EVE Search - [ISSUE] - Balance T2 & Faction Ammos

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[ISSUE] - Balance T2 & Faction Ammos

» 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)
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.08.22 23:14:00 - [1] Currently mission farmers can crank out faction ammo at a tenth the amount of time it takes a builder to produce the T2 anologue from a researched BPO, and sell said faction ammo at stupid rates of profit. CCP needs to look into the faction ammo issue and modify T2 so that it is no longer overshadowed by a T1 ammo that can be produced by the 5000-unit lot in 1/10th the time it takes to build the same quantity from a researched T2 BPO (much less an invented T2 BPC). Currently T2 is laughable. Few would bother when T1 faction is more available and has none of the idiotic nerfs.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.08.22 23:14:00 - [2] Currently mission farmers can crank out faction ammo at a tenth the amount of time it takes a builder to produce the T2 anologue from a researched BPO, and sell said faction ammo at stupid rates of profit. CCP needs to look into the faction ammo issue and modify T2 so that it is no longer overshadowed by a T1 ammo that can be produced by the 5000-unit lot in 1/10th the time it takes to build the same quantity from a researched T2 BPO (much less an invented T2 BPC). Currently T2 is laughable. Few would bother when T1 faction is more available and has none of the idiotic nerfs.
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.08.22 23:33:00 - [3] Agreed. Faction stuff should (in my opinion) always offer an edge over the corresponding T1 and T2 equivalents, but in the case of many T2 ammo types, the disadvantages are too extreme. -- Becq Starforged Ushra'Khan The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.23 01:35:00 - [4] I agree T2 ammo needs buffs, but it is still cheaper than faction ammo. Production time is nice to talk about, but according to the market it doesn't seem to matter much. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Hesod Adee Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.23 02:59:00 - [5]
Strill	Posted - 2008.08.23 03:47:00 - [6] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I agree T2 ammo needs buffs, but it is still cheaper than faction ammo. Production time is nice to talk about, but according to the market it doesn't seem to matter much. Federation Navy Antimatter charges do: 55.2 damage -50% optimal range Void T2 short-range Blaster charges do 56 damage -25% optimal -50% tracking -50% falloff +25% capacitor use. Why in the world would any sane person ever use void ammo!? It gives a "massive" 1.45% damage increase over faction antimatter, but makes your guns miss every shot! There's just no reason to ever use it. Heck, even if you don't run missions you can just buy faction ammo off a contract.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.23 05:39:00 - [7] Originally by: Strill Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I agree T2 ammo needs buffs, but it is still cheaper than faction ammo. Production time is nice to talk about, but according to the market it doesn't seem to matter much. Federation Navy Antimatter charges do: 55.2 damage -50% optimal range Void T2 short-range Blaster charges do 56 damage -25% optimal -50% tracking -50% falloff +25% capacitor use. Why in the world would any sane person ever use void ammo!? It gives a "massive" 1.45% damage increase over faction antimatter, but makes your guns miss every shot! There's just no reason to ever use it. Heck, even if you don't run missions you can just buy faction ammo off a contract. It's significantly cheaper, does a tiny bit more damage, and has a better optimal. If you're expecting the target to be webbed down to nothing, Void is actually significantly better than CNAM on most fits. Of course, expecting a target to be webbed down to nothing is a prediction that nothing whatsoever will go wrong, meaning it's a fairly dumb bet most people don't take, but it can be a good idea in a handful of circumstances. Now, I agree that most T2 ammos need a serious buff of one variety or another. That's really not in dispute. But my point was just that added production time is not a concern, because if it was then it'd be reflected in the market price of the ammos, and it's not. Void is cheaper, therefore it's easier to produce. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.08.23 06:56:00 - [8] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Void is cheaper, therefore it's easier to produce. Incorrect by a huge margin. Void is cheaper, and takes 500x the time to produce. CN Antimatter small can be produced by the 10-15k lot in the time it takes to run 1 lvl 4 mission. Producing a single run of Void S, with a researched BPO, takes at least 4 hours. T2 ammos need to be un-nerfed in a big way, and/or made to be considerably distinct when placed side-by-side with non-T2 analogues. OR... OR, mind you: Put nerfs on faction ammo!
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.08.23 07:01:00 - [9] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Now, I agree that most T2 ammos need a serious buff of one variety or another. That's really not in dispute. But my point was just that added production time is not a concern, because if it was then it'd be reflected in the market price of the ammos, and it's not. Void is cheaper, therefore it's easier to produce. Wrong Herschel. Sell price reflect only what people is willing to pay. Producing T1 ammunition with the same production slot can give better return sometime. Producing Quake L with a researched BPO give less than 900K day (and searching for the best market in several regions). Producing Antimatter L with the same slot and selling it without even leaving the station give 1.140.000 day. 27% more isk with less work. As you can see the buyer dictate the ammunition price, not the seller, so the sell price is not influenced by the production time.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.08.23 08:24:00 - [10] Faction ammo is inline with other faction items, ie being the same stats as T2 but none of the drawbacks. Faction ammo is also similarly much more expensive than T2 ammo. However, ammo is cheap, faction ammo to someone who PvPs is very cheap, so the price doesn't matter. So you are basically using a T1 item and throwing around faction quality into it, thus obsoleting T2 short range ammo. Even long range T2 ammo, the faction T1 has so much better tracking it is worth a look. I think most veteran players are a bit upset because it was long the standard that you need T2 weapons because T2 ammo is so awesome. A few nerfs later and faction ammo added and it is "Uhhh, where did my T2 advantage go?" Now I guess this is a boost for new players with lower skills, but the 2-10% spec bonus you get from T2 guns over T1 for guns that are harder to fit is what I get? Hmmmmm, well at least T2 is cheaper. Personally, I think faction ammo was given to be the star item when LP stores came out and possibly a boost to missile boats that usually shunned T2 ammo. Not a whole lot of balancing was thought out when CCP released faction ammo, where are my Republic Fleet cap booster 800 charges and my Faction dictor bubbles, come on I wants them. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.23 10:53:00 - [11] Originally by: Vaal Erit Personally, I think faction ammo was given to be the star item when LP stores came out and possibly a boost to missile boats that usually shunned T2 ammo. Not a whole lot of balancing was thought out when CCP released faction ammo, where are my Republic Fleet cap booster 800 charges and my Faction dictor bubbles, come on I wants them. Add true faction drones and not those things that come (rarely) from the drone regions.
