EVE Search - Interesting thought - why large projectiles aren't "in line" ?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Interesting thought - why large projectiles aren't "in line" ?

» 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)
Ecky X Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.05.27 19:51:00 - [1] Just had an interesting thought, about why large projectiles "aren't in line" with other races' weapons. May or may not be true, but it's a thought I hadn't had before. To put it bluntly, why were 2 races' weapons boosted, and a 3rd is now in need of boosting? Were blasters how CCP wanted them already, and they were used as a baseline for how the other 3 weapon systems should perform? Not that I mind ships getting a dps boost across the board, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been easier to just adjust blaster boats to be in-line with the other 3... Granted, medium laserboats needed love, but in the battleship class, torps, and lasers (indirectly) were boosted, and projectiles now stand out as the worst of the 4 weapon systems. Perhaps it's not 100% correct, but it was an interesting thought.
Kehmor PAK	Posted - 2008.05.27 19:54:00 - [2] Post stats, not just random statements. I'll agree artilery needs to be looked at, autocannons are fine. Remember they require no cap to fire. - Violence isn't the answer, it is the question. The answer is yes.
Ecky X Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.05.27 19:58:00 - [3] Edited by: Ecky X on 27/05/2008 19:58:34 Just making a generalization. Torps were boosted, lasers were boosted, and autocannons are (generally agreed to be) not competitive dps-wise now. EDIT: I'm not suggesting any changes.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:01:00 - [4] Originally by: Kehmor Post stats, not just random statements. I'll agree artilery needs to be looked at, autocannons are fine. Remember they require no cap to fire. Pretty obvious troll with the "no cap" thing. I will admit that it has its uses, but it's not all it's *****ed up to be. Strictly speaking cap usage is not generally as much of an issue in close range boats because of cap injectors. -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:03:00 - [5] they are not in line? how are they not in line?
Kehmor PAK	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:05:00 - [6] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Kehmor Post stats, not just random statements. I'll agree artilery needs to be looked at, autocannons are fine. Remember they require no cap to fire. Pretty obvious troll with the "no cap" thing. I will admit that it has its uses, but it's not all it's *****ed up to be. Strictly speaking cap usage is not generally as much of an issue in close range boats because of cap injectors. -Liang Pretty obvious noob with this post - Violence isn't the answer, it is the question. The answer is yes.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:05:00 - [7] Originally by: Ecky X Granted, medium laserboats needed love, but in the battleship class, torps, and lasers (indirectly) were boosted, and projectiles now stand out as the worst of the 4 weapon systems. Perhaps it's not 100% correct, but it was an interesting thought. That's an interesting thought. Overbalancing is one of the classic problems of game design, really. -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:06:00 - [8] Originally by: Kehmor Pretty obvious noob with this post You know, you could back up your statement with facts. -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:10:00 - [9] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton they are not in line? how are they not in line? I think he's referring to the overall damage output. Take, for instance: - All phoon "good" fits rely on torps for primary damage - The Tempest (double damage bonused) top ends at about 800-1000 DPS (depending on if you're willing to live with 0 tank at all). - The Maelstrom does fairly well, but still has poor agility and somewhat lowish damage - Projectiles are strongly bonused on ships designed for them (ROF > Dmg, for example) - Projectiles operate in falloff, and Optimal > Falloff The list of downsides to projectiles goes on for a while, but I won't say that I think AC's are terribly bad. I think it's more of a combination of a slightly "lesser" weapons system combined with exceptionally bad battleships. That's overall probably fine, considering how pwn face Matari are at cruiser combat. I mean, the best cruisers are the Falcon and Ishtar and Sacrilege. -_- -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
