EVE Search - Problems with AC's, Artillery, Minmatar Battleships and Caps

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Problems with AC's, Artillery, Minmatar Battleships and Caps

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jodie Amille Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.08.15 06:23:00 - [1] Hello everyone, I would like to get everyone to put down their ideas to help out these systems and ships. I will keep the posts updated and easy to read for CCP. I'm not the one to post ideas since I've got very little experience with the issues(being gone for around one year) but I'm happy to try and help keep things organized. Thread ToC Post 1. Autocannon problems and solutions Post 2. Artillery problems and solutions Post 3. Battleship problems and solutions Post 4. Capital Ship problems and solutions I'd like to ask everyone not to post until I can reserve my posts please.
Jodie Amille Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.08.15 06:24:00 - [2] Reserved
Jodie Amille Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.08.15 06:24:00 - [3] Reserved
Jodie Amille Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.08.15 06:25:00 - [4] Reserved
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.15 06:28:00 - [5] You should link to the other very large Minmatar threads... especially specific posts inside them. -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Jodie Amille Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.08.15 06:44:00 - [6] I'll try when I have time. If others would like to help me out, they can link to posts for me to reference or just flat out copy/paste to here that would be great!
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.08.15 06:56:00 - [7] [copy]http://www.eve-search.com/[/paste] inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
Mankirks Wife	Posted - 2008.08.15 07:11:00 - [8] I find the shortcoming of ACs are more than made up for by their light fitting requirements and superior range (esp. when compared to blasters) ---
ArmyOfMe Personal Vendetta Vendetta Alliance.	Posted - 2008.08.15 07:20:00 - [9] Originally by: Mankirks Wife I find the shortcoming of ACs are more than made up for by their light fitting requirements and superior range (esp. when compared to blasters) Sadly this is a very good point that a lot of ppl forget(I still wouldnt mind a boost though)
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.08.15 07:30:00 - [10] Originally by: ArmyOfMe Originally by: Mankirks Wife I find the shortcoming of ACs are more than made up for by their light fitting requirements and superior range (esp. when compared to blasters) Sadly this is a very good point that a lot of ppl forget(I still wouldnt mind a boost though) Yeah AC puni are hot. Plus other Amarr ships can use them better than lasers on the ships with only a cap use bonus. Ironically I think Amarr would benefit the most if AC/Arty got a built in boost from the weapon itself instead of the racial ship bonus. Even moar dps and still all that leftover cap and grid going into the uber armor tank. inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.08.15 11:02:00 - [11] Originally by: Mankirks Wife I find the shortcoming of ACs are more than made up for by their light fitting requirements and superior range (esp. when compared to blasters) If the shortcommigns were on AC only then yes. But the ammo is also fubared. Lower damage than all other ammo on same class and stupid awful EMP ammo that makes our primary damage type being HALF em half explosive... Make fusion be top damage and make top damage ammo have same total value as antimatter and multifrequency and we are a biiig steb in correct direction. The naglfar problem is, its uspposed to be a lower tank ( succeeds on taht) higher damage (fail completely) dread. 1 extra weaposn slots does not lead to more damage when you has 1 less low slots to use damage mods and your guns are split. How to sovle it? Lots of ways. Since form makign th e citatel bonus a 7.5% one as the projectiles one, up to the best one that would be change it to 3 projectile turrets and make 5% rof and 5% damage bonus (make it a big tempest not a big half arsed typhoon with less low slots) Or make ir a 5 6 5 laybout increase CPU a lot and make it a viable shield tanker (That then can use low slots to have reasonable gank) ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.08.15 11:05:00 - [12] Originally by: Mankirks Wife I find the shortcoming of ACs are more than made up for by their light fitting requirements and superior range (esp. when compared to blasters) Exactly. Minmatar like to forget all the good sides and claim they are "worthless" but at the same time boost every down side of it to end up with a super weapon.
