EVE Search - --> Tempest Again <--

All Channels

Ships and Modules

--> Tempest Again <--

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Karl Luckner	Posted - 2008.07.22 02:17:00 - [811] Originally by: Karl Luckner Most probably AstroPhobic now pulls out his Raven setup with the hughe EM hole to make a point.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.22 02:36:00 - [812] Originally by: Karl Luckner Originally by: Karl Luckner Most probably AstroPhobic now pulls out his Raven setup with the hughe EM hole to make a point. Indeed. Thermal is the most common damage type in eve. You can switch an extender for an anti-EM rig if you really want, but whatever. EHP is EHP and you have to take "holes" with a grain of salt when you're buffer tanking.
Karl Luckner	Posted - 2008.07.22 03:04:00 - [813] Point is, I don't think CCP will give you your better optimal. My proposal was to buff target painters in a way, they would infact increase your optimal, by decreasing the miss chance in falloff + buffing fallof range a bit. Now you may go on and post your unrealistic Raven setup, but this won't help your request in any way.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.22 03:13:00 - [814] Originally by: Karl Luckner Point is, I don't think CCP will give you your better optimal. My proposal was to buff target painters in a way, they would infact increase your optimal, by decreasing the miss chance in falloff + buffing fallof range a bit. Now you may go on and post your unrealistic Raven setup, but this won't help your request in any way. It's not unrealistic at all. It's perfectly viable. The EM hole is inconvenient for you, but it doesn't make a setup "fail" or "unrealistic". Plug it with a rig if you want, but it only takes away a few K EHP . Anyway, you're not going to see optimal increases in painters, at least none big enough to matter for autocannons. The falloff thing is shaky, the only way you could hit better in falloff is to increase it... and since painter is an EW thing, not a tracking mod, I don't think it's going to work. Remember that the 50% chance to hit at optimal+falloff is against an infinitely large, unmoving signature. I don't think, anyway, the fix to a weapon should lie in it's racial EW. ECM dont help missiles, TDs don't help lasers (directly at least), and damps don't help blasters, but one script indirectly helps their drones.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.22 03:19:00 - [815] All you'd do with your suggestion Karl is to force Matar to use up one of our mid slots in order to get a little more range. We'd still do less DPS with your solution, and we'd have to use up a midslot just to compete at range. All because, what, you don't think CCP will do something? I thought the tempest was supposed to have extra mid slots for "versatility", and now you're suggesting they create a module that would fill one of those mid-slots just to make their guns competitive? Frankly, it's not our place to try and predict what CCP will do. We can guess what they might do based on past conduct (i.e. they probably won't be keen on putting our alpha back to the way it was), and so it's probably worth our time to brainstorm for idea other than restoring our alpha. But unless you're Madame Cleo out of game, you don't have a clue what they will do in the future, nor do I, nor does anyone. Throw out the suggestions and make an argument, but don't try and half-ass guess what they will do and create a goofy work-around based on that. If they want to create a goofy backdoor fix, they can, but I don't see any benefit in assuming they will WANT to fix large projectiles in a goofy backdoor way.
Blind Jhon Amarr Alenia psy departement	Posted - 2008.07.22 09:48:00 - [816] karl and astro... your idea is great, fantastic. i hate stay in falloff, but.... i think this will too drastic. see how many idiots whitout reading a post, write "but you use no cap" "but your ships are faster" "but you have more mid slot" "bla bla bla" iff ccp would chamge so much the ground, the status quo, they'ii have about 15'000 player whining "i wanna be boosted too" this is why i'm blocked in my idea of ROF bonus. it would push up our damage, and it would be very very useful in falloff fight. summing i believe ROF boost is the only solution ccp would appreciate _(in my opinion) rof boost & alpha + bring short rage ammo in line whit others + 7th low tempest+ maelstrom agility speed reviewed minmatar are ok for the next five year your 650mmII autocannon perfectly turn of wreking your untanked minmatar ship
deadmeet	Posted - 2008.07.22 11:42:00 - [817] Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: To mare its all a question of numbers depend how much optimal you want with said boost. if you say give AC 20km optimal ok it make a difference. but if you speak of a 10km optimal you just gain 2.5 km optimal with short range ammo. laser are so good at range because they have scorch Numbers to think about(no skills) Current Neutron Blaster cannon II range: 7200m 800mm II - 4800m Mega Pulse II - 24km Halfway between MP II and Neutron Blaster II - 16.5km Proposed: 18km With Barrage: 18km + 24km. Remember this is unskilled, so with full skills... 22.5km + 30km. We'd be doing about 65-70% of our damage at 45km (scorch range). At 35km, we'd be doing about 85% damage. Much better. Couple this with a switch from EMP --> fusion, and autocannons are fixed. Of course, model all other tiers like this. /signed for the idea. It is not overpowered, it is not useless, it bring back some versatility... It's more minmatar inline.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.07.22 12:26:00 - [818] Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 22/07/2008 12:29:59 People are really insane with this make ac have long range. With the exemplified 18 km range they would have better effective range than lasers. YES way better. because you need to put short ragen ammo on both before compare them. Also don get why people want minmatar to have a huge punch at 3km. Forget that! Trying to change the race completely is not the way because is very unlikely devs would do it. Try to focus on improving their current advantages. An increase of about 30% of the falloff itself would be more than enough MORE than enough to achieve a realistic boost in the range department. The damage department is completely different. And I still support that the best way to solve the damage issue is fixing the ammo. Make AC short range ammo have same base damage as antimatter and the same to barrage (and faction short range same as faction antimatter). Done. You have a reasonable (10%) increase in damage. I would also suggest making Fusion the highest damage ammo , swap fusion and EMP on the damage chart. FOLLOWING FIGURES ARE ON AC USING THEORETICALLY CORRECTED AMMO OF SAME POWER THAN HYBRID AMMO AND THE SUGGESTED FALLOFF BOOST. That would make a temepst armed with 6 dual 425mm (barrage) and no damage mod do 485 dps (from GUNS only) with a 5km range and 40 km falloff (and most damage being explosive that is very good against 3/4 of BS or other big targets). Change into 800mm and you get 530 dps. Might not look much.. but then you look at a maelstrom with 3 gyros and 800mm (barrage) and falloff rigs. Then you will be seeing 754 DPS with range 6 KM and falloff of 48 km. Considering that a neutron Megatron with 3 damage mods can do 730 dps at 11km and with 16 falloff this must be realistically seen as a GOOD damage. You cannot reasonably expect more than that! Doing MORE dps than a megathron at point blank from your guns and with a much broader range of engagement, better damage type, no cap issues. So people need to start focusing in things that have some chance of being implemented! The tempest itself is another issue.. need to be careful. You cannot try to correct tempest solely using guns changes of you make the maelstrom woo powerfull (since it will 90% of time have 3 damage mods). ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Blind Jhon Amarr Alenia psy departement	Posted - 2008.07.22 13:26:00 - [819] Originally by: Kagura Nikon .... The tempest itself is another issue.. need to be careful. You cannot try to correct tempest solely using guns changes of you make the maelstrom woo powerfull (since it will 90% of time have 3 damage mods). 7th low slt your 650mmII autocannon perfectly turn of wreking your untanked minmatar ship