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.23 11:39:00 - [12] Does anyone actually use damage T2 ammo? Range, sure - but damage? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.23 16:14:00 - [13] Originally by: Mister Xerox Incorrect by a huge margin. Void is cheaper, and takes 500x the time to produce. CN Antimatter small can be produced by the 10-15k lot in the time it takes to run 1 lvl 4 mission. Producing a single run of Void S, with a researched BPO, takes at least 4 hours. T2 ammos need to be un-nerfed in a big way, and/or made to be considerably distinct when placed side-by-side with non-T2 analogues. OR... OR, mind you: Put nerfs on faction ammo! Originally by: Venkul Mul Wrong Herschel. Sell price reflect only what people is willing to pay. Producing T1 ammunition with the same production slot can give better return sometime. Producing Quake L with a researched BPO give less than 900K day (and searching for the best market in several regions). Producing Antimatter L with the same slot and selling it without even leaving the station give 1.140.000 day. 27% more isk with less work. As you can see the buyer dictate the ammunition price, not the seller, so the sell price is not influenced by the production time. Edit: note with "give" I am speaking of the gain you make after all cost are calculated, not the raw isk you get from the sales. Raw isk for the Quake are (approximately) 2.400.000, for the Antimatter 3.550.000. Who defined "easier" as "takes less time"? There's a hundred other concepts that need to be considered, besides merely production time. Most notably, opportunity cost - by producing faction ammo, you're giving up the ability to produce faction gear or implants. Those tend to be less profitable, but not by too much if you look around, meaning the economic profit of faction ammo is not all that high. Also, Venkul, if Antimatter produces more isk per day for less effort than Quake, I ask what kind of ****** is still producing Quake. Antimatter BPOs are dirt cheap, and it's not hard to switch over production. Either sell Quake for an economic profit, or stop making it - I have no pity for you whatsoever if you're inflicting an economic loss upon yourself to win back sunk costs. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Opertone SIEGE. The Border Patrol	Posted - 2008.08.23 16:29:00 - [14] Edited by: Opertone on 23/08/2008 16:28:51 all t2 ammo needs to be balanced the t2 high damage rage torpedoes actually do less than basic t1 torps, they have 600 m signature, -5% to cap regeneration across the ship and 100 m/s velocity only javelin torps have clear advantage over CN torpedoes, 350 m sig, 50% more speed... but... CN torps with dual painters still do more damage to all targets, so i don't even bother with t2 torpedoes (SIEGE launchers II + CN navy torps ftw)
Darwin's Market	Posted - 2008.08.23 21:33:00 - [15] If you think faction ammo is so profitable, go grind that. T2 ammo has specific uses, for general use, use T1, and faction if you can afford. T2 does has never meant best possible item.
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2008.08.24 08:41:00 - [16] The problem herein is that T2 has been nerfed to the point that the disadvantages are too many to even consider its use. This is why even some PvP pilots fit T1 ammo in T2 weapon systems, because they couldnt be bothered to use T2 with the downsides, or couldnt afford faction ammo. -
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.24 09:49:00 - [17] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Originally by: Mister Xerox Incorrect by a huge margin. Void is cheaper, and takes 500x the time to produce. CN Antimatter small can be produced by the 10-15k lot in the time it takes to run 1 lvl 4 mission. Producing a single run of Void S, with a researched BPO, takes at least 4 hours. T2 ammos need to be un-nerfed in a big way, and/or made to be considerably distinct when placed side-by-side with non-T2 analogues. OR... OR, mind you: Put nerfs on faction ammo! Originally by: Venkul Mul Wrong Herschel. Sell price reflect only what people is willing to pay. Producing T1 ammunition with the same production slot can give better return sometime. Producing Quake L with a researched BPO give less than 900K day (and searching for the best market in several regions). Producing Antimatter L with the same slot and selling it without even leaving the station give 1.140.000 day. 27% more isk with less work. As you can see the buyer dictate the ammunition price, not the seller, so the sell price is not influenced by the production time. Edit: note with "give" I am speaking of the gain you make after all cost are calculated, not the raw isk you get from the sales. Raw isk for the Quake are (approximately) 2.400.000, for the Antimatter 3.550.000. Who defined "easier" as "takes less time"? There's a hundred other concepts that need to be considered, besides merely production time. Most notably, opportunity cost - by producing faction ammo, you're giving up the ability to produce faction gear or implants. Those tend to be less profitable, but not by too much if you look around, meaning the economic profit of faction ammo is not all that high. Also, Venkul, if Antimatter produces more isk per day for less effort than Quake, I ask what kind of **** is still producing Quake. Antimatter BPOs are dirt cheap, and it's not hard to switch over production. Either sell Quake for an economic profit, or stop making it - I have no pity for you whatsoever if you're inflicting an economic loss upon yourself to win back sunk costs. Boy, try to re-read your original post: Quote:** But my point was just that added production time is not a concern, because if it was then it'd be reflected in the market price of the ammos, and it's not. Void is cheaper, therefore it's easier to produce. I was proving that you were wrong as a help to you as you have stated in another thread that you are starting activity as an industrialist. Helping you remove some wrong idea seemed a good thing to do. Apparently instead you resent people that try to correct your wrong assumptions. Continue your way, you will have a future as industrialist if you cling to the opinion depicted byt your first post.
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant	Posted - 2008.08.24 14:12:00 - [18] .
GulletSplitter Maasai Tribal Products Independent Faction	Posted - 2008.08.24 15:21:00 - [19] Supported
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.24 17:01:00 - [20] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Who defined "easier" as "takes less time"? There's a hundred other concepts that need to be considered, besides merely production time. Most notably, opportunity cost - by producing faction ammo, you're giving up the ability to produce faction gear or implants. Those tend to be less profitable, but not by too much if you look around, meaning the economic profit of faction ammo is not all that high. Also, Venkul, if Antimatter produces more isk per day for less effort than Quake, I ask what kind of **** is still producing Quake. Antimatter BPOs are dirt cheap, and it's not hard to switch over production. Either sell Quake for an economic profit, or stop making it - I have no pity for you whatsoever if you're inflicting an economic loss upon yourself to win back sunk costs. Boy, try to re-read your original post: Quote:** But my point was just that added production time is not a concern, because if it was then it'd be reflected in the market price of the ammos, and it's not. Void is cheaper, therefore it's easier to produce. I was proving that you were wrong as a help to you as you have stated in another thread that you are starting activity as an industrialist. Helping you remove some wrong idea seemed a good thing to do. Apparently instead you resent people that try to correct your wrong assumptions. Continue your way, you will have a future as industrialist if you cling to the opinion depicted byt your first post. I never claimed T2 ammo does not take longer to produce - clearly it does. I claimed that, judging by the actions of industrialists, the added time taken by T2 ammo is far less relevant than the added costs of faction ammo. If the producers themselves don't care enough about the time taken to raise the prices above where they are now, why should I care on their behalf? I'm not a fanatic for the efficient markets hypothesis, but it's a pretty good first approximation, and thus I'll tend to assume that the price is set at the level which appropriately incorporates all costs, monetary and otherwise, borne by the producer. That may change if I get a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, but in that case my response will be to join the market and reap the economic profits, not to whine for a buff/nerf. I will agree that most T2 ammo needs a buff, but I will not agree that the buff should be in production time, since that looks to be basically irrelevant. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.24 17:42:00 - [21] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I will agree that most T2 ammo needs a buff, but I will not agree that the buff should be in production time, since that looks to be basically irrelevant. While a boost in the ammunition efficiency would be good, making them more used, build time is not "irrelevant" as you think. Look the build time: T2 large ammunitions 22+ hours before research and skills for 5K shots vs T1 large 4 hours 10 minutes for 5k shots T2 medium 11 hours+ for 5K shots against T1 4 hours 10 minutes for 5K shots T2 small 4 hours 20 min for 5K shots against T1 4 hours for 5K shots While the choice of keeping the same production time for all the kind of T1 ammunition is a strange one, the difference in production time for the large ammunition weight heavily on the returns. BPO checked: hybrid and projectile
