EVE Search - I'm Minmatar, What should I do?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

I'm Minmatar, What should I do?

» 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)
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.14 14:43:00 - [61] Edited by: goodby4u on 14/07/2008 14:43:06 Originally by: deadmeet People that say that tempest and maelstrom are good BS just don't fly minmatar. They read stats and some advantages sounds good on paper (no cap usage, choose damage type...). But in the reality of space, they suck except the typhoon. Why they suck ? Because large projectile (arty AND AC) sucks. They do not enough damage, and the no cap usage is just anecdotic to compensate this lack. And the Electronic Warfare that could help to maximise the no cap advantage (NOS), were nerfed and are useless now. ACs dont suck by any stretch of the imagination. And use neuts isntead of nos, they work very well especially when you use 2 or more.
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.14 15:01:00 - [62] do you have a idea of how much time you need to cap out a BS with 2 heavy neut? not to mention cap boosters.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.14 15:17:00 - [63] Originally by: goodby4u ACs dont suck by any stretch of the imagination. Except they're outdone by lasers at every range. But wait, they're capless!!!111. This means they should suck, right? Right?
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2008.07.14 15:28:00 - [64] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 14/07/2008 15:29:14 Originally by: deadmeet People that say that tempest and maelstrom are good BS just don't fly minmatar. They read stats and some advantages sounds good on paper (no cap usage, choose damage type...). But in the reality of space, they suck except the typhoon. Why they suck ? Because large projectile (arty AND AC) sucks. They do not enough damage, and the no cap usage is just anecdotic to compensate this lack. And the Electronic Warfare that could help to maximise the no cap advantage (NOS), were nerfed and are useless now. Their damage suck because we always fight in falloff range, which is heavily penalized in terms of damage and tracking. You lose 50% of your dps at max falloff range. Fix that and you fix a large part of autocannons and artillery. --- Originally by: Roguehalo Can you nano Titans?
To mare	Posted - 2008.07.14 15:32:00 - [65] Originally by: Jim McGregor Their damage suck because we always fight in falloff range, which is heavily penalized in terms of damage and tracking. Fix that and you fix a large part of autocannons and artillery. dont worry AC suck even at optimal, at falloff they just get worse. arty need the alpha back (a meaningful alpha).
Father Weebles North Face Force	Posted - 2008.07.15 04:29:00 - [66] Do not solo 00 in a BC or BS sized vessel. You are asking to be blown up. Only do so if you have 1) An alt scout, 2) A lot of experience flying in 00, 3) A lot of backup battleships. Train for vagabond, one of the best solo ships in the game. "You leave anything for us?" "Just bodies."
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.15 04:44:00 - [67] Originally by: goodby4u Edited by: goodby4u on 14/07/2008 14:43:06 Originally by: deadmeet People that say that tempest and maelstrom are good BS just don't fly minmatar. They read stats and some advantages sounds good on paper (no cap usage, choose damage type...). But in the reality of space, they suck except the typhoon. Why they suck ? Because large projectile (arty AND AC) sucks. They do not enough damage, and the no cap usage is just anecdotic to compensate this lack. And the Electronic Warfare that could help to maximise the no cap advantage (NOS), were nerfed and are useless now. ACs dont suck by any stretch of the imagination. And use neuts isntead of nos, they work very well especially when you use 2 or more. Gotta say, I saw the flames and lolposts coming as soon as I read this. Compared to pretty much any weapon atm, AC's do kinda suck. But who needs DPS when you are capless eh?
AnKahn Caldari Rebirth. Ashes to Agony	Posted - 2008.07.16 13:40:00 - [68] I too enjoy BS, but mostly because I'm cheap (compared to the T2 pilot) and because I enjoy gangs. Solo these days do belong to the T2 cruiser pilots. And they pick their targets in the most cowardly manner. If an nano gang sees a BS gang, they may test the defenses, but as soon as they see the gang is organised, they run. Even if they outnumber the BS gang by 3:1 the BS gang will win the killboard war quite easily. Now if your BS gang brings a fast tackle support fleet you can easily control your position in either low sec or 0.0. The counter to that is cap ship hot drop. But at that point its going to be a messy bloodbath anyway. Solo BS?? Not happening these days, anywhere.
Shinta Kobi Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.16 15:19:00 - [69] I have has no problems ratting in 0.0 with both my Maelstrom or my Hurricane. If reds come into the system, it's not hard to be ready for them. Simply align to you BM'd safe spot and warp if and when they show up. Now I could run around on my 'Cane the entire time and tank the rats extremely easy while I kill them with AC's, but I'd rather kill rats fast and to do that I use my Mael with arty's with very good results. Compared to other races, yes Matari ships and projectile weps have a disadvantage. But who cares though if you can effectively rat. Now if you're thinking of solo PvP in a BS... that's not smart at all.
Felix Dzerzhinsky Caldari Wreckless Abandon Un-Natural Selection	Posted - 2008.07.16 15:27:00 - [70] Originally by: AstroPhobic The maelstrom outperforms it in (I'm almost positive) every way except cost effectiveness, which is a small difference (5-10m?). This is why I'd like to re-bonus the tempest for fleets (optimal... 7.5% ROF?) AFTER projectiles get fixed. Firstly there is no way a minmatar ship should get an optimal range bonus (the Munnin being the exception) because an optimal range bonus on projectiles is a direct dps increace which is not the case for lasers and in part for hybrids. The fact that projectiles are forced to work in their falloff is a major balancing point. The same argument for why there TE/TCs should not get a falloff bonus applys here. In essence the tempest will be getting far too large a boost even before arties are changed. The artillery fix is simple: increace the damage mod, decreace the ROF and keep the clip size the same. The degree to which the damage mod is increaced is directly proportional to the ROF decreace - keeping the dps the same (with a note that the clip size is also a contributing factor in dps) - I would say a 5% shift in raw alpha would be enough in reality. An issue that does not need to be changed is the optimal/falloff of the artillery line - they should be in falloff to compete with the longer hitting laser and hybrid lines - if the optimal is jacked up to match the other two and the falloff decreaced to match it - then all we have is a very nice hybrid gun which is what cannot happen. Adding turrets and the likes is also not a solution - that is simply changing one ship to fix an issue that is not spacific to the ship but to the wepon system. Overall, arti are a problem at the 1400 size - but most of the changes I see proposed here are overpowering them. . . ---- GO BLUE!!