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.08.15 11:20:00 - [13] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 15/08/2008 11:20:22 Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Mankirks Wife I find the shortcoming of ACs are more than made up for by their light fitting requirements and superior range (esp. when compared to blasters) Exactly. Minmatar like to forget all the good sides and claim they are "worthless" but at the same time boost every down side of it to end up with a super weapon. I find that for this reason we have the least fittings on our ships and, please, don't ever call falloff 'range'. It's 'range with a damage reduction'. Unlike, say, lasers. Basically, a weapon which cannot compete with other races ships fitting their racial weapons at any range is broken regardless of its 'good sides', because it obviously means that their 'good sides' are totally irrelevant for PvP. This is evident in the BS league. If you cannot compete with lasers/torps at short range or at long range, then something is simply broken. You cannot have weapon types superior at all ranges compared to a competitior, or they're overpowered (or their competitors underpowered). All the theoretical good sides are worthless if you're going to die whenever you meet a equally skilled pilot in another race's ship. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Transmaniacon Minmatar Strike-Force-Alpha	Posted - 2008.08.15 12:25:00 - [14] Heh, I dont know if I have the energy to recap all the discussion from other threads, but ill try; AC - Very low optimal, damage at that range is trumped by blasters. When fighting in falloff, damage is reduced along with hit quality, meaning very low DPS numbers at optimal + falloff, somewhere around 39% (from the perceived 50%). Close range T1 ammo has less base damage than any other, and falloff and damage does not scale properly with the size of the gun. These points mainly affect large artillery. A solution can be found in here Solution Artillery - Very low tracking, and clip size. When fighting in falloff, damage and hit quality are reduced. The shorter range of artillery in fleet fights means falloff will be used, and therefore DPS is already lowered from the start. Low clip size means reloading often, further reducing damage output. Alpha is no longer what Minmatar are good at as both torpedoes and tachyon lasers excel at this. Similar ammo problems arise, and a possible boost to EMP to be put on par with Anti-matter for example is needed. Possible solutions gathered from 37 pages of discussion: Solution Battleships - Typhoon: Requires training in drones, gunnery, missiles, armor tanking, high fitting skills, BS V, all to make it effective. It requires much more than other races tier 1 BS, and more than most T2 ships. With the recent mass addition, it now loses its one great quality. Improving the bonuses could be a solution, since it has only one bonus. A RoF boost to its weapons, suggestions could be improving that RoF boost, a drone boost, or possibly a utility boost to cap warfare, electronic warfar, etc. Flipping the armor and shield ammounts is also needed as this ship IS an armor tanker. Tempest - Double bonuses are useless when lasers and cruise missiles can yield higher DPS. Tanking is difficult, and its sluggish. Suggestions, improve agility and speed, move a mid slot to a low slot. Refer to This thread for more details. Maelstrom - An effective ship with a huge tank, but very slow. It shines as an AC boat, but does not have the ability to get to range. Suggestions include making the shield boost ammount bonus a shield HP boost bonus, but it would remove the pattern of tier 3 tanking BS. Maelstrom with improved weapons would be a great ship. Capital Ships - Nidhoggur has a weak tank. It can either put out a half assed armor or shield tank, and is often primaried for an easy kill. The rep bonus is great, but its also its downfall as the enemy knows this and will kill it. Giving it another low slot or mid slot would allow for a stronger tank, but others will need to go into further detail on the subject. Refer to This thread for more details. Nagflar - Split weapons systems means twice the training time required, and the nagflar needs 4 damage mods to achieve similar DPS of the other dreads. Again, weak tank makes it an easy target. More info in the above linked thread. Additional Sources: 1400mm Artillery 1400mm's Tempest's Need's
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.15 15:43:00 - [15] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Mankirks Wife I find the shortcoming of ACs are more than made up for by their light fitting requirements and superior range (esp. when compared to blasters) Exactly. Minmatar like to forget all the good sides and claim they are "worthless" but at the same time boost every down side of it to end up with a super weapon. So many people that don't fly minmatar in this thread. That argument would have some sort of merit if our upper tier autos were useful, but they're not.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.08.15 15:49:00 - [16] Originally by: AstroPhobic Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Mankirks Wife I find the shortcoming of ACs are more than made up for by their light fitting requirements and superior range (esp. when compared to blasters) Exactly. Minmatar like to forget all the good sides and claim they are "worthless" but at the same time boost every down side of it to end up with a super weapon. So many people that don't fly minmatar in this thread. That argument would have some sort of merit if our upper tier autos were useful, but they're not. Minmitar is the race that I WISH worked better. I love their ships and their ideas but to be completely honest even the ships that are GOOD require a fair number of ships to function. Look at the vagabond - by itself it's nothing but a heavy tackler. Get 5 of them and you have a forced to be reconed with. Plus I've flown caldari for so long I don't know how I'd ever be able to fight without the loser sounds of railguns or the pretty orange blobs, and if my ship doesn't have a faint white glow around it I always think I've forgotten to turn on my hardners.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.15 15:53:00 - [17] Minnie has never had a strong base around their ships or weapons. The time when they were truly dominant was because of nos and multispec ECM... Everytime I see someone say "Tempest is fine I see xyz pwn with it in this video" I am more and more convinced that everyone views minnie as they were 2 years ago.