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.25 01:52:00 - [22] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I will agree that most T2 ammo needs a buff, but I will not agree that the buff should be in production time, since that looks to be basically irrelevant. While a boost in the ammunition efficiency would be good, making them more used, build time is not "irrelevant" as you think. Look the build time: T2 large ammunitions 22+ hours before research and skills for 5K shots vs T1 large 4 hours 10 minutes for 5k shots T2 medium 11 hours+ for 5K shots against T1 4 hours 10 minutes for 5K shots T2 small 4 hours 20 min for 5K shots against T1 4 hours for 5K shots While the choice of keeping the same production time for all the kind of T1 ammunition is a strange one, the difference in production time for the large ammunition weight heavily on the returns. BPO checked: hybrid and projectile I did not say there wasn't a difference. I said that the difference in production time between faction ammo(essentially T1 times) and T2 ammo does not seem to be all that big a deal, when you look at the prices. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Takashi X2	Posted - 2008.08.25 03:19:00 - [23] First im confused... the orginal poster are you upset about the manufacturing times? or the useage? or did you try to mask one in the other Second no one has mentioned how freakin expensive faction ammo is comparitivly... take cruise missilse for instance t1 200-300 isk t2 300-500 isk F 1900-2200 for the "cheap" Cal navy stuff on top of that the profit margin isnt that great for faction ammo i find when trying to sell. im much better off buying implants wiht my lp as i would get more isk per lp
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.08.25 04:43:00 - [24] Originally by: Takashi X2 First im confused... the orginal poster are you upset about the manufacturing times? or the useage? or did you try to mask one in the other I can't be concerned at all about the manufacturing times, but faction (mission farming) ammos have it all over T2 (BPO or Invented) producers. While your T1 BPO is cranking out 5k units you're running anywhere from 1 to 10 missions (or more, many more). So, in the amount of time to crank out 5k Wrath Cruise (for example), you can convert them to CN Wrath and slap them on the market for 1900 ISK/U, which is 100% pure profit. The poor T2 producer has a nice BPO that costs 210 ISK/U, requires raking in half a dozen materials & T2 comps, and a full day in production time. And the ammo they get out of it sells for 30% of the free faction ammo, and is so nerfed that no one wants to buy it anyway. Thus, T2 ammo is relegated to back shelf because the introduction of faction ammo completely skewed the balance. T2 needs to be given a function and niche, or faction needs to be nerfed back to be a value between standard T1 and T2, not superior to. The only faction ammo that should have the possibility to be 'superior' to T2 should be the same as modules: complex/officer stuff, or perhaps even pirate faction by just a hair. Not easily accessed and free-to-produce Empire faction. Originally by: Takashi X2 Second no one has mentioned how freakin expensive faction ammo is comparitivly... take cruise missilse for instance t1 200-300 isk t2 300-500 isk F 1900-2200 for the "cheap" Cal navy stuff on top of that the profit margin isnt that great for faction ammo i find when trying to sell. im much better off buying implants wiht my lp as i would get more isk per lp Profit margin isn't that great??? WTF are you smoking? Faction is FREE to produce! The loot you pick up & refine, or the ores you mine very easily, produce cruise missiles for less than 10 ISK per unit. The LP earned while the 5k run is being produced is the only 'cost' involved at all, and is a pittance compared to the 2000 P/U cost you quoted above. If you can't profit selling faction ammo you're missing a whole lot of zeros on your sell order.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.25 06:11:00 - [25] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 25/08/2008 06:14:17 Originally by: Takashi X2 First im confused... the orginal poster are you upset about the manufacturing times? or the useage? or did you try to mask one in the other Second no one has mentioned how freakin expensive faction ammo is comparitivly... take cruise missilse for instance t1 200-300 isk t2 300-500 isk F 1900-2200 for the "cheap" Cal navy stuff on top of that the profit margin isnt that great for faction ammo i find when trying to sell. im much better off buying implants wiht my lp as i would get more isk per lp The T2 ammo price is low because it is not possible to sell them at a better price. No market. Faction ammunition has a good market so they can sustain a higher price. To Mister Xerox: LP have a value, so they are not free. They should be counted in the faction ammunition cost.
evilphoenix 3vil Industries Efferus Vehemens Inasnum Latrocinium	Posted - 2008.08.25 09:35:00 - [26] Yes! I'd bet, if the numbers were looked at, that t2 ammo gets very little use compared to faction ammo. --------
Molock Saronen	Posted - 2008.08.25 10:06:00 - [27]
REV001 Caldari VXR Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.08.25 10:53:00 - [28] T2 BPO's should be removed from the game, as they give unfair advantage compared to people who don't have a bpo. So no support
Throwaway Pilot	Posted - 2008.08.25 20:14:00 - [29] Originally by: REV001 T2 BPO's should be removed from the game, as they give unfair advantage compared to people who don't have a bpo. So no support /signed T2 BPOs can rot in hell.
El Yatta Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.08.25 21:58:00 - [30] Lol @ t2 bpo whiners - as if things weren't 100000x more balanced than the old days when ONLY 20-40 BPOs of each type existed. Try paying 350m for a Vagabond... tbh, t2 bpos are so irrelevant these days I have no idea how you find the energy to whine about them. As for the OP: yes. T2 ammo has been either broken omgwtfawesome or broken lame since day 1. It needs a total overhaul to be DIFFERENT to t1 and faction ammuntion: e.g. less damage than both, but extra effects (e.g. cap neutralising). _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces
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).
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.09.12 18:04:00 - [61] ------------------------------- Hi-Sec: A place for the average player to make a safe income, not the place for the average player to make the best income.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.09.12 22:19:00 - [62] There are a couple of false comparisons here. First of all you don't have to stare at your ammo being built, so yeah, the faction stuff may appear favorable in raw profit per hour, it probably doesn't compare so favorably to profit per hour played, and yeah, as someone pointed out, LP aren't free, since you could have bought something else with them that you could either use or sell, so they need to be factored into the cost. Aside from that, the "over farming" argument doesn't hold water. If they were truly "over farmed" they'd be dirt cheap, and you'd have nothing to complain about. I guess you could argue that if they were even less common, they'd be really really expensive and nobody would use them. All that aside, yeah T2 ammo (especially torps) need a boost to be comparable to faction, or at the very least attractive cost/benefit wise compared to T1.
Xeno Xandovar Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa	Posted - 2008.09.13 05:48:00 - [63] +1
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.09.15 12:12:00 - [64] Rolling this back on up to P1 so that maybe someone who gives a damn will take a look and make a comment. T2 inferior to base T1 = bad.
Miss Xerox	Posted - 2008.09.16 11:40:00 - [65] The CSM's say nothing concerning the rather glaring flaws in T2 ammo... yet they respond to really whacked out ideas that probably would not work (either supporting them or denigrating them, all without being constructive).
DEATHsyphon IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.09.16 12:22:00 - [66] supported -------------------- I'm not not going to pod you!
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.09.21 12:56:00 - [67] Okay, let's rotate this back to the front of the que to be ignored again by the CSMs.