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.22 13:32:00 - [820] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 22/07/2008 12:29:59 People are really insane with this make ac have long range. With the exemplified 18 km range they would have better effective range than lasers. YES way better. because you need to put short ragen ammo on both before compare them. Also don get why people want minmatar to have a huge punch at 3km. Forget that! Trying to change the race completely is not the way because is very unlikely devs would do it. Try to focus on improving their current advantages. An increase of about 30% of the falloff itself would be more than enough MORE than enough to achieve a realistic boost in the range department. The damage department is completely different. And I still support that the best way to solve the damage issue is fixing the ammo. Make AC short range ammo have same base damage as antimatter and the same to barrage (and faction short range same as faction antimatter). Done. You have a reasonable (10%) increase in damage. I would also suggest making Fusion the highest damage ammo , swap fusion and EMP on the damage chart. FOLLOWING FIGURES ARE ON AC USING THEORETICALLY CORRECTED AMMO OF SAME POWER THAN HYBRID AMMO AND THE SUGGESTED FALLOFF BOOST. That would make a temepst armed with 6 dual 425mm (barrage) and no damage mod do 485 dps (from GUNS only) with a 5km range and 40 km falloff (and most damage being explosive that is very good against 3/4 of BS or other big targets). Change into 800mm and you get 530 dps. Might not look much.. but then you look at a maelstrom with 3 gyros and 800mm (barrage) and falloff rigs. Then you will be seeing 754 DPS with range 6 KM and falloff of 48 km. Considering that a neutron Megatron with 3 damage mods can do 730 dps at 11km and with 16 falloff this must be realistically seen as a GOOD damage. You cannot reasonably expect more than that! Doing MORE dps than a megathron at point blank from your guns and with a much broader range of engagement, better damage type, no cap issues. So people need to start focusing in things that have some chance of being implemented! The tempest itself is another issue.. need to be careful. You cannot try to correct tempest solely using guns changes of you make the maelstrom woo powerfull (since it will 90% of time have 3 damage mods). i somewhat agree with you on the 18km optimal and about the falloff thing (when i get home i will post something to explain what i mean dont flame me on this statement, wait a few hours) about damage you are wrong because barrage already have the same damage of the others long range T2 ammo, so T2 ammo arent the problem of AC suckiness (T1 yes, need to be on par). 800mm have a 32,5% less dps than blaster and a 15% less dps than laser. so even with same dmg on ammo projectile still sux the +10% on barrage you say can be done boosting ACs to leave all the ammo with same base dmg. oh we going to make the maelstrom "woo powerfull" cant be, minmatar BS must sucks right? maestrom tank for pvp is somewhat decent on 1vs1 but already on 2vs2 maestrom active tank is death. maestrom is big, slow, and handle like a rohk (brick). dmg type is racial flavor you cant balance a race on the damage they deal.
deadmeet	Posted - 2008.07.22 13:49:00 - [821] Quote: Might not look much.. but then you look at a maelstrom with 3 gyros and 800mm (barrage) and falloff rigs. Then you will be seeing 754 DPS with range 6 KM and falloff of 48 km. Considering that a neutron Megatron with 3 damage mods can do 730 dps at 11km and with 16 falloff this must be realistically seen as a GOOD damage. You cannot reasonably expect more than that! Doing MORE dps than a megathron at point blank from your guns and with a much broader range of engagement, better damage type, no cap issues. You forget to mention that megathron use 7 turret, not 8 to do this damage, it have a better drone bay, it have more speed, and it is tiers 2 BS... Do you think it even need to outdps it to compensate the (crappy) capless weapon ? .... I really think no...
Trojanman190 D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.07.22 13:50:00 - [822] I do agree with kagura that it is unlikely to be implemented but that's just because ccp dislikes large changes. The way I see it the only way to have more damage at mid range than blasters with out having more damage inside of blaster optimal is to increase the optimal of autocannons. If we just get a falloff boost it would have to be huge to have any effect on our dps at mid range. The only other option is to just up dps which would make us the kings of close range, which is wrong. So... the only way to make us more effective at mid range while not owning close range and long range is an optimal boost. I don't see an alternative. Changing damage values on ammo wont do shit for 25km - 35km ranges, we will still have lost most of our dps by that range. Also, the concept of doing something useful with the target painter is not for this thread. TPs blow for the race that gets bonuses to them, that's ****ed up as it is. Maybe target painters should blind the target they are hitting.... who knows. But I think the one thing we can all agree on is that we absolutely do not want to be required to bring a target painter along on every single one of our ac ships. That does not seem like a fix at all.