BobbySteelz Dirty Deedz	Posted - 2008.07.16 17:10:00 - [71] minnie recons rock!
Gimpb	Posted - 2008.07.16 17:25:00 - [72] Originally by: To mare do you have a idea of how much time you need to cap out a BS with 2 heavy neut? not to mention cap boosters. Not too long at all if it's a ship that uses a considerable amount of cap. Yes, cap boosters will help, but people generally fit cap boosters because they need them to function normally, not in case someone neuts them so it's still going to be effective.
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2008.07.16 17:31:00 - [73] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 16/07/2008 17:36:24 Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky An issue that does not need to be changed is the optimal/falloff of the artillery line - they should be in falloff to compete with the longer hitting laser and hybrid lines - if the optimal is jacked up to match the other two and the falloff decreaced to match it - then all we have is a very nice hybrid gun which is what cannot happen. There is no need to increase optimal for artillery since you almost always are in falloff anyway because of their low optimal range. I still think reducing the damage/tracking penalty for falloff range is a good idea. Right now you lose 50% damage at max falloff range if I remember the numbers correctly. Thats a lot of damage that never becomes effective. Artillery stats are from the time when alpha strike meant something. Its time to update them and make artillery something to be feared again, just like you dont want to get hit by the dps from the Abaddon with tachyons. Minmatar ships used to have the role of the Abaddon once. We still have almost the same alpha, but not nearly close to the dps, range or tracking. Why is that fine? Because it use cap? --- Originally by: Roguehalo Can you nano Titans?
Autocannon	Posted - 2008.07.16 17:52:00 - [74] Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky Firstly there is no way a minmatar ship should get an optimal range bonus (the Munnin being the exception) because an optimal range bonus on projectiles is a direct dps increace which is not the case for lasers and in part for hybrids. The fact that projectiles are forced to work in their falloff is a major balancing point. The same argument for why there TE/TCs should not get a falloff bonus applys here. In essence the tempest will be getting far too large a boost even before arties are changed. WHAT are you smoking? Optimal range does NOTHING for ACs, and artillery will still suck. And remind me, WHY isn't an optimal range bonus on lasers or hybrids a DPS increase? You can use higher damage ammo at the same range, how is this not a DPS increase? How is falloff a balancing point? ACs do less paper damage than lasers at EVERY range. TBH you have no clue how eve or projectiles work, GTFO of this thread.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.16 18:50:00 - [75] Originally by: Autocannon Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky Firstly there is no way a minmatar ship should get an optimal range bonus (the Munnin being the exception) because an optimal range bonus on projectiles is a direct dps increace which is not the case for lasers and in part for hybrids. The fact that projectiles are forced to work in their falloff is a major balancing point. The same argument for why there TE/TCs should not get a falloff bonus applys here. In essence the tempest will be getting far too large a boost even before arties are changed. WHAT are you smoking? Optimal range does NOTHING for ACs, and artillery will still suck. And remind me, WHY isn't an optimal range bonus on lasers or hybrids a DPS increase? You can use higher damage ammo at the same range, how is this not a DPS increase? How is falloff a balancing point? ACs do less paper damage than lasers at EVERY range. TBH you have no clue how eve or projectiles work, GTFO of this thread. Optimal on any ship is an effective DPS increase. It's the same for AC's as it is for lasers. Falloff is irrelevant to this point, and the fact you mention the tempest is just lol, as it is far from balanced atm (i.e. it's fairly craptastic for most intents and purposes).
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.16 19:00:00 - [76] Originally by: Boz Well Optimal on any ship is an effective DPS increase. It's the same for AC's as it is for lasers. Falloff is irrelevant to this point, and the fact you mention the tempest is just lol, as it is far from balanced atm (i.e. it's fairly craptastic for most intents and purposes). Well, right. Except for autos, it's very very tiny. BTW, I didn't see a mention of the tempest.
Boz Well	Posted - 2008.07.16 19:02:00 - [77] Edited by: Boz Well on 16/07/2008 19:04:36 Edited by: Boz Well on 16/07/2008 19:02:43 Quote: Firstly there is no way a minmatar ship should get an optimal range bonus (the Munnin being the exception) because an optimal range bonus on projectiles is a direct dps increace which is not the case for lasers and in part for hybrids. The fact that projectiles are forced to work in their falloff is a major balancing point. The same argument for why there TE/TCs should not get a falloff bonus applys here. In essence the tempest will be getting far too large a boost even before arties are changed. But yeah, a percentage boost for AC optimal is a joke. I assumed the quoted poster meant a more substantive boost, heh, otherwise his point makes even less sense (if that's possible). And if his point was that an arty tempest would be imbalanced if the tempest lost a damage bonus and gained an optimal bonus, um... lol.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.16 19:04:00 - [78] Right, missed that. I lol'd.

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.