| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
I SoStoned
   |
Posted - 2008.08.25 22:51:00 -
[31]
And CCP wants to get people away from farming missions, and then make LP store goods the biggest ISK print in the game... re: Faction ammo superior to pretty much every ammo type out there and cheap as chips to produce.
|
Original Copy
Forge Regional Security
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 05:28:00 -
[32]
Yep.
Faction ammo has wiped the market for people producing T2 ammos of any sort (wether invented or BPO) for 1/10th the effort put in by the science/industry folks.
Nerf faction ammo into oblivion just like T2.
|
Dirtee Girl
Omega Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 10:56:00 -
[33]
t2 ammo ? is that still around ?
*
* |
MirrorGod
Heretic Militia
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:14:00 -
[34]
Signing only that faction should not be nerfted, and ffs, whatever you do, don't change scorch crystals, they're fine.
Save Small Gang Warfare |
MirrorGod
Heretic Militia
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:32:00 -
[35]
 Originally by: MirrorGod
Signing, but only with hope that faction should not be nerfed, and ffs, whatever you do, don't change scorch crystals, they're fine.
Save Small Gang Warfare |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:29:00 -
[36]
High damage ammo for short range guns needs a definite buff - I'd personally do it by lowering the penalties.
Personally, I'd do something like this:
Void:
Optimal - same (0.75x)
Falloff - reduced penalty (0.75x)
Tracking - no penalty (or 0.9x)
Making it different then faction ammo - slightly better optimal, slightly worse falloff, both track the same (or slightly reduced tracking for Void) since they're both short-range ammunitions, and it's harder to track close-range...
Conflag:
Optimal - same (0.5x)
Falloff - no penalty
Tracking - no penalty (or 0.9x)
Again, makes it different then faction ammo (Conflag has different damage types at the price of higher activation cost), remove the tracking penalty altogether because, well, it's short range ammo, and you need the tracking at short ranges.
Hail:
Optimal - no penalty
Falloff - same (0.5x)
Tracking - no penalty (or 0.9x)
Again, makes it different then faction ammo: it has optimal, but its falloff is completely killed (while minmatar faction ammo has a generous falloff). Needs tracking as it is a short range weapon system. Hail also nerfs your cap recharge, but I think we can live with that.
In case you didn't see what I did there, you generally would get -50% range (and increased cap use or cap regen nerf in case of Hail), with -10% tracking at worst. That'd make high damage ammo a interesting alternative to faction ammo.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
ian666
Rave Technologies Inc.
C0VEN
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 14:05:00 -
[37]
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 21:32:00 -
[38]
Just need to roll this back up to page 1 so the CSMs might actually see it.
|
Original Copy
Forge Regional Security
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 11:39:00 -
[39]
This needs to be brought back to the front page and kept there.
Let's get a word, a fix, something... even a vote for love of whatever!
|
Zara Skyray
DEADLY RENEGADE ELITE ASSASSIN MERC SQUAD
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 15:56:00 -
[40]
Supported.
T2 ammo is inferior to faction ammo by a significant margin, and often is inferior to its T1 equivalents. My .02isk is that the cap and speed penalties should be removed from all faction ammo, and T2 heavy missiles should have their range penalty removed as well. These penalties are simply too severe. I would NEVER use rage missiles on any ship I pilot, and the DPS penalty for precisions make them useless more often than not.
|
Stoned Witch
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 12:10:00 -
[41]
Yeahsigned... when a T2 item is signifigantly worse than it's base T1 counterpart, much less the faction equivalents, then something is terribly out of whack.
Currently only HAM rage can go further than it's T1 counterpart, all others go about half the range (why in Eve do javelin/precisions go only 1/2 as far as a T1 base version, that's just stupid!).
Explosion velocities need to be double the missile's flight velocity (i.e. a 5km/s missile should have a 10km/s detonation). This will enable the few missiles that can hit nanophags to actually scratch their paint, if not much more than that.
Also:
F.o.F. missiles and defenders are terribly flawed in so very many ways.
Defenders need to function across a fleet spread, allowing for the use of dedicated missile screening ships, and larger missiles need to be tougher requiring more defenders to destroy (citedels, cruise, ect).
FoF, since they spread their fire around, need to do 25-50% more damage than their T1 counterparts, move considerably faster, and have very large/swift explosion radii. They also need descrimination, much as drones have now, to focus on large (cruisers, bs, larger), medium (dessies, frigates, fighters), and small (drones) via a drop-down on the stack in cargo (making that the default behavior for the entire stack until changed).
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 13:18:00 -
[42]
Bumping this issue back up front.
Maybe the CSM's just don't give a damn, but it'd be worthwhile to say something.
|
NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 02:39:00 -
[43]
CCP likes these threads to go the math route, so here's my analysis:
Increasing optimal/falloff increases the arc length at that range, raising the necessary absolute velocity to achieve necessary radial velocity to avoid being hit by a turret. Thus a range increases and tracking increases both work to increase the overall hit envelope for a turret.
Scorch:
25% penalty to tracking -- lowers hit envelope
50% bonus to range -- increases hit envelope
No goofy third bonus -- ammo is useful
Conflagration:
25% penalty to tracking -- lowers hit envelope
50% penalty to range -- lowers hit envelope
Goofy third bonus -- ammo sucks cap quickly :-/
This is the pattern for all tech 2 short range ammo.