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.22 14:10:00 - [823] Originally by: Trojanman190 I do agree with kagura that it is unlikely to be implemented but that's just because ccp dislikes large changes. The way I see it the only way to have more damage at mid range than blasters with out having more damage inside of blaster optimal is to increase the optimal of autocannons. If we just get a falloff boost it would have to be huge to have any effect on our dps at mid range. The only other option is to just up dps which would make us the kings of close range, which is wrong. wrong this depend on how much you boost AC. +50% boost? yes overpowered everyone will say that. but a +15% boost leave AC with a 17% less dps than blaster and the same dmg as laser with way less range. now if we consider ship bonus (rof is better than dmg) bonused blaster have a 10% better dps than bonused projectile (blaser have shorthest range), bonused laser have a bit worse dps than bonused projectile but laser have more more range. king of short range? to be a king of short range you need both DPS and TANK do i have to remember you how the minmatar tank is? about optimal i will post something later but giving optimal to a weapon system bonused for falloff is something wrong to me.
Trojanman190 D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.07.22 14:14:00 - [824] Originally by: To mare Originally by: Trojanman190 I do agree with kagura that it is unlikely to be implemented but that's just because ccp dislikes large changes. The way I see it the only way to have more damage at mid range than blasters with out having more damage inside of blaster optimal is to increase the optimal of autocannons. If we just get a falloff boost it would have to be huge to have any effect on our dps at mid range. The only other option is to just up dps which would make us the kings of close range, which is wrong. wrong this depend on how much you boost AC. +50% boost? yes overpowered everyone will say that. but a +15% boost leave AC with a 17% less dps than blaster and the same dmg as laser with way less range. now if we consider ship bonus (rof is better than dmg) bonused blaster have a 10% better dps than bonused projectile (blaser have shorthest range), bonused laser have a bit worse dps than bonused projectile but laser have more more range. king of short range? to be a king of short range you need both DPS and TANK do i have to remember you how the minmatar tank is? about optimal i will post something later but giving optimal to a weapon system bonused for falloff is something wrong to me. Maybe... but it is far more unlikely that they will boost the falloff enough to matter. That would mean with rigs we could get 50% of our damage at 90km. No other ship can... wait. Apoc with a rig and two tracking computers can get its range to 92km optimal... thats 100% damage at that range. Maybe... with falloff rigs... the tempest should be allowed to have it's falloff go that far. I mean when you think about it it sounds no more crazy than 100km pulses. It actually sounds more balanced because it would only be possible with rigs and it would be 50% top damage.
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.22 14:34:00 - [825] Originally by: Trojanman190 Maybe... but it is far more unlikely that they will boost the falloff enough to matter. That would mean with rigs we could get 50% of our damage at 90km. No other ship can... wait. Apoc with a rig and two tracking computers can get its range to 92km optimal... thats 100% damage at that range. Maybe... with falloff rigs... the tempest should be allowed to have it's falloff go that far. I mean when you think about it it sounds no more crazy than 100km pulses. It actually sounds more balanced because it would only be possible with rigs and it would be 50% top damage. falloff already matter, falloff rigs + barrage allow you to deal a good chunk of you damage pretty far away. not all our BS can use falloff rigs w/o downgrade weapon, only mael can do that pretty well but even amarr bs have some problems at that. my idea about boosting falloff is to give a 19 km to 650mm and 22km to 800mm, but if i have to exaggerate id say give AC +13km falloff, probably is a more viable solutions for CCP than give a +13km optimal since falloff is the minmatar thing. +13 km falloff with falloff rigs and barrage will be too much i know, but the same apply to the 18km optimal(unbonused) + long range ammo.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.22 14:46:00 - [826] Originally by: Trojanman190 Originally by: To mare Originally by: Trojanman190 I do agree with kagura that it is unlikely to be implemented but that's just because ccp dislikes large changes. The way I see it the only way to have more damage at mid range than blasters with out having more damage inside of blaster optimal is to increase the optimal of autocannons. If we just get a falloff boost it would have to be huge to have any effect on our dps at mid range. The only other option is to just up dps which would make us the kings of close range, which is wrong. wrong this depend on how much you boost AC. +50% boost? yes overpowered everyone will say that. but a +15% boost leave AC with a 17% less dps than blaster and the same dmg as laser with way less range. now if we consider ship bonus (rof is better than dmg) bonused blaster have a 10% better dps than bonused projectile (blaser have shorthest range), bonused laser have a bit worse dps than bonused projectile but laser have more more range. king of short range? to be a king of short range you need