RedeyeAce	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:11:00 - [10] Edited by: RedeyeAce on 27/05/2008 20:12:18 Down liang.. Down.. /me throws out a lassoo Edit: damn u posted b4 i got that one in lol
Megan Maynard Out of Order	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:13:00 - [11] QFT. The problem is everyone ASSUMES that arty's need to be boosted instead of realizing they are supposed to be worse. Use autocannons on a minmatar ship and you'll always be happy. Nothing is wrong with projectiles. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:14:00 - [12] Originally by: RedeyeAce Down liang.. Down.. /me throws out a lassoo It's funny - I've not even been checking the Eve-O forums recently, and then this thread popped up. Honestly, I was just calling him on a fairly obvious troll. Well, trolling or fairly extreme ignorance. Either way, I think the OP has an interesting observation. Overbalancing (balancing things around something higher than the base line moves the base line) is one of the classic problems in game balancing. I think CCP might have made that mistake rather accidentally. Maybe on purpose, who knows. They could be keeping us in a hamster cage. :P -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
RedeyeAce	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:17:00 - [13] hehehe, u know im jokin around.. funnily enough the title caught my attention.. and Ecky, yeh i think ur right. It's a bit like having a chair where 1 leg is slightly shorter.. then going around and keep chopping the other legs and never quite getting it right.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:19:00 - [14] Oh, and furthermore, the only way to get out of this vicious cycle is to nerf everything down to some reasonable base-line. Cycles like this tend to exacerbate the differences between experienced and inexperienced players. Ex: 5% diff at 200 DPS vs 400 DPS yields twice the "benefit" for the more experienced player. Boosting that by 20% yields 240 vs 480 DPS (effectively widening the gap). The concept also applies to the differences between weapons systems. The whole system gets alot more twitchy. I've seen it kill games - especially when they try to nerf everything back down to save the system. -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.05.27 20:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton they are not in line? how are they not in line? I think he's referring to the overall damage output. Take, for instance: - All phoon "good" fits rely on torps for primary damage - The Tempest (double damage bonused) top ends at about 800-1000 DPS (depending on if you're willing to live with 0 tank at all). - The Maelstrom does fairly well, but still has poor agility and somewhat lowish damage - Projectiles are strongly bonused on ships designed for them (ROF > Dmg, for example) - Projectiles operate in falloff, and Optimal > Falloff The list of downsides to projectiles goes on for a while, but I won't say that I think AC's are terribly bad. I think it's more of a combination of a slightly "lesser" weapons system combined with exceptionally bad battleships. That's overall probably fine, considering how pwn face Matari are at cruiser combat. I mean, the best cruisers are the Falcon and Ishtar and Sacrilege. -_- -Liang right because over all damage output is everything 4 auto canons is about 25% of a phoons over all dps. 40% from the torps, and 33% from drones (okay i rounded a bit it doesn't add up to 100%). adding bcus (to maximize dps) will increase the torps percentage to over 53% tempest, yes its double damage bonused, why? because if it wasn't and it fit an armor tank and acs had better damage well then i might as well fly my abaddon with ac, if any matari ships need some work its this one, and I am not sure if it needs it. maelstrom, 8 guns, 3 damage mods, and xl booster cap injected tank. do I have to say more? oh and I'd take a vaga or zealot over a sac anyday. as for hics, broadsword is damn fine. and minmatar recons are damn useful.
Jalif Black Sinisters	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:03:00 - [16] guys, we are talking about LARGE PROJECTILES HERE. not about torpedos, hacs or other stuff..... large projectile. Well, this is yet another agree & disagree fail topic. CEO of Black Sinisters Originally by: CCP Dionysus We like to share the lub.
