. What you fail to mention is then you hit armor, doing next to no damage and get killed by your enemy's superior DPS and damage types. You can still do reasonable damage against armour but what you fail to see is in the frig example by the time they get into firing range your already 1.5k dps ahead of them. Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: morreia So your saying be able to instantly change you guns from a 20km optimal to a 50km optimal isn't at all flexible. Its nowhere near instant, not without a "switch all ammo on all guns" option. And nice of you to ignore all my other points and focus on one little advantage. Thats like comparing a M1A2 to a T72 and saying the T72 wins cause it comes with vodka. Learn to change ammo quicker. Changing ammo on say 6 guns and firing them again should take you about 6 seconds. And if you look I didn't focus on this, I took all your points into account. Originally by: gamesguy Originally by: morreia I also find they're range advantage very useful. Admitidly once you get BS it's only useful in gang warfare but its by no means the only thing which is only useful in gang warfare. Then you have no idea what you're talking about. The Amarr range advantage on pulses is only significant on BS sized guns, its pretty worthless on anything smaller. There is a reason the Amarr frig and cruiser lineups all uniformly suck unless they use drones as a primary damage type(curse, arbi, etc), or use autocannons and fit supertank(punisher, maller). Harbinger and absolution are exceptions, but even then they're not as good as their counterparts(hurricane, myrmidon, brutix, eos, the same list goes on). What, so you saying is having a ship being able to fire out to 20km with high(ish) damaging, close range guns isn't at all useful? If you are then you have no idea what your talking about.
Gamesguy Amarr E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.04.03 17:41:00 - [64] Originally by: Morreia Sorry. I was thinking of retributions when I said 15km. And to close that gap any frig apart from an inty with take 5 seconds... in that time about 1k of damage will have been dealt. WTB retribution that does 200 DPS. Quote: Also if your gona put it like that what the point in long range guns on frigs unless they have a range bonus because they can close the gap quickly. Long range guns have several reasons, artillery for the alpha on ships like the wolf(which can one or two volley inties IIRC), and rails on ships like the ishkur(to combat larger ships and stay out of web range). Retribution is a nice gang DPS ship, but 11km pulse doesnt do jack**. Quote: Whats stoppping the fiting frig flying away from the close range frig. This would mean to close on the retri it would actually take bout 10seconds in which time about 2k of damage will have been dealt. Its called a web, it happens at 10km, just 1 km less than the pulse range. Originally by:** gamesguy You can still do reasonable damage against armour but what you fail to see is in the frig example by the time they get into firing range your already 1.5k dps ahead of them. Your argument is based on vague handwavium and claims of damage. An AF, say an AC wolf or jag, because frankly every other AF has longer range than the ressie/vengeance with pulses, can close the distance between 15km and web range in about 2 seconds, thats about 250 damage at the most. And no you dont do a "reasonble amount of damage" against armor, scorch vs omnitank=omg wreck for 10 damage woot! Originally by: Gamesguy Learn to change ammo quicker. Changing ammo on say 6 guns and firing them again should take you about 6 seconds. You dont know wtf you're talking about. You turn off the guns one by one and click the little switch button(the actual switch takes about 2 seconds), then about half the guns bug out and dont switch ammo because you're using t2 ammo thats not in a nice neat little stacked pile(due to having been used previously). It really takes about 5 seconds, not counting lag. Quote: And if you look I didn't focus on this, I took all your points into account. So your only reply to all the problems with amarr is OMG you can switch ammo in 5 seconds instead of 10! Quote: What, so you saying is having a ship being able to fire out to 20km with high(ish) damaging, close range guns isn't at all useful? Its not ***** high damage, because of omnitank, and more importantly, you cant *** keep the range! You're ignorance is showing here. Look at the sleipnir, it can hit about 18km with falloff rigs and hail. Why is it useful on the sleipnir and not on the absolution? Because the sleipnir can use a mwd and keep the range at 18km, where as if the absolution tried to do that it would run out of cap in 2 seconds from firing its cap intensive guns and using a mwd at the same time. Cap booster only delay cap death a little because consumption is so great. The second reason is absolution is still slow as with a mwd while the sleipnir is not. Whats the point of having a 20km range weapon when minmatar have a 15km range weapon that doesnt use cap and gallente have a 10km range weapon that does way more dps? Especially when both can close the distance in about 10 seconds. Quote:** If you are then you have no idea what your talking about. You're spouting nonsense. I've pvped most of my eve career, I've done solo and group piracy, I've done everything from small 0.0 gank squads, to gatecamping, to 100 man fleet battles. I think you're the clueless one here.