both DPS and TANK do i have to remember you how the minmatar tank is? about optimal i will post something later but giving optimal to a weapon system bonused for falloff is something wrong to me. Maybe... but it is far more unlikely that they will boost the falloff enough to matter. That would mean with rigs we could get 50% of our damage at 90km. No other ship can... wait. Apoc with a rig and two tracking computers can get its range to 92km optimal... thats 100% damage at that range. Maybe... with falloff rigs... the tempest should be allowed to have it's falloff go that far. I mean when you think about it it sounds no more crazy than 100km pulses. It actually sounds more balanced because it would only be possible with rigs and it would be 50% top damage. I just don't see us in need of more falloff. It's not that it can't achieve the same purpose (i.e. preventing our damage from degrading as quickly), but it also stretches out our range quite a bit more. Do we really need our autocannons to reach out to artillery ranges? The way I see it, we can still be the 'falloff' race and have more than 3km optimal. It's not like we're asking for barrage to have 50km optimal or the ridiculous ranges scorch would have, haha. Its range would still be predominently determined by falloff. Adding a bit of optimal, while boosting damage, seems like an elegant solution that puts us squarely in the mid-range of weapons, a place where I think most of us agree we need to be. Boosting falloff even more begins to look to me like we'd be competing for a long-range weapon system, and our AC's would be stretching out into artillery range.
Trojanman190 D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.07.22 14:48:00 - [827] Im just trying to look at it from every angle... I really support the more optimal idea.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.22 14:51:00 - [828] Originally by: Trojanman190 Im just trying to look at it from every angle... I really support the more optimal idea. I think the consensus seems to be a raw damage boost, coupled with some sort of range boost (either optimal or falloff). We seem divided on optimal/falloff, but the point is a bit more range, yes? How CCP chooses to do it is up to them.
Trojanman190 D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.07.22 14:59:00 - [829] I think I'm the only one that does not feel we need a raw damage boost. I really don't want to give blaster users a thing to whine about, their damage gap should remain wide.
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:00:00 - [830] TBH im happy even only with the dmg boost if they boost it enough. about the range i think is silly that blaster and laser get a noticeable increase with the tier of the guns while projectile get only 1 km optimal.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:05:00 - [831] Originally by: Trojanman190 I think I'm the only one that does not feel we need a raw damage boost. I really don't want to give blaster users a thing to whine about, their damage gap should remain wide. I think it was Astro a while back that asked if all we get is a little range, then how are we competitive with other BS? We'd still deal less DPS and have less tank and still have less range than laser boats (who will also have more damage at any range). I'd like to see a slight DPS boost that puts us slightly above/on par with laser damage at the closer ranges (but degrades as falloff kicks in), and still leaves us well below blasters.
Transmaniacon Minmatar Strike-Force-Alpha	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:14:00 - [832] We do get bonuses to tracking links... But I agree we do need a direct fix to autocannons. It is quite clear that they are outclassed in every respect, and make minmatar less competitive. I like astros idea of the optimal boost, it is by far the most effective proposal thus far, and would put auotcannons on par with other guns.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:21:00 - [833] Originally by: Kagura Nikon People are really insane with this make ac have long range. With the exemplified 18 km range they would have better effective range than lasers. YES way better. because you need to put short ragen ammo on both before compare them. I'm not following you. Provide some numbers. With EMP and MF loaded, we'd still be behind in DPS, and range. Even more so, thanks to our shitty t1 ammo. Quote: That would make a temepst armed with 6 dual 425mm (barrage) and no damage mod do 485 dps (from GUNS only) with a 5km range and 40 km falloff (and most damage being explosive that is very good against 3/4 of BS or other big targets). Change into 800mm and you get 530 dps. Make a real fit, include drones. No damage mod and a full rack of bonused guns is kind of silly to compare. Plus, I seriously doubt you're getting 530 DPS from 800mm guns with no gyros at 45km. Quote: Then you will be seeing 754 DPS with range 6 KM and falloff of 48 km. Considering that a neutron Megatron with 3 damage mods can do 730 dps at 11km and with 16 falloff this must be realistically seen as a GOOD damage. Make real fits, not pointless fits to prove your point. A mega will easily hit over 1k with drones. Quote: The tempest itself is another issue.. need to be careful. You cannot try to correct tempest solely using guns changes of you make the maelstrom woo powerfull (since it will 90% of time have 3 damage mods). Rabble rabble rabble. The raven already does more DPS at a better range than the mael. I hardly think it's current DPS is overpowered, given that it can be outdamage either by a mega or a geddon at any range.