Orion GUardian	Posted - 2008.09.21 23:23:00 - [68] /signed I dont see a reason to use T2 oer Faction i.e. making T2 Turrets obsolete if oyu got the money for faction
Pliauga Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.09.22 08:52:00 - [69] Supported ---------- DRONE love rulez!! 'mkay?! LONG range/"OUT OF SYSTEM" artillery
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.10.01 21:12:00 - [70] Ever wonder when the next CSM meeting is? They certainly don't post a schedule, nor the minutes that follow. Hmm, I smell something with the same longevity as Eve-TV. Ahh well, guess it's time to recycle this thread back to the front.
slightly sillydude	Posted - 2008.10.02 21:03:00 - [71] T2 autocannon ammo isn't awful, both hail and barrage, just sayin. The barrage penalties are fairly modest and the added damage of hail is significant.
Trist Ian Free Galactic Enterprises Violent-Tendencies	Posted - 2008.10.02 22:47:00 - [72]
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.10.05 21:03:00 - [73] Originally by: slightly sillydude T2 autocannon ammo isn't awful, both hail and barrage, just sayin. The barrage penalties are fairly modest and the added damage of hail is significant. Barrage affects gun tracking. As I stated before ammo that affects the gun only affects that gun and no other, so you only get one incidence of the penalty for that weapon. Hail affects your cap regen, so each weapon penalizes the ship as a whole. The penalties stack, reducing your capacitor regeneration to effectively nil while using Hail. If they do nothing more they should look at this unbalanced disparity that renders certain T2 ammos downright dangerous to attempt using (missiles most notably), and considerably less useful than their base T1 counterparts, much less faction.
Miss Xerox	Posted - 2008.10.22 21:07:00 - [74] Let's roll this back to the front so it can get lost among all the Ghost training whines (so much to-do about something that should have been nixed years ago). CSMs - do you even exist?
winthrowe Node Alpha Defense Research	Posted - 2008.10.23 17:45:00 - [75]
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.11.02 23:45:00 - [76] Getting a look at the latest minutes and... hey, a brief mention of the problems with precision missiles, but no definate stance concerning ammunition as a whole. One little tag line... hardly any sort of constructive examination of the massive problems with the stuff. Apparently the CSM's just don't use the stuff (wonder why? It sucks) so they simply don't give a damn.
BrainSeller BrainSeller Trade Consortium	Posted - 2008.11.03 16:33:00 - [77] supported --- WTB Standard / Improved / Strong Exile Booster BPCs
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.03 20:09:00 - [78] Actually, this CSM alt makes the stuff! It was discussed in the last CSM/CCP meeting and the CSM was told that T2 ammo was being reexamined soon. Hence, CCP already are looking at it... Take care, Arithron Vote Arithron for CSM! Check out my thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=899358
Silvana Kor'ah	Posted - 2008.11.04 01:16:00 - [79] word
Dogfighter	Posted - 2008.11.04 17:49:00 - [80] /signed
Disposeble Alt	Posted - 2008.11.07 14:09:00 - [81] something should have been done about this about 6 months and 3 threads ago Posts by alts hide political affiliation and history. No political statement by any alt should be taken seriously.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.11.07 14:25:00 - [82] I haven't heard anything good about T2 ammo changes with this upcoming content patch, that's for sure. Ship-affecting changes remain (notably: speed) and still stack on a per-weapon basis. Turrent-affecting nerfs remain, but they still lack the devastating affects of ship-wide nerfs. Thus, T2 ammo only gets worse under the current mechanic. Especially missiles, even with their changes taken into affect, under the new mechanic. Oh well.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.11.25 18:33:00 - [83] New CSMs, time to get another review of this subject.
Rogerano Minmatar Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.11.26 06:15:00 - [84] I like the idea of the the two types of special ammo (T2 or faction) having extra effects on target. As in: Conflag "emits an emp burst which slightly hinders cap recharge on target" or something like that. Kinetic ammos might cause a small amount of damage to automatically bleed down to the next protective layer. Hail might damage target speed or something. Void could add heat damage to target modules. --- Not happy with something in EVE? An emo whine will doubtless help your cause.
Bellum Eternus Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.26 10:43:00 - [85] IMO ALL faction ammo should be removed from the LP stores, and the penalties removed from T2 ammo. All the penalties. No more tracking, cap, speed, etc. And T2 ammo needs to be head and shoulders above T1. It has been nerfed so many times that it's now useless, and T1 equipped ships are now able to come very close to T2 performance without the massive skillpoint investment of T2 modules. Faction ammo needs to be very good, and very rare. Why not change all those T1 loot drops to some racial faction ammo? Make Gallente Navy BSs drop a few thousand Fed Navy Antimatter L rounds every once in a while. Make faction ammo more common than it used to be three years ago, but not what it is now. Current price for Fed Navy AM L is 900 ISK/unit, 10k units at that price. Void is offered at 200 ISK/unit and 5k units at that price. Either way, the faction ammo is so cheap, there's no reason not to use it. Hell, my gun repair costs are usually way more than my ammo costs or what I make in loot these days when I have to overheat my guns to break some stupid triple rep rigged exile booster overheated Dominix tank. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Stalina Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2008.11.26 10:49:00 - [86] /signed ________________ Originally by: Malcanis Hey I've got an idea: why don't you and your nerf-crying ilk never, ever post again. See what you've done. Look what you did. Now shush.
I SoStoned	Posted - 2008.11.26 19:00:00 - [87] Just double or triple the LP & ISK cost for faction ammo in the LP stores. And then remove the pointless nerfs on some of the T2 ammos (some T2 ammo has a 'nerf' that doesn't affect the ammo much at all... Barrage, for example, affects tracking but it is long range ammo where tracking counts for considerably less than short. Hail should've been tracking nerfed, like Void)
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.27 00:29:00 - [88] Originally by: I SoStoned Just double or triple the LP & ISK cost for faction ammo in the LP stores. And then remove the pointless nerfs on some of the T2 ammos (some T2 ammo has a 'nerf' that doesn't affect the ammo much at all... Barrage, for example, affects tracking but it is long range ammo where tracking counts for considerably less than short. Hail should've been tracking nerfed, like Void) Tripling the cost of faction ammo wouldn't even put a dent in my PVP costs. At all. And I'm sick of people with T1 guns and faction ammo nearly equaling the output of my T2 guns. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Ivena Amethyst	Posted - 2008.11.27 09:41:00 - [89] supported
Pattern Clarc	Posted - 2008.11.27 14:42:00 - [90] This one is going with me to Iceland ____ My Blog Is Awesome
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.11.27 18:06:00 - [91] Originally by: Pattern Clarc This one is going with me to Iceland How, sir? What changes are you going to put forward? Or are you just going to point out how T2 just 'does not work' under the current mechanic and leave it up to CCP to figure out?