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.04.03 17:47:00 - [65] Edited by: Hoshi on 03/04/2007 17:43:26 Originally by: Goumindong EMP does not have a damage advantage over phased plasma against shields or against armor due to the damage type differences, it never did That is the problem. Put the numbers into the tracking guide against shield and the four armor types for phased plasma and for EM taking into account the optimal range differences and you will find that EMP is only better than phased plasma against caldari armor tanks. That is the problem. I didn't said one thing about damage types in the text you quoted. The damage reduction on EMP has NOTHING to do with damage types. Try reading before commenting instead of assuming. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Morreia The Celestial Element	Posted - 2007.04.03 17:50:00 - [66] Is there a steal plate at the front of your head or something because none of this seems to be going in so I'm just not going to bother. If you want to be a **** player all your eve career and not use your ships to their full potential then thats your problem.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 17:54:00 - [67] Edited by: Goumindong on 03/04/2007 17:53:17 Originally by: Hoshi Edited by: Hoshi on 03/04/2007 17:43:26 Originally by: Goumindong EMP does not have a damage advantage over phased plasma against shields or against armor due to the damage type differences, it never did That is the problem. Put the numbers into the tracking guide against shield and the four armor types for phased plasma and for EM taking into account the optimal range differences and you will find that EMP is only better than phased plasma against caldari armor tanks. That is the problem. I didn't said one thing about damage types in the text you quoted. The damage reduction on EMP has NOTHING to do with damage types. Try reading before commenting instead of assuming. how much more damage does EMP does over phased plasma? Quote: WTB retribution that does 200 DPS 6.5m in Jita 4 x MP II MWD/AB SAR/3x HSII/co-proc DPS = 205.37 @ 16.25km+2.5km falloff DPS = 281 @ 5.4km+2.5km falloff ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Kar Anshral	Posted - 2007.04.03 17:57:00 - [68] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kar Anshral I would prefer fusion and EMP to get switched around, making fusion raw total damage equal to the other -50% range ammos(12 for small: 8ex, 4ki) and EMP the -25% range ammo(10 for small: 6em, 4ex). That doesnt work, because with fusion at a high EX component and at the high raw damage point, it would utterly destroy other ammos more than it already does against armor. If there is one thing that lacks in eve atm it is explosive damage, not enough sources of explosive damage is reducing the desire to tank explosive on armor, making omni-tanks on armor that more preferable. The only "unique" source of explosive damage is projectiles(drones, smartbombs and missiles being the other 4 sources but they have all 4 damage types seperated in equal amounts). And projectiles have the blessing/curse of having multiple damage types with currently the highest raw damage ammo having explosive and em in approx. equal amounts. Making the highest damage ammo fusion would improve the only real source of explosive damage sufficiently imo. PS. I said 12 raw damage for fusion before but after thinking it over I think 11(7ex,4ki) is enough. Because of the high falloff component of projectiles the range modifier has a smaller effect on effective range and that is reflected in the ammo, with high range T1 ammo having more raw damage then other weapon types and low range T1 having lower raw damage.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 18:03:00 - [69] Originally by: Kar Anshral Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kar Anshral I would prefer fusion and EMP to get switched around, making fusion raw total damage equal to the other -50% range ammos(12 for small: 8ex, 4ki) and EMP the -25% range ammo(10 for small: 6em, 4ex). That doesnt work, because with fusion at a high EX component and at the high raw damage point, it would utterly destroy other ammos more than it already does against armor. If there is one thing that lacks in eve atm it is explosive damage, not enough sources of explosive damage is reducing the desire to tank explosive on armor, making omni-tanks on armor that more preferable. The only "unique" source of explosive damage is projectiles(drones, smartbombs and missiles being the other 4 sources but they have all 4 damage types seperated in equal amounts). And projectiles have the blessing/curse of having multiple damage types with currently the highest raw damage ammo having explosive and em in approx. equal amounts. Making the highest damage ammo fusion would improve the only real source of explosive damage sufficiently imo. PS. I said 12 raw damage for fusion before but after thinking it over I think 11(7ex,4ki) is enough. Because of the high falloff component of projectiles the range modifier has a smaller effect on effective range and that is reflected in the ammo, with high range T1 ammo having more raw damage then other weapon types and low range T1 having lower raw damage. I amnot sure how increasing the exp damage of fusion will do anything but boost tech 1 minnie guns against armor. Tech 1 minnie guns against armor are not the problem. EMP not out-damaging phased plasma against shields is the problem. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.04.03 18:10:00 - [70] AC are already good against armor. They need is a boost against shields. So change the explo into EM on the EMP. And everyone will be happy. Well in fact don't.. I shield tank.. so also change ammar lasers to explosive.... then i don 't need to worry about that. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.04.03 18:15:00 - [71] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 03/04/2007 17:53:17 Originally by: Hoshi Edited by: Hoshi on 03/04/2007 17:43:26 Originally by: Goumindong EMP does not have a damage advantage over phased plasma against shields or against armor due to the damage type differences, it never did That is the problem. Put the numbers into the tracking guide against shield and the four armor types for phased plasma and for EM taking into account the optimal range differences and you will find that EMP is only better than phased plasma against caldari armor tanks. That is the problem. I didn't said one thing about damage types in the text you quoted. The damage reduction on EMP has NOTHING to do with damage types. Try reading before commenting instead of assuming. how much more damage does EMP does over phased plasma? 4 points (for large) just like Antimatter does 4 points more damage than Plutonium which has the same range reduction as Phased Plasma. You so hung up on EMP that you have failed to see that it's not the only ammo type with damage reduction, Phased plasma got it too while Nuclear and Carbonized Lead (the 2 longest range types) do more damage than their counter parts. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 18:20:00 - [72] Edited by: Goumindong on 03/04/2007 18:16:57 Originally by: Hoshi Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 03/04/2007 17:53:17 Originally by: Hoshi Edited by: Hoshi on 03/04/2007 17:43:26 Originally by: Goumindong EMP does not have a damage advantage over phased plasma against shields or against armor due to the damage type differences, it never did That is the problem. Put the numbers into the tracking guide against shield and the four armor types for phased plasma and for EM taking into account the optimal range differences and you will find that EMP is only better than phased plasma against caldari armor tanks. That is the problem. I didn't said one thing about damage types in the text you quoted. The damage reduction on EMP has NOTHING to do with damage types. Try reading before commenting instead of assuming. how much more damage does EMP does over phased plasma? 4 points (for large) just like Antimatter does 4 points more damage than Plutonium which has the same range reduction as Phased Plasma. You so hung up on EMP that you have failed to see that it's not the only ammo type with damage reduction, Phased plasma got it too while Nuclear and Carbonized Lead (the 2 longest range types) do more damage than their counter parts. Incorrect please try again. Here is a tip: Antimatter does 9.09% more damage than plutonium Multifrequency does 9.09% more damage than Gamma EMP does x% more damage than Phased Plasma. If you can fill in the x, then you know what is wrong with EMP! ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 18:26:00 - [73] You know what, ill say it again since i do not believe you are intelligent enough to figure it out. EMP does not do more damage against shields than phased plasma does when you are at about 25% falloff or greater. Below that, EMP does only 2.6% more damage against shields than phased plasma. See the problem? It needs to do more damage against shields. It has nothing to do with the total numbers, it could have 50 ex damage for all it mattered and it still would not achieve the goal of an ammo to shoot at shields with. Minmatar have an "all around ammo" its called phased plasma, and they have anti-armor ammo, its called fusion[or tech 2 ammo] and they have an anti-sield ammo, oh wait they dont because EMP isnt better than phased plasma. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.04.03 18:28:00 - [74] Edited by: Hoshi on 03/04/2007 18:29:33 You don't get it do you? Damage types have NOTHING to do with how CCP balanced it. Btw as long as you keep using base resists you have no point, because no ship you meet not even npc will have those resist. Try using that Phased Plasma against a caldari t2 ship and see how well you do. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 18:41:00 - [75] Originally by: Hoshi Edited by: Hoshi on 03/04/2007 18:29:33 You don't get it do you? Damage types have NOTHING to do with how CCP balanced it. Btw as long as you keep using base resists you have no point, because no ship you meet not even npc will have those resist. Try using that Phased Plasma against a caldari t2 ship and see how well you do. Not very well. Caldari tech 2 ships are indeed the only ships you ever want to be shooting with EMP. Congratulations for picking the exception instead of the rule. Look. Tri-hardened armor = Fusion/hail Omni-hardened armor = Fusion/hail Omni-hardened shield = phased plasma EM-hardened shield = phased plasma Tech 2 matari shield= phased plasma/hail/fusion tech 2 gallente shield = hail/fusion tech 2 amarr shield = phased plasma tech 2 caldari shied = EMP Tech 2 matari armor = hail/fusion Tech 2 Amarr armor = phased plasma tech 2 Gallente armor = hail/fusion tech 2 Caldari Armor = Hail/fusion Damage types do have everything to dow ith how CCP balances it, if it didnt different damages types simply would not exist and there wouldnt be a problem with EAMNS and lasers. Tuxford would not be mentioning these things in dev blogs. But he is writing these things and they clearly are thinking about it. The damage types have everything to do with the problem and the problem is that the all around ammo[phased plasma] is better than the shield ammo[emp] against shields. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Kar Anshral	Posted - 2007.04.03 19:23:00 - [76] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kar Anshral ... I amnot sure how increasing the exp damage of fusion will do anything but boost tech 1 minnie guns against armor. Tech 1 minnie guns against armor are not the problem. EMP not out-damaging phased plasma against shields is the problem. Increasing damage against come at a cost, reduced damage against shields. Shield tanks could use a popularity boost . Personally I wouldn't just change emp and fusion around, I would also change every projectile ammo to follow one of the basic rules applied to the other turret ammo's(and fighters), limiting all ammo to 2 damage types. And more, for minmatar have explosive damage always present on all ammo, because it is the primary damage type for minmatar. Phased plasma and Proton are currently the only ones that lack the explosive damage. Changing projectile ammo like this would I believe get the explosive resist the "boost" it needs, what's more you'd get a race with shield tankers(which is the way minmatar seems to be going with all the new ships lately) doing mostly armor-focused damage versus a race of armor tankers doing shield-focused damage from a RP perspective.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.04.03 19:40:00 - [77] Originally by: Kar Anshral Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kar Anshral ... I amnot sure how increasing the exp damage of fusion will do anything but boost tech 1 minnie guns against armor. Tech 1 minnie guns against armor are not the problem. EMP not out-damaging phased plasma against shields is the problem. Increasing damage against come at a cost, reduced damage against shields. It's not really increased damage except when it does so after resists. I guess it makes for impressive hull shots, but not much else. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Kar Anshral	Posted - 2007.04.03 19:51:00 - [78] Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Originally by: Kar Anshral Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kar Anshral ... I amnot sure how increasing the exp damage of fusion will do anything but boost tech 1 minnie guns against armor. Tech 1 minnie guns against armor are not the problem. EMP not out-damaging phased plasma against shields is the problem. Increasing damage against come at a cost, reduced damage against shields. It's not really increased damage except when it does so after resists. I guess it makes for impressive hull shots, but not much else. Yeah I missed "armor" in that sentence, my bad. fixed. no more impressive hull shots though, raw (hull) damage would stay the same.
Liranis	Posted - 2007.04.03 20:08:00 - [79] Same old, same old. You do realize that most of you fail to take into account that to be on par with other races Matars needs FAR more skill, for one, that the arty has the worst tracking ever and have lose their alpha strike bonus too? Yo do realize too that if the minmatar are so good there is a problem because nearly NOBODY fly them unless they have started them one year or more ago? (for pve everyone is flying raven\|drake and/or domi[megathron, for pvp everyone is flying megathron/domi/others varying with the situation, but quite never Matar unless they fly a vaga with nano/stabs or a nanophoon[won't really happen now with the nerf, right?:D]). And, most of all, you all fail to take into account the reload time in your graphs and comparison. Take heavy artillery, they have a rof far worse than Cruise(you know, nearly the slowest firing weapon normally) and can only put half or a third of the amount of ammunitions you put in the cruise launchers. I don't talk about their ****ty tracking either too. I wonder how that can make them as good as amaar(no reload time ever, IF you have to change ammo the whole process of changing them don't take as long as the reloading of ONE gun. It will be even worse the day we will have a "change ammo on all weapons" button.) or Hybrids.... Or the fitting problems of most minmatar ships since the shield tankers lacks mids and armort tankers lacks low. The minmatar have taken every single nerf to Eve mecanism since 2 years, every single boost didn't touch them as much as others(like let's say, HP boost that are % and not straight boost, so matar got less hp points, etc etc) and they have lost one of their specificity and usefulness/advantage(Alpha strike that is now REALLY a joke since damages didn't increase by 25% 2 times in a row....). For one time, we should admit that they have been pretty badly hit and that they need some love instead of wanting them kept in the dark pit. It's awfully boring AND annoying that nearly everyone fly the same ships since they are "flavor of the month" or "the only choice to do THAT thing"(Raven, Megathron, etc) unless they are not skilled for that and have something else to chose. It's quite easy to see how the races are unbalanced when you have nearly 70 to 80% of the population of EVE that is flying, without any second tought, Gallente or Caldari. When there is THAT much unbalance, you know with certitude the two others got the shaft in one way or another....