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:23:00 - [834] Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: Trojanman190 I think I'm the only one that does not feel we need a raw damage boost. I really don't want to give blaster users a thing to whine about, their damage gap should remain wide. I think it was Astro a while back that asked if all we get is a little range, then how are we competitive with other BS? We'd still deal less DPS and have less tank and still have less range than laser boats (who will also have more damage at any range). I'd like to see a slight DPS boost that puts us slightly above/on par with laser damage at the closer ranges (but degrades as falloff kicks in), and still leaves us well below blasters. After working on my numbers with the optimal and falloff, it doesn't seem to be a big big deal. 5% should be plenty, but it's definitely a range thing that makes autos suck, not a damage thing.
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:24:00 - [835] Originally by: Trojanman190 I think I'm the only one that does not feel we need a raw damage boost. I really don't want to give blaster users a thing to whine about, their damage gap should remain wide. but this is the point even if you boost projectile by a 15% AND AFTER the ship bonus (dmg for gallente rof for minmatar) blaster still have a 10% more firepower than AC. not giving a dmg boost to AC but just a range boost you will have a advantage vs blaster but you still lose vs laser in both damage and range. the idea is to trade range for dmg if at range we have laser > projectile > blaster, blaster > laser > projectile on damage is wrong why laser have to do more dmg than projetile at higher range? dmg blaster > projectile > laser is more fair. when weapon are balanced just let the ships and they bonus do what they are supposed to do. minmatar BS shouldnt be a "i win" button but not even a "i lose" button. if projectile get a +15% boost minmatar BS dont become uberr, the pilot still need a brain if go too close to a blaster boat the more raw dps and better tank of the blasterboat still kill you , but if you manage to maintain the range for some time before the blaster boat catch you you have a chance to win. same goes for laser boat if the laser boat manage to keep the projectile boat at range for some time the laser boat win, if the projectile boat close the distance fast enough projectile win, laser have an advantage on this the can switch lens w/o penality they can fry you with good damage at hugh range and even better at close range and since the switch of the lens is w/o delay they have no dps loss. so not a approach > gank > win but something where you need to think a bit at what are you doing.
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:29:00 - [836] Originally by: AstroPhobic After working on my numbers with the optimal and falloff, it doesn't seem to be a big big deal. 5% should be plenty. you know what's the 5% of 1000 right?
Trojanman190 D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:39:00 - [837] Originally by: To mare Originally by: Trojanman190 I think I'm the only one that does not feel we need a raw damage boost. I really don't want to give blaster users a thing to whine about, their damage gap should remain wide. but this is the point even if you boost projectile by a 15% AND AFTER the ship bonus (dmg for gallente rof for minmatar) blaster still have a 10% more firepower than AC. not giving a dmg boost to AC but just a range boost you will have a advantage vs blaster but you still lose vs laser in both damage and range. the idea is to trade range for dmg if at range we have laser > projectile > blaster, blaster > laser > projectile on damage is wrong why laser have to do more dmg than projetile at higher range? dmg blaster > projectile > laser is more fair. when weapon are balanced just let the ships and they bonus do what they are supposed to do. minmatar BS shouldnt be a "i win" button but not even a "i lose" button. if projectile get a +15% boost minmatar BS dont become uberr, the pilot still need a brain if go too close to a blaster boat the more raw dps and better tank of the blasterboat still kill you , but if you manage to maintain the range for some time before the blaster boat catch you you have a chance to win. same goes for laser boat if the laser boat manage to keep the projectile boat at range for some time the laser boat win, if the projectile boat close the distance fast enough projectile win, laser have an advantage on this the can switch lens w/o penality they can fry you with good damage at hugh range and even better at close range and since the switch of the lens is w/o delay they have no dps loss. so not a approach > gank > win but something where you need to think a bit at what are you doing. At close range the better tank on the blaster bout should NOT be why a minmatar battleship loses. The Minmatar battleship should lose because blasters are supposed ot be the shortest range weapon and are supposed to output face melting dps at close range. Also, the 15% straight dps boost still makes us useless at the edge of our optimal. It makes our guns some bastardized version of a blaster yet still nowhere near as good.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:47:00 - [838] Originally by: To mare Originally by: AstroPhobic After working on my numbers with the optimal and falloff, it doesn't seem to be a big big deal. 5% should be plenty. you know what's the 5% of 1000 right? Trick question? It's obviously (105%, 5% boost)1050. Big buff? Hardly.