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.11.27 20:00:00 - [92] threadnaught
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.11.27 20:00:00 - [93] threadnaught
Pattern Clarc	Posted - 2008.11.28 12:35:00 - [94] Originally by: Mister Xerox Edited by: Mister Xerox on 27/11/2008 20:26:21 threadnaught F*****ING CCP - half an hour typing a post and poof* stupid authentication screen wipes it. try again, use word or note pad this time. ____ My Blog Is Awesome
Koronakesh PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.28 17:02:00 - [95] Edited by: Koronakesh on 28/11/2008 17:04:53 Absolutely agreed, there is no reason whatsoever for me to use any form of Conflagration ammo over, say, Amarr Navy Multifrequency. Nerfs on T2 ammo need serious reduction to their penalties. I don't want to see nerfs on faction ammo though, just fix T2 damage ammo, ffs. Amarr Navy Multifrequency L 32.3 EM damage 23 Thermal damage -50% to optimal 1M isk per crystal limited use Conflagration L 28 EM damage 28 Thermal damage -50% to optimal 0.5 tracking multiplier +25% capacitor need 648k isk per crystal limited use Multifrequency L 28 EM damage 20 Thermal damage -50% to optimal 200k per crystal unlimited use Due to the severe tracking penalty, and the cap usage penalty (and we all know lasers drink cap like a hummer drinks petrol), there simply is no reason to use the limited, 3x more expensive T2 damage ammo over even it's cheap, unlimited T1 equivalent. P.S., agreeing with Mirrorgod from a while back, leave scorch the hell alone!! (edit: FYI, domain region prices used, lowest sell order)
Jenny Wimbishi	Posted - 2008.11.28 17:46:00 - [96] Edited by: Jenny Wimbishi on 28/11/2008 17:48:39 Yeah, the above example is a perfect one of how fked up T2 ammo is. The Conflag crystal has 3 nerfs, 1 of which stacks per weapon, and does less damage than the completely nerfless faction Multi (and have you seen what Dark Blood Multi does??? OMFG!). Remove all Nerfs from T2, period, end of statement. Faction is better and nerf free... okay, leave it that way, leave it 'better' than T2, but remove all the nerfs! Originally by:** Koronakesh P.S., agreeing with Mirrorgod from a while back, leave scorch the hell alone!! MG's da man! He bought a ton of Scorch off me at cost a while back.
BlondieBC Minmatar Ardent Industrial Arcane Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.29 18:08:00 - [97] I think a good solution would be allow Faction T2 ammo, with stacked bonuses and penalties.
I SoStoned	Posted - 2008.11.30 05:46:00 - [98] ... or add nerfs to faction to bring it in line with T2 as far as utility.
Jeirth Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.11.30 16:20:00 - [99] T2 ammo needs a revision since the introduction of Faction ammo. Also, why not make the faction ammo lp reward a limited run bpc?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.30 20:53:00 - [100] I don't think that there is a problem in tech 2 ammo becoming less available than faction ammo and less useful. In general, tech 2 ammos have a detrimental effect on gulf between new and old players. Short range faction ammos allow, at least in some instances, for that gap to be reduced. That is a good thing. Not a bad thing.
Kathy Vera Dark Collective	Posted - 2008.12.03 07:32:00 - [101] T2 closerange ammo really needs to be looked at now with the 60% webs. Absolutely unusable.
Suitonia Gallente interimo Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.09 11:58:00 - [102] What if we changed t2 close range turret ammo to have a tracking bonus (+25%?) rather than a tracking penalty, and reduce the damage to regular close range damage for t1 ammo [AM/MF/EMP]. I can think of quite a few scenario's where loading better tracking ammo would be useful. Faction ammo remains as useful as it is now, and is now the best damaging ammo.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.12.13 19:51:00 - [103] Well, back2front for another swift push back to page 5.
Solomon XI Hoist The Colors. Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.12.14 00:45:00 - [104] In point of fact, I do use SPIKE in place of T2 for long range & I do use VOID in place of anti-matter. It's dependent on the situation. I think stuff is fine. I think T2 needs less nerfing that it has tho.
Shikagi Sitami	Posted - 2008.12.16 04:14:00 - [105] Spike, Scorch, and Barrage are T2 ammos with per-weapon nerfs, so they only affect 1 weapon, keeping the nerfs at a relatively moderate level (they affect tracking). Null, Conflag, and Hail nerf the entire ship (tracking and/or speed, massive increase in Cap use, or reduction in cap regen rate) so every weapon loaded stacks with the others making for quite a hefty kick in the gonads. Oh, and they can't hit anything... :/ Remove the Nerfs entirely, adjust faction to have a unique role but not be the 'ultimate' necessity in PvP.
Shikagi Sitami	Posted - 2008.12.20 14:23:00 - [106] Not a whole lot of action on this anymore. Nor CSM response on much of anything these days. Any updates, Bunyip?
Manakid Tetsu	Posted - 2008.12.27 14:20:00 - [107] Edited by: Manakid Tetsu on 27/12/2008 14:20:49 Edited by: Manakid Tetsu on 27/12/2008 14:20:32 One of the issues I see with T2 Ammo is that really considering the time you put in to train to use it the benefits really arent there, the dissadvantages far outway any advantage it may have. Really makes training for T2 gear a dissadvantage, because its getting to the stage you could have trained 2 other skills in that time that would probably be more useful. Cost for good ammo for PVP isnt really a consideration.
Dantes Revenge	Posted - 2008.12.27 20:03:00 - [108] Edited by: Dantes Revenge on 27/12/2008 20:03:36 I'd agree. Most of the T2 ammo has disadvantages the outweight the advantages. I would use T2 crystals but faction crystals give me only a little less damage with no disadvantages at all. Faction should not be better than T2 since it has the same skill requirement of T1. It should be better than T1 since it's only a meta level of the T1 variant but T2 should always out-perform it. -- There's a simple difference between kinky and perverted. Kinky is using a feather to get her in the mood. Perverted is using the whole chicken. All this has happened before and will happen again
Macita DePuerco	Posted - 2008.12.28 00:02:00 - [109] I hope that council members are taking note of this discussion, I can tell you from personal experience in crafting professions, games such as SWG one of the capital mistakes that where made in a crafting system that was hailed as the best and most intricate crafting system ever created. They nerfed a lot of player created combat items in an attempt to provide better balance, however when the calls came out about other avenues of the game such as crappy lewt drops, they started creating and spawning lewt/NPC drops/Equipment etc, etc that was better than what could be created. My self like many others screamed at the top of our lungs that this is a dangerous direction it will hurt if not destroy the crafting professions. Ask any one that played SWG in a crafting profession it totally destroyed the profession. Now in Eve it is called manufacturing and fortunately their is a substantial amount of choices available to arm your defences, but heed the warning Lewt/drops from NPC (anything) that are better, cheaper, etc than manufactured items should be like 1 out of a million chances to get, if and when they became a regular item drop (as they now are) and their worth and abilities become better or greater than crafted/manufactured items(and they are), that's the end of that series of craft-able items. (production runs grinding to a halt). Do not go down this avenue! So how do you fix this well the faction ammo is already present leave it alone! FIX THE DAMN T2 AMMO. There should be a reason why peps should pay more (because T2 is better ammo) so were does that leave faction ammo, (not quite as good, and a little cheaper) so that faction ammo is still available and a viable commodity to those that may not be able to afford the best. And the T2 ammo once again has an actual reason to even exist, other wise If your not going to fix T2 ammo, I would say to you unlike what a lot of peps here have said don't kill the T2 ammo that is player a created commodity, get rid of the NPC uber dropped faction ammo all together. Lewt drop only affects the pocket of the person selling the commodity, player manufactured item affects the pockets from the manufacturer, to the developer of the BPO, all the way back to the miner, the choice is pretty simple.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.12.28 00:49:00 - [110] Edited by: Ephemeron on 28/12/2008 00:50:20 I am not a producer, but a user. I do think that faction Navy ammo is too cheap. It makes regular t1 ammo completely worthless (for anyone but poor noobs) The cost of buying faction ammo from agent should be increased 3x I don't support any other changes, other than price adjustment
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2009.03.21 13:15:00 - [111] Resurrecting this dusty old topic for the next round of CSMs to accomplish nothing with... all the old arguments are still the same.