Kehmor PAK	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:08:00 - [17] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: RedeyeAce Down liang.. Down.. /me throws out a lassoo It's funny - I've not even been checking the Eve-O forums recently, and then this thread popped up. Honestly, I was just calling him on a fairly obvious troll. Well, trolling or fairly extreme ignorance. Either way, I think the OP has an interesting observation. I merely pointed out the capless function of projectiles as it is their most overlooked benefit. Superior falloff, excellent tracking, and a variety of damage types are things that are harder to miss. I would suggest that it is you who is extremely ignorant if you think for a minute autocannons need a buff. - Violence isn't the answer, it is the question. The answer is yes.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:09:00 - [18] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton right because over all damage output is everything Try to break through 170k EHP on an Abaddon before his friends show up and tell me that DPS doesn't matter. ;-) Quote: 4 auto canons is about 25% of a phoons over all dps. 40% from the torps, and 33% from drones (okay i rounded a bit it doesn't add up to 100%). adding bcus (to maximize dps) will increase the torps percentage to over 53% 40% from torps, and 25% from AC's. Funny, that's what I said - torps are far more important to the Phoon than AC's. Quote: tempest, yes its double damage bonused, why? because if it wasn't and it fit an armor tank and acs had better damage well then i might as well fly my abaddon with ac, if any matari ships need some work its this one, and I am not sure if it needs it. The only reason to fly a cap-sucking ship with projectiles is to save cap for tank. Strictly speaking, AC's would require a hell of a boost before it'd really be advantageous to fly an Abaddon with them over Pulse. Quote: maelstrom, 8 guns, 3 damage mods, and xl booster cap injected tank. do I have to say more? Oddly enough, plates normally work better than an active tank. You act as if being armor tanked strictly prohibits having damage mods. Quote: oh and I'd take a vaga or zealot over a sac anyday. Ok, chalk it up to personal preference, but a Sac will eat a Vaga alive unless that Vaga uses the "run" ability. And face it, that's what the Vaga has: substandard DPS and the ability to run. Quote: as for hics, broadsword is damn fine. and minmatar recons are damn useful. See, that's my point. They're solid, but all the other races have very good showings in the T2 cruiser department. Matari don't "own face" at cruisers, at least, not nearly what you'd expect for them to suck so bad at the BS level. I find it really funny that in threads about BS's, people will say: But your cruisers are PWN FACE!!! Your BS's should suck! Then in threads about cruisers: Boost our ship's DPS, becuase the Vaga is faster. -_- -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:15:00 - [19] Originally by: Kehmor I merely pointed out the capless function of projectiles as it is their most overlooked benefit. Superior falloff, excellent tracking, and a variety of damage types are things that are harder to miss. I would suggest that it is you who is extremely ignorant if you think for a minute autocannons need a buff. Capless function of projectiles is hardly their most overlooked benefit. We can hardly step 2 feet without an Amarrian telling us how overpowered AC's are because of falloff and cap use. Of course, the same people blithely miss out on the fact that superior optimal >> superior falloff. Also, I'd like you to quote me in this thread where I said that AC's need a boost. :) -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:22:00 - [20] I'm still not entirely convinced Liang isn't just a computer program created to search the Eve-O forums for any thread relating to projectile weapons... It's been a while (a week maybe?) since we've had a good large projectile thread though. I always find them more interesting than the random "Howz my raven?!" threads.
Ecky X Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:25:00 - [21] Liang, as usual you dominate wherever you appear. Not that you're wrong; I generally agree with what you had to say. I didnt start this thread to discuss current balance. Rather, to point out that it can be looked at from the standpoint that CCP balanced 3 races up to Gallente standards, rather than nerfed Gallente down to the other 3. But people prefer buffs to nerfs, I suppose.
ElCoCo KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:31:00 - [22] Only "problem" I find with large projectiles is the range at which fleetbattles are fought nowadays since they lack base optimal range to perform well so need to sacrifice damage and tank to compensate. For instance, if you see me in anything other than a megathron in a BS fleet fight, it means I just lost it heh (That's until I'm arsed to train large beam spec for apocs ofc) Autocannons are just fine thanks. What I'd like changed is to add a -small- falloff multiplier to tracking computers and enhancers (because fleetfights will not get any closer). Also, increasing their alphastrike would be nice (not too sure due to their tracking)but not much else realy. And I don't know what you're on about, but having capless weapons means a great deal, just not in all cases. Also, the maelstrom's base armor needs to be decreased since it's a shieldtanker and the tempest's increased since it's an "omni" tanker but that's a different discussion since I never thought that BS's should have more HP's each tier they rise but to be just different. Boink!