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 20:42:00 - [80] Originally by: Kar Anshral Edited by: Kar Anshral on 03/04/2007 19:48:06 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kar Anshral ... I amnot sure how increasing the exp damage of fusion will do anything but boost tech 1 minnie guns against armor. Tech 1 minnie guns against armor are not the problem. EMP not out-damaging phased plasma against shields is the problem. Increasing damage against armor(edit) come at a cost, reduced damage against shields. Shield tanks could use a popularity boost . Personally I wouldn't just change emp and fusion around, I would also change every projectile ammo to follow one of the basic rules applied to the other turret ammo's(and fighters), limiting all ammo to 2 damage types. And more, for minmatar have explosive damage always present on all ammo, because it is the primary damage type for minmatar. Phased plasma and Proton are currently the only ones that lack the explosive damage. Changing projectile ammo like this would I believe get the explosive resist the "boost" it needs, what's more you'd get a race with shield tankers(which is the way minmatar seems to be going with all the new ships lately) doing mostly armor-focused damage versus a race of armor tankers doing shield-focused damage from a RP perspective. boosting the ex damage of fusion will not lower its damage against shields. Similarly since double tanks are rare[for a number of reasons] you dont lose any more ground from changing ammo when facing a ship that is tanked versus untanked than you would now. I.E. it just boosts damage against armor, which is already very high. This doesnt change any of the meta play for tanking or shooting, it just increases damage. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.04.03 20:45:00 - [81] Originally by: Vincent Almasy Edited by: Vincent Almasy on 02/04/2007 18:55:36 Use a fusion shells in your formula and remember most matar ships have dmg and rof bonus. -Edit- Then put it agenst the normal omni tank: EM: 70 KN/TH: 60 EX: 40 LOL wtf, i would never leave a 40% hole in my tank. 2eam2 1 dcu 2 1* explosive harder 2. Thats armortanking _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 20:48:00 - [82] Originally by: Liranis Snip This is pretty much all false. 1. Minmatar may not be able to field the full line of their ships without many skills, but they are still able to compete well. Similarly, their guns are more effective in fitting, range, and dps before they achieve tech 2 guns than other races guns. 2. Artillery still have the alpha advantage over their competitors which is quite large. It is simply no longer overpowering. 3. You almost never ever, ever have to change ammo due to running out in the course of most battles. At max skills, small autocannons will fire for minutes before running out. 4. Hit Point boosts benefit ships that have to get close and/orneed to hold a specific range[that they have the ability to hold]. Not suprisingly, the ships that need to do this most, and do this best, are Minmatar. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.03 21:09:00 - [83] Originally by: madaluap Originally by: Vincent Almasy Edited by: Vincent Almasy on 02/04/2007 18:55:36 Use a fusion shells in your formula and remember most matar ships have dmg and rof bonus. -Edit- Then put it agenst the normal omni tank: EM: 70 KN/TH: 60 EX: 40 LOL wtf, i would never leave a 40% hole in my tank. 2eam2 1 dcu 2 1* explosive harder 2. Thats armortanking No, that is dumping CPU for some EX resistance. His numbers are wrong btw, a normal omni hits about 55% ex resist. The best way to do it is to put it up against each racial omni and just ignore the tank part, since it adds to all resists equally. So stick it against 60/10/25/35. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Gamesguy Amarr E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.04.03 23:19:00 - [84] Originally by: Morreia I have no argument so I'll just start making personal attacks and pretend to have the high ground Concession accepted. Typical troll.
Gamesguy Amarr E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.04.03 23:21:00 - [85] Originally by: Goumindong 6.5m in Jita 4 x MP II MWD/AB SAR/3x HSII/co-proc DPS = 205.37 @ 16.25km+2.5km falloff DPS = 281 @ 5.4km+2.5km falloff Thats an extremely unrealistic fit with max skills in everything and you know it. A DCU would help you helluva lot more than the SAR for example but you dont have the cpu to fit it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.04.04 01:19:00 - [86] Not really. I have 4s in all the relevent skills and run 185/235 @ 15km/5km. AWU 3. Its really rather nice. Bit fragile, but you werent going to kill that wolf anyway ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: 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.