Orion GUardian Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.22 20:55:00 - [112] Can only support it. Fury Missiles got a little use in some cases, but for majority T2 is inferior. [although I did support it already] To the ones saying faction is "for free": No it is not, 1. LP, can be invested elsewhere for ISK. 2. They cost money, too 2.4m for 5000 Hybrid L for example. 3. Minerals for T1 ammo isn't free either. They cost exactly the amount of IS you'd get for the minerals on the market if you sold those + slot cost 8only a few thousand though]
irion felpamy Minmatar HellJumpers Corp United For 0rder	Posted - 2009.03.23 14:42:00 - [113] There is nothing wrong with long range tech 2 ammo. The scorch tracking penalty may not matter much at optimal but your opponent may not let you fight there. These ammos have a purpose and get used, the short range ammo was a bit poo for minnie for whom it added a noticable ammount of damage over gimped emp/rf-emp and pretty horrible for the other races. With the web changes the tracking/range hits make these ammos pointless most fo the time, I know I have removed hail from most(not all) of my loadouts in favour of more boosters/emp/barrage/exotic dancers. Quick point to the cry abies complainging their tech 2 guns are not good enough....... get a grip! typicaly +8% damage from spec. raw stats equsal to best named. lower cost than best named for most weapons(very large for lasers). option to use both tech 2 ammos including the usefull one. I also don't see the point of the hating on the free faction ammo. It taks normal ammo + isk + Lp to make and the sell price has been forced down to tiny margins, only way to make cash with it is to shuip it to places where people want to supply without going to a hub and thats no different to anything else.
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2009.03.23 14:54:00 - [114] t2 ammo needs a boost/removal of stupid penalties. only t2 ammo that is actually used are some javelin/null types (range) and barrage. sometimes rage hams are good too but situational.
Random Womble Master Miners Electric Monkey Overlords	Posted - 2009.03.23 20:57:00 - [115] i dont completely agree with this for a number of reasons. While i do think some faction ammo and some T2 ammo is a bit screwed one way bear in mind theres also a screw the other way. For example while obviously for a vagabond faction EMP is normally best for close range work you would never choose pretty much any other faction ammo (possibly phased plasma at a push) because for slightly onger range work barrage is just insanely better than anything else. There is a similar story with long range guns, yes at close range faction EMP/Antimatter/Multifrequency is better than Quake/Gleam/Javelin but then at long range other than very occasionally when using HACs to kill frigates where tracking might matter Tremor/Aurora/Spike is way way better than faction carb lead/radio/iron due to not only its extra 20% range but also its much improved damage. At the same time faction guns now suck because of some T2 ammo being overpowered and someone even suggested faction guns should use T2 ammo which i approve of. My alternative to that would be make faction ammo for faction guns only however give some of the faction ammos some quirky bonuses. Anyway i will sign this because i would like faction guns discussed and that involves faction ammo so perhaps this will bring faction guns into discussion too. Finally the ammo issue really boils down to the fact that when T2 ammos were nerfed the close range ones got hit way way too hard and should recived more damage/much less negatives than currently (and they have more negatives than long range ones and yet no real positives) and possibly some positives like for example a speed boost on hail or void (since you need to burn in to use them) not a redction.
adriaans Ankaa.	Posted - 2009.03.23 22:38:00 - [116] Originally by: Malcanis Does anyone actually use damage T2 ammo? Range, sure - but damage? depending on situations yes, a rupture/cane with hail will wipe the floor with one using RF EMP for instance... another use is when you're shooting something 1 size larger than you... t2 always seems to beat faction then.. that said, i agree t2 ammo needs a -small- unerfing (read: remove some of the negative effects, remove tracking penalty would be awsome!). also, shortening the INSANE build times would be nice as well... -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr! Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail. QFT!
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2009.03.23 23:29:00 - [117] Blast from the past here. I know some of my thoughts are plastered all over page 1, but that was all negative. I've done some thinking, and here's some actual suggestions, instead of arguing. We've got three types of ammo. T1 is cheap, simple, and boring. Faction is expensive, simple, and does a lot of damage. T2 is expensive, complicated, tends to do a lot of damage, but is generally nerfed to hell and gone. The only T2 ammo that sees use is the stuff that gives you something novel at a cost that isn't unreasonable - Spike/Aurora/Tremor give you reasonable DPS at gargantuan range, and Scorch gives you the ability to fire pulse lasers at low-end beam ranges without sacrificing DPS. The other eight, however, are garbage - Void/Conflag/Hail give tiny DPS increases for massive penalties, Null/Barrage give range bonuses to weapons with no range, and Javelin/Gleam/Quake are just Void/Conflag/Hail zoomed out. Of the six range ammos, four are good, and Barrage is salvageable, likely by upping the falloff bonus. Null is problematic, but really, a +200% optimal bonus or something isn't totally unreasonable for blasters, and that'd sort of put it in the same category as the others. Of the six damage ammos, you've got a grand total of zero that are genuinely usable, and three that see some use in hyperspecialized fits or, more realistically, EFT pimping(I've even been guilty of the latter myself at times). This says to me that the "raw DPS" niche should be left to faction ammo, and T2 should find a new one. Many are possible, but the first that comes to mind is tracking. If Hail, instead of nerfing range and cap recharge to get DPS, instead did the same or less DPS than EMP at the same range, but had mods of -50% sig radius and +100% tracking speed, then it might see some use. It certainly wouldn't exist solely as a trap. As possible side benefits, you could quite conceivably make some kind of capless ammo for lasers and hybrids(no, capless lasers aren't broken when they use ammo), or a smaller charge size so an effectively limitless amount can fit in the guns, or even a lower ROF and a higher burst damage(especially on the artillery ammo) to up the alpha-strike damage. Maybe mix around the damage types somewhat too - who wouldn't like a projectile round that did all four damage types equally? These aren't definite suggestions, but they are ideas for a direction the devs could take the currently-lame T2 ammos in that would see at least a little bit of use, doesn't step on the toes of faction or T1, and doesn't require being nerfed into oblivion. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting!