Stab Wounds Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.08.15 15:57:00 - [18] ac are fine, devs would have dun somthin about dem if they weren't. ask Garmon if he thinks ACs suck http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=832638
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.15 16:01:00 - [19] Originally by: Stab Wounds ac are fine, devs would have dun somthin about dem if they weren't. ask Garmon if he thinks ACs suck You get stupider and stupider with every post. 38.5% damage at optimal + falloff. 38.5%
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.08.15 16:04:00 - [20] Originally by: AstroPhobic Minnie has never had a strong base around their ships or weapons. The time when they were truly dominant was because of nos and multispec ECM... Everytime I see someone say "Tempest is fine I see xyz pwn with it in this video" I am more and more convinced that everyone views minnie as they were 2 years ago. Well, look at what people have to deal with - the Vagabond is one of the most comon nano boats out there and I'm fairly convinced is the basis for the invlnerability claims. Alone it's a meaningless tackler with pathetic DPS (100 dps isn't going to kill much - and that's about what a mwding vaga can deliver) but you never see them alone. You see them in swarms of 5 or more where 1 is tackling at breakneck speeds and the rest are blowing through the ac ammo like popcorn - often leading to the impression that the vaga has more innate combat potential that it really does. The BS question however is most certainly skewed by past experience. Back when solo BS fights were common all those upsides like capless weapons, utility slots and general flexability led to the complete own setups people remember. Now that NOS sucks and ECM sucks harder on non bonused ships the true solo options in the BS class have all gone away. In the gang based format cap is meaningless because you aren't active tanking anyway and it's a very poor battleship that runs it's cap out on hardners alone. All that really matters is you ability to deliver effective, brutal damage on target and your ability to withstand the same - the two things minmitar battleships fail to do. When you make a claim like that people sputter something incoherent about alpha strike but such people are silly. Tachy sporting amarrian battleships best the minmitar 1400mm alpha in reality and in theory, all the while delivering much higher levels of DPS. The cruise missile raven has an alpha of 3500 + damage of any flavor, and the torp raven has an alpha of well over 5k damage - again of any flavor.
Norwood Franskly Minmatar Fleet of the Damned Dark Trinity Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.15 17:46:00 - [21] To be honest I think Medium and to some extent small projectiles are nicely balanced, It's large projectiles which are borked. 180, 220 and 425 Ac's each have there uses, mainly in tracking and damage increases by moving up or down tiers. EFT whoring suggests you don't get much out of upgrading to 425's but actual practice on my part has founds certain ships shine with the upper tier 425mm Ac's the Sleipnir for instance. I'm also a fan of the superior tracking of the 180's on a ship like the stabber. For the most part though the mid tier 220mm is the staple AC of choice a good trade between damage fitting and tracking... The only shame is due to the nature of the "nano age" combat (which lets face it if your mounting medium AC's in pvp chances are your either flying or shooting a nano ship) A web equals death so your more or less forced to equip the venerable Barrage M ammo. We may have choice when it comes to ammo and damage type but have a look at the ships you kill, chances are your going to see a select subset of the ammo in the cargo, Barrage M, EMP and occasionally Phased Plasma, the rest aren't really used in pvp. Because of the way webs work (and now perhaps scrams) your going to fight in falloff and by now most people have learnt to live with the issues associated, which generally means your hitting for less damage and the hits you score are of a poorer nature. To compensate I'd be in favor of say upping the base damage on projectile slightly to in part mitigate some of the penalties inherent in falloff, if CCP can lower resistances just for laser damage they shouldn't have huge issues slightly tweaking base damage on a couple of types of ammo. The medium Artillery are also nicely balanced a set of 720 II's are nice but on certain ships the tight fitting often mandates downgrading to 650's, it's a trade off between low slots for fitting mods or for an armor tank, which is why I often like to use artillery on the shield tanking boats like the cyclone, where you can fit the upper tier guns and the pds's required and not gimp your tank. The damage and rof of a single artillery is not so hot but they work well in volleys (yeah alphas not everything but as my Dad says "it's better then a poke in the eye with a blunt stick") on a boat loaded up with turret slots, like say a hurricane, rupture or a cyclone a compliment of artillery does nice damage and it brings a smile to my face to see the big chunks of the hp bar it tears out at once, on a ship like the rapier where you can only fit 2 or 3 artilleries the damage is worthless. If i'm doing small gang stuff in a non nano fleet, I'll do it in a 720mm or occasionally a 650mm fit BC and I often see myself above similar ac fit ships on the killmails , if you have tackle in your gang they are excellent and quite underestimated. Although now I can fly a Sleipnir I'll probably revert back to using AC's since they have a nice bonus to falloff range anyway. Small calibre guns are lol anyway for most pvp so no huge issues there. I find myself rarely if ever using small artillery, most frigates I fly are for roles where I expect to or want to be up close and have no need to be fitting artillery, on the occasions I do think about using it there's often not the fitting required. But large projectiles on the other hand just plain suck, unlike medium the large AC tiers mean squat and there all about as useless as each other. Theres been a myriad of *****ing about large artillery suffice to say they are the worst fleet guns of the lot at the moment and are probably the most desperate for a fix.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.15 17:52:00 - [22] Small/Medium/Large, they all suck. It's just easiest to see at the large gun scale.