Joe Starbreaker	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:36:00 - [23] Originally by: Ecky X lasers were boosted, and autocannons are (generally agreed to be) not competitive dps-wise now. Lasers were "boosted" with a generalized "nerf" of EM resistance on armor. At the same time, Explosive resistances were nerfed (on shields IIRC) also across the board. Projectiles got the same kind of boost that lasers did. ---------------- [insert signature here]
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:39:00 - [24] Originally by: Ecky X Liang, as usual you dominate wherever you appear. Not that you're wrong; I generally agree with what you had to say. I didnt start this thread to discuss current balance. Rather, to point out that it can be looked at from the standpoint that CCP balanced 3 races up to Gallente standards, rather than nerfed Gallente down to the other 3. But people prefer buffs to nerfs, I suppose. I actually tried to keep the discussion on that. It's an interesting idea, and I think you're right. Buffs make for happy people, and nerfs for unhappy people. Examples of this was the recent nerf of all interdictors (across the board), and the recent pulse/torp boosts. I was just pointing out that an unending string of buffs will require a "reset" at some point, because the system becomes more unstable with each iteration. -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:41:00 - [25] Originally by: Boz Well I'm still not entirely convinced Liang isn't just a computer program created to search the Eve-O forums for any thread relating to projectile weapons... It's been a while (a week maybe?) since we've had a good large projectile thread though. I always find them more interesting than the random "Howz my raven?!" threads. I've been accused of that before, but in different contexts. In college, I had a nickname of "superman" because I was inhuman in my ability to keep working. In high school, people laughingly said I was an android, because I could "directly interface" with computers. It didn't help that I didn't eat lunch about half the time. Man, memories. -Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:42:00 - [26] Originally by: Joe Starbreaker Originally by: Ecky X lasers were boosted, and autocannons are (generally agreed to be) not competitive dps-wise now. Lasers were "boosted" with a generalized "nerf" of EM resistance on armor. At the same time, Explosive resistances were nerfed (on shields IIRC) also across the board. Projectiles got the same kind of boost that lasers did. Laser tracking was also recently boosted. -Liang Time Flux Detected You are going too fast! Wait a minute and try again. Ed: -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved.
AppleBanana	Posted - 2008.05.27 21:55:00 - [27] What if they changed the tempest to 15% falloff and 5% large projectile dmg per lvl? would that be really weird or good?
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.05.27 22:01:00 - [28] Originally by: AppleBanana What if they changed the tempest to 15% falloff and 5% large projectile dmg per lvl? would that be really weird or good? Weird really, and out of place. More importantly I don't think it will help. Fighting in falloff inheritly means lower DPS lower alpha. Increasing the range at which your weapons remain inferior doesn't solve the inherit problem. More importantly, your torps are fairly short ranged as it is and, since the torp boost at any rate, they represent your primary (in terms of potental, and probably actual) damage dealers. Really, I think the ship would be better served with a +5% torp damage +5% large projectile ROF than a double projectile damage boost, or have a turret slot put in place of a missile bay slot.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.05.27 22:08:00 - [29] Originally by: Ecky X Edited by: Ecky X on 27/05/2008 19:58:34 Just making a generalization. Torps were boosted, lasers were boosted, and autocannons are (generally agreed to be) not competitive dps-wise now. Maybe torps and lasers were boosted because they were lacking for some reason? -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Ecky X Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.05.27 22:15:00 - [30] Originally by: James Lyrus Originally by: Ecky X Edited by: Ecky X on 27/05/2008 19:58:34 Just making a generalization. Torps were boosted, lasers were boosted, and autocannons are (generally agreed to be) not competitive dps-wise now. Maybe torps and lasers were boosted because they were lacking for some reason? Lacking compared to what?

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.