Random Womble Minmatar Master Miners Electric Monkey Overlords	Posted - 2009.03.24 00:56:00 - [118] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Null/Barrage give range bonuses to weapons with no range Of the six range ammos, four are good, and Barrage is salvageable, likely by upping the falloff bonus. Null is problematic, but really, a +200% optimal bonus or something isn't totally unreasonable for blasters, and that'd sort of put it in the same category as the others. Here on barrage you are hugely wrong any decent minnie pilo will tell you barrage is god, if anything it is possibly the best T2 ammo around admittedly on frigates the diffrence is less noticable but on even a muninn or ru[ture wiht good skills barrage will get you a faloff of 14-15km rather than 9-10km and that gives you a huge advantage in certain circumstances. Not to mention the vagabond where you can get well over 20km falloff (over 30kms if you faloff rig it which now post QR is not unreasonable) and on larger ships (i like cheap rigged tempests) you can get 45km faloff. While you dont do max damage when fighting in faloff (obviously) any minmatar will tell an EFT warrior that thats where they fight so the EFT figures presented are not real (not that they every are) anyway my point is thats where we minmatar pilots fight and while it is not perfect and i would love an extra 200% falloff that would just be silly (vagas with up to 60km faloff or tempests with 90km). Remember at optimal + faloff you do 1/2 damage not 0 thats at optimal + 2x faloff. As for null yes its kind of broken but again +200% would just be silly it would also change the way each races close range guns are balanced (amarr longest but low tracking high damage, minmatar short but able to go longer but for loss of DPS good tracking lowish base damage (many minmatar ships have 2 damage bonus while amarr/gallente have just one to make up for this), gallente short good tracking, which some might not believe but check stats, and high damage) i would be more in favour of a 30-35% increase in both optimal and falloff rather than the +25% atm. However one problem null faces is not so much that its really that bad but more the idea that blasters must be used at point blank range.
Jalif Black Sinisters	Posted - 2009.03.24 14:21:00 - [119] \|Black Sinisters\|
Vardemis Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.03.24 15:25:00 - [120] Edited by: Vardemis on 24/03/2009 15:25:14 Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto [...] It gives a "massive" 1.45% damage increase over faction antimatter, but makes your guns miss every shot![...] There are situations when you want the 1.45% extra damage and where you will not miss any shot. So it has a role, a fairly limited one, but it still offers an advantage, one almost as good as training the specialization skill a level and when you have that at 5 already you look for more opportunities to increase your damage. -Vardemis
CrestoftheStars Recreation Of The World	Posted - 2009.03.25 04:53:00 - [121] Edited by: CrestoftheStars on 25/03/2009 04:55:23 Originally by: Becq Starforged Agreed. Faction stuff should (in my opinion) always offer an edge over the corresponding T1 and T2 equivalents, but in the case of many T2 ammo types, the disadvantages are too extreme. agreed. BUT the faction stuff should req the same skills as t2, and the officer modules should require the max skills of t2 (for a launcher officer, it should req the specialized skill at lvl 5. the better the mods/ships the higher the skill req should be. but the t2 ammo shouldn't have the nerfs reduced, just their dmg boosted( big penalty, and big bonus too use) ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2009.03.25 17:13:00 - [122] Originally by: Random Womble Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Null/Barrage give range bonuses to weapons with no range Of the six range ammos, four are good, and Barrage is salvageable, likely by upping the falloff bonus. Null is problematic, but really, a +200% optimal bonus or something isn't totally unreasonable for blasters, and that'd sort of put it in the same category as the others. Here on barrage you are hugely wrong any decent minnie pilo will tell you barrage is god, if anything it is possibly the best T2 ammo around admittedly on frigates the diffrence is less noticable but on even a muninn or ru[ture wiht good skills barrage will get you a faloff of 14-15km rather than 9-10km and that gives you a huge advantage in certain circumstances. Not to mention the vagabond where you can get well over 20km falloff (over 30kms if you faloff rig it which now post QR is not unreasonable) and on larger ships (i like cheap rigged tempests) you can get 45km faloff. While you dont do max damage when fighting in faloff (obviously) any minmatar will tell an EFT warrior that thats where they fight so the EFT figures presented are not real (not that they every are) anyway my point is thats where we minmatar pilots fight and while it is not perfect and i would love an extra 200% falloff that would just be silly (vagas with up to 60km faloff or tempests with 90km). Remember at optimal + faloff you do 1/2 damage not 0 thats at optimal + 2x faloff. As for null yes its kind of broken but again +200% would just be silly it would also change the way each races close range guns are balanced (amarr longest but low tracking high damage, minmatar short but able to go longer but for loss of DPS good tracking lowish base damage (many minmatar ships have 2 damage bonus while amarr/gallente have just one to make up for this), gallente short good tracking, which some might not believe but check stats, and high damage) i would be more in favour of a 30-35% increase in both optimal and falloff rather than the +25% atm. However one problem null faces is not so much that its really that bad but more the idea that blasters must be used at point blank range. I'm not a minnie pilot, and I don't know any minnie pilots who use Barrage, but I acknowledge that it likely has some utility sometimes. Thing is, look at what ship would generally use it. When I think of a ship that wants long falloff on its ACs, I think of a Vagabond or something similar, that likes fighting in the 15-20 km range, to put a point on the enemy and stay out of web/scram range. Those ships are naturally speed-fit, to be able to hold the range against slower enemies. How well does a fast-orbiting ship do when you nerf its tracking? People who fight in falloff tend to need their tracking quite a lot. Originally by: Vardemis Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto [...] It gives a "massive" 1.45% damage increase over faction antimatter, but makes your guns miss every shot![...] There are situations when you want the 1.45% extra damage and where you will not miss any shot. So it has a role, a fairly limited one, but it still offers an advantage, one almost as good as training the specialization skill a level and when you have that at 5 already you look for more opportunities to increase your damage. Actually, it was Strill who said the line you quoted, and me who made about the same points you just did. Thing is, I acknowledge that a handful of slight advantages do not offset the stonking big disadvantages Void has except in some incredibly niche situations. It's not good as a whole, even if some aspects of it are. And since you can't fire half a shot, that means that Void is bad. Sure, if you know exactly how the combat is going to play out, maybe it's better, but the thing about combat is that you don't - battle plans go out the window at first contact with the enemy, and all that. Also, who trains weapon spec skills to 5? That's just crazy. ----- Bloodmoney Incorporated is recruiting!
Efrim Black Apellon	Posted - 2009.03.25 18:08:00 - [123] Supported, dispite the arguing.
Blih Nox Gallente For Great Justice	Posted - 2009.03.25 18:23:00 - [124] Remove all T2 BPO's from game
AndzX11 Order of Anarchy	Posted - 2009.03.27 15:50:00 - [125] Edited by: AndzX11 on 27/03/2009 15:50:08 Instead of -cap/second T2 long range ammo should give a bonus to cap/recharge. Its not a lot to ask since most fleet BS lack exactly that - cap. And also because there is already the low-damage of long range ammo's and gimped tracking. So that kind of small bonus would make it more usable. Perhaps the tracking of short range lazer/blaster/missile(expl velocity here) should be looked into as well. Or some sort of other bonus or something would certainly be a nice addition to T2 ammo.
Kilostream Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.27 17:27:00 - [126] Can't support this topic as it's unclear what is being asked for.... I would definitely support a buff for shortrange t2 ammo - the reason it's so cheap is not because it's easy to produce - it's bacause there is no demand due to the fact that it has crippling drawbacks for no noticable benefit - as it stands if you're using Void / Hail etc, you're doing something wrong! I would not support nerf of faction ammo however - and since that is a concievable inference of the thread title I can't support it.