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:49:00 - [839] Originally by: Trojanman190 At close range the better tank on the blaster bout should NOT be why a minmatar battleship loses. The Minmatar battleship should lose because blasters are supposed ot be the shortest range weapon and are supposed to output face melting dps at close range. Also, the 15% straight dps boost still makes us useless at the edge of our optimal. It makes our guns some bastardized version of a blaster yet still nowhere near as good. blaster will win even with less tank because after a 15% boost and after ship bonus blaster still deal more damage at shorter range tank is just a bonus. if you plan to keep going for the range to obtain a real balance you should obtain more range than pulse laser and a T2 ammo with a optimal boost and not falloff boost, and to be honest this seems just useless to me.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:57:00 - [840] Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 22/07/2008 16:01:15 Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: Kagura Nikon People are really insane with this make ac have long range. With the exemplified 18 km range they would have better effective range than lasers. YES way better. because you need to put short ragen ammo on both before compare them. I'm not following you. Provide some numbers. With EMP and MF loaded, we'd still be behind in DPS, and range. Even more so, thanks to our shitty t1 ammo. Quote: That would make a temepst armed with 6 dual 425mm (barrage) and no damage mod do 485 dps (from GUNS only) with a 5km range and 40 km falloff (and most damage being explosive that is very good against 3/4 of BS or other big targets). Change into 800mm and you get 530 dps. Make a real fit, include drones. No damage mod and a full rack of bonused guns is kind of silly to compare. Plus, I seriously doubt you're getting 530 DPS from 800mm guns with no gyros at 45km. Quote: Then you will be seeing 754 DPS with range 6 KM and falloff of 48 km. Considering that a neutron Megatron with 3 damage mods can do 730 dps at 11km and with 16 falloff this must be realistically seen as a GOOD damage. Make real fits, not pointless fits to prove your point. A mega will easily hit over 1k with drones. Quote: The tempest itself is another issue.. need to be careful. You cannot try to correct tempest solely using guns changes of you make the maelstrom woo powerfull (since it will 90% of time have 3 damage mods). Rabble rabble rabble. The raven already does more DPS at a better range than the mael. I hardly think it's current DPS is overpowered, given that it can be outdamage either by a mega or a geddon at any range. No you should NOT do real fits. If we are discussing AC vs Blasters you need to focus only on the GUNS damage! Is pretty simple If you cannot, or are unable to isolate the variables of the problem then you will never get an useful analysis and the forthcomming observations will be utterly useless. Exactly as yours. For example using the "we have bad t1 ammo " to criticize my post when that is exactly what I typed!! Also no where i said I could achieve that dps at 45 km, and we should NOT achieve it! That range is the ammar focus. Stop trying to make all guns work same way! Ammar guns have huge disadvantages to balance the range advantage. Fittings, cap usage and tracking and worse of all DAMAGE TYPE IS HORRIBLE. So they SHOULD deal more damage at 45 km than minmatar guns, yes! And no moaning from you will change that! If people keep suggesting stupid things without even being able to make a proper analysis this thread will be seen as just a lame whinning for the devs and nothing will ever happens. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: 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.