Greckor Monmouth THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.08.15 18:51:00 - [23] Originally by: AstroPhobic Small/Medium/Large, they all suck. It's just easiest to see at the large gun scale. suck? no. Need a boost? hell yes. I usually argue agaisnt all the minnie whiners because they want some pretty rediculous things. However large projectiles are not in line witht he other weapons. med arty i would say needs a little boost as well. I do like the small projectiles, but wouldnt be agaisnt a boost for them Tempest-neeeeeeeeeeds a good buff minnie caps-neeeeeeed something typhoon-i love it, however so very skill intensive..... Munnin-nobody talks about it, but a little buff to it would make me soo happy, not a big one, just a tiny little tweaking.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.15 19:05:00 - [24] It has little to do with the ships, it has a lot more to do with the weapons. I promise you. 38.5% at optimal + falloff. 38.5%.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.08.15 19:10:00 - [25] Originally by: AstroPhobic It has little to do with the ships, it has a lot more to do with the weapons. I promise you. 38.5% at optimal + falloff. 38.5%. The counter to this is all guns suck at optimal + falloff. The counter to that counter is Rail/lasers/pulse lasers have gobs of optimal and slim falloff rantes.
AstroPhobic Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.15 19:11:00 - [26] Go go 18km optimal for 800 IIs + a bit falloff increase please!
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.08.15 19:15:00 - [27] Originally by: AstroPhobic Go go 18km optimal for 800 IIs + a bit falloff increase please! If it weren't for the sheer inadequacy of minnie guns I'd switch from caldari in a heatbeat. Finally I could be the hero of a battle and not just "that guy doing something with missiles or something".
Kahega Amielden Minmatar 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.15 19:30:00 - [28] The web nerf should help quite a bit. I know people are forecasting DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM for minmatar, but not having to fit Barrage every fight should be pretty nice. Although maybe arty/battleships still need a boost, I dunno.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.15 19:35:00 - [29] Originally by: Kahega Amielden The web nerf should help quite a bit. I know people are forecasting DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM for minmatar, but not having to fit Barrage every fight should be pretty nice. Although maybe arty/battleships still need a boost, I dunno. No dude, the web nerf hurts all turrets, but hurts blasters and autocannons the most. On that note, I've had alot of success ganking megathrons on test with a standard 1 gyro Autopest. :) Of course, I do this by virtue of a tracking disruptor right in the middle of his optimal range. :-/ -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
NightmareX MAFIA Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.08.15 20:23:00 - [30] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Kahega Amielden The web nerf should help quite a bit. I know people are forecasting DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM for minmatar, but not having to fit Barrage every fight should be pretty nice. Although maybe arty/battleships still need a boost, I dunno. No dude, the web nerf hurts all turrets, but hurts blasters and autocannons the most. On that note, I've had alot of success ganking megathrons on test with a standard 1 gyro Autopest. :) Of course, I do this by virtue of a tracking disruptor right in the middle of his optimal range. :-/ -Liang Ding, you have done the same as i have done, i have had a very high success as well against lots of ships. So far i have had 9 fights against Megathrons, and 7 of them have died. 3x Maelstroms, and all of them have died horribly to me. 3x Ravens, lost to one of them. 2x Typhoons, and lost to one of them. 2x Kronos'es, and won over one. 1x Apoc and killed it. 1x Abaddon and also won over it. But i have had one fight against a Dominix and a Hyperion where i lost to both of them. But this is with the web and speed nerf. So i would say the Tempest works pretty damn good in small engagements (Small scale PVP) on sisi with the changes there. I have 6x Dual 650mm t2 AC guns, 2x Heavy neuts, 1 ECM Multispec. 1x Tracking Disruptor and one LAR II, 1x DC II, 2x EANM II's, 1x 1600mm Rolled Plate, 1x Gyrostab II with 3x T2 Trimarks (T1 on TQ). Rest on the ship is just normal PVP fit.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: 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.