Max Essen Bison Industrial Inc	Posted - 2009.06.01 23:18:00 - [127] Just curious ... did this ever get reviewed or supported by CSM/CCP? My support for this is on either reducing or removing the huge drawbacks on the hybrids ... makes the T2 ammo a pretty thing to sit on the showcase but never really use it.
Minkert	Posted - 2009.06.02 00:54:00 - [128] /signed
Lucas Avidius Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.06.02 04:25:00 - [129] Edited by: Lucas Avidius on 02/06/2009 04:24:56 Signing this. Currently on a blaster ship, I keep some Faction Antimatter and Null in the cargohold. On rail ships I keep Faction Antimatter and Spike. Javelin and Void both have such horrid drawbacks that I would literally never consider using them over CN/FN Antimatter. Also, why not make it so that Caldari hybrid ammos get a bonus to range instead of damage, since that's the Caldari thing on all their hybrid boats?
Chequer Bones	Posted - 2009.06.02 04:49:00 - [130]
Just fearless The Necromongers	Posted - 2009.06.02 08:32:00 - [131]
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2009.06.02 11:46:00 - [132] Good lord I thought I'd never see this thread resurrected from the ashes of the previous pointless CSM runs. Of course, I'm still all for making T2 ammo viable against faction, but it seems CCP is more interested in making it easier to create your Caldari Navy Ammo... 23 nice shiny new agents.
Mos7Wan7ed	Posted - 2009.06.02 12:41:00 - [133] i trained t2 torps for a reason, and it wasn't for cheaper ammo.
Ulstan	Posted - 2009.06.02 19:01:00 - [134] Edited by: Ulstan on 02/06/2009 19:03:17 The original sounds like an ignorant and angry industrialist who expected a T2 ammo BPO to be free money and is upset it isn't. T2 ammo is a definite concern, but trying half of the thrust of the original poster seems to be to nerf faction ammo, which I don't support at all. Originally by: Mister Xerox So, in the amount of time to crank out 5k Wrath Cruise (for example), you can convert them to CN Wrath and slap them on the market for 1900 ISK/U, which is 100% pure profit. No it's not. You fail at understanding the economics of EVE. Originally by: Mister Xerox Thus, T2 ammo is relegated to back shelf because the introduction of faction ammo completely skewed the balance. T2 ammo is relegated to the back shelf because it sucks ass, with it's horrendously large stacking penalties. T1 ammo is fine. Cheap and basic. Faction ammo is fine: super expensive and pretty good. T2 ammo sucks - it needs to be in between the T1 and the faction ammo in terms of cost and power. Right now the price is in the right place, but the power isn't there, many of the types are utterly pointless given the huge penalties. Originally by: Mister Xerox Profit margin isn't that great??? WTF are you smoking? Faction is FREE to produce! You are completely wrong. Don't even bother trying to make any sort of economic argument in this thread, it just weakens your case.
GENERAL EMILIO	Posted - 2009.06.03 01:06:00 - [135]
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2009.07.13 08:26:00 - [136] Originally by: Ulstan Edited by: Ulstan on 02/06/2009 19:03:17 The original sounds like an ignorant and angry industrialist who expected a T2 ammo BPO to be free money and is upset it isn't. T2 ammo is a definite concern, but trying half of the thrust of the original poster seems to be to nerf faction ammo, which I don't support at all. Originally by: Mister Xerox So, in the amount of time to crank out 5k Wrath Cruise (for example), you can convert them to CN Wrath and slap them on the market for 1900 ISK/U, which is 100% pure profit. No it's not. You fail at understanding the economics of EVE. And you fail to see the point. It is about balance, not economic issues. I know how the economy functions very well, it is what I do. Originally by: Ulstan Originally by: Mister Xerox Thus, T2 ammo is relegated to back shelf because the introduction of faction ammo completely skewed the balance. T2 ammo is relegated to the back shelf because it sucks ass, with it's horrendously large stacking penalties. As I have pointed out many times already. Originally by: Ulstan T1 ammo is fine. Cheap and basic. Faction ammo is fine: super expensive and pretty good. T2 ammo sucks - it needs to be in between the T1 and the faction ammo in terms of cost and power. Right now the price is in the right place, but the power isn't there, many of the types are utterly pointless given the huge penalties. For the complexities involved in manufacturing the stuff T2 should far surpass faction which can be made simply by running one (yes TWO) level 4 mission and supplying a handful of T1 ammo. And this can be done in the amount of time it takes to blitz one level 4 mission. The production of the ammo is INSTANTANEOUS. Economically I'm withdrawing from the argument there; T2 ammo is economically viable and indeed more profitable than faction depending on how you value your LP. I am only concerned with the stacking nerfs that make most T2 ammo utterly unusable. Yeah, resurrecting a thread that the CSMs still refuse to take a look at.
Fille Balle Ballbreakers R us	Posted - 2009.08.26 23:09:00 - [137] Oh yes I did! I bumped AND supported it.
Irongut H A V O C Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.08.27 01:17:00 - [138] T2 ammo needs love. -- Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Nidhiesk	Posted - 2009.08.27 13:41:00 - [139] I didn't read all posts here but I can definitely tell you t2 ammo needs a rework in there design when manufacturing them. it takes way to much time and the profit margin is ridiculously low. I would rather spend my time and ISK getting the LP for faction ammo than building t2 ammo. I don't know if its considered charges or something cause I know nothing about mining but making omber crystal and the likes takes more time for the copy and inventions ???? ridiculus. I can't say numbers cause I dont have them in front of me...but I was angry when I saw those especially when I saw the profit margin at the end..alsmost the same as the ones I do regularly (no dont ask, I wont tell what I invent LOL)
El'essar Viocragh Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik	Posted - 2009.08.27 13:48:00 - [140] Originally by: Malcanis Does anyone actually use damage T2 ammo? Range, sure - but damage? I use Hail L to shoot structures in missions.... Fully supporting this issue, the drawbacks of T2 damage ammo need looking at. -- [17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim
HybridMiner Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.08.27 15:25:00 - [141]
Lord Cath	Posted - 2009.08.27 15:44:00 - [142] Edited by: Lord Cath on 27/08/2009 15:45:54 Originally by: MirrorGod 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. scorch and aurora are good, conflag and that other thing noone is stupid enuff to use are crap... edit : support "love for T2", do not support "Nerf faction ammo"
Minkert	Posted - 2009.11.05 19:40:00 - [143] √
IronThimble	Posted - 2009.11.11 02:41:00 - [144] Bump back to page 1. Supported.
Maxsim Goratiev Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2009.11.11 08:10:00 - [145] Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 11/11/2009 08:09:51 agreed, void is absolutely useless ATM, so is the high-damage railgun charge (forgot the name) They half your tracking, with void also severly cutting your falloff, need inssane amount of skills to use, and offer nearly no additional damage over navy antimatter. The range and tracking cut would be acceptable if there damage would be significantly larger, then they could be used to give small ship edge over larger ships, say frigate over a BS, or used by Hacs and BS against capitals. They either need much lower penalties, or increase in efficiency. Fix Destroyers
Arcane Azmadi First Flying Wing Inc Primary.	Posted - 2009.12.02 22:05:00 - [146] Good grief, why are we being forced to bump a topic which alreqdy has this much support AGAIN?

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