Long range ammo gets one bonus that increases hit envelope and one that reduces it. However, short range ammo gets two "bonuses" that both reduce hit envelope and a goofy bonus that further works to make it useless.
Motion to instead give short range ammo a tracking bonus so that, like long range ammo, it has one bonus and one penalty to its overall tracking envelope.
---------------------------------------
Originally by: Red Raider
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
|
Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 11:48:00 -
[44]
Totally agree that T2 ammo needs some rebalancing!
I make and sell one particular type that has been mentioned here, so I suppose you could say I have a vested interest. That said, the short-range ammo types have had a raw deal...maybe CCP wants ammo to be free? Anyway, I'm hoping not and will ask some CSM members to support this...
Take care,
Arithron
|
Hisa Me
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 21:07:00 -
[45]
T2 Ammo needs this
|
Sarin Adler
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 00:11:00 -
[46]
the current situation is nonsensical
---
Alts, the root of all evil. |
abraheam
Dirty Denizens
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 00:26:00 -
[47]
Supported.
|
Rhaegor Stormborn
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 01:38:00 -
[48]
Support this idea.
|
nightrain914
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 04:42:00 -
[49]
Yeah, what's up with T2 ammo? 
|
nightrain914
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 04:46:00 -
[50]
forgot this
|
Kyle Cataclysm
Blue.
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 08:29:00 -
[51]
signed.
|
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 14:00:00 -
[52]
Now. If we dont want faction ammo nerfed significantly. Wouldnt it be better to have close range T2 ammo be... well, close range? As in, less damage than normal, but higher tracking, maybe even bonus to gun sig resolution/explo velocity?
|
BlondieBC
Minmatar
7th Tribal Legion
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 15:29:00 -
[53]
Against
Faction gear should be better than T2, it only makes since that big empires keep the best stuff to themselves. It is realistic. Who has better bombs, USA or Chile?
I think a better route would be to have T2 faction items that combine the bonuses. It would of course be hugely expensive, but would make sense.
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 20:56:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Mister Xerox on 08/09/2008 20:57:03
Originally by: BlondieBC
Against
Faction gear should be better than T2, it only makes since that big empires keep the best stuff to themselves. It is realistic. Who has better bombs, USA or Chile?
I think a better route would be to have T2 faction items that combine the bonuses. It would of course be hugely expensive, but would make sense.
T2 does not need to be 'better' than faction, but it needs to be equal to its T1 version, which for many T2 ammo types this simply is not true because of the pointless stacking nerfs on it.
Make the nerfs single-issue regardless of the quantity of bays loaded and it would actually be functional. Currently the idiotic limitations make using base T1 far superior, and Faction renders most T2 flat useless (esp caldari, which is being farmed to death because of the insane profit margin on faction missiles).
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 08:07:00 -
[55]
The T2 'range' ammos are ok. Maybe a little too powerful, but their penalties counterbalance.
Spike, Barrage, Null, Scorch, Aurora, Tremor.
They are all useful, because whilst they have penalties, they add a capability - ability to 'stand off' a little further.
The T2 'damage' ammos are basically inferior to faction - in most cases they're doing _very marginally_ more damage, if any at all (Fury Cruise missiles do exactly the same as faction, for example).
The reason is simple - 1% more damage is acceptable for capacitor cost, and sometimes range, but not shorter range _and_ worse tracking.
T2 'damage' ammos should, IMO, simply be a -75% range ammo with a high cap cost. (Where relevant). So it's just another notch 'down' the range ladder, in return for about 5% more damage than faction gets.
Range reduction might be reasonable to apply to falloff too, but tracking is what kills this stuff stone dead - there's very few situations where 1% more damage, with a tracking reduction is useful.
--
Crane needs more grid
249km locking? |
Kaillan Atreides
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 08:12:00 -
[56]
I agree, a lot of faction/t2 items need work.
|
Devilish Ledoux
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 09:24:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Devilish Ledoux on 10/09/2008 09:25:07
I think you'd go a long way towards making T2 ammo better by reducing or removing the often massive penalties for their use. This is especially true with most T2 missiles. People use faction ammo now because it's all benefit, no drawback (other than cost, which isn't that significant).
_
|
TordenSkiold
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 23:11:00 -
[58]
Edited by: TordenSkiold on 10/09/2008 23:10:57
Supported!
|
Mutabae
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 04:21:00 -
[59]
T2 short range is lol. Please make it not-suck-so-much!
kthx
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 11:56:00 -
[60]
You know, I realized something when someone pointed it out to me.
Where the nerf on an ammo effects a weapon (increased power usage, tracking reduction, range reduction, ect), only that single weapon is affected and it is only affected once, by the ammo it has fitted. The weapon is not adversely affected by the other weapons also loaded with the same ammo type.
Where the nerf on an ammo affects the ship itself (energy regen, velocity, handling, ect), they stack, one on top of another until the ship is so crippled it makes absolutely no sense to use those ammo types except in very closed situations (typically PvE).
THIS is something CCP seriously needs to look into, for it adversely affects missile users beyond any other ammo type. Hail also has stacking penalties to the using ship (cap recharge).
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |