EVE Search - Dual/smaller Tier Guns

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Dual/smaller Tier Guns

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rexthor Hammerfists Rage of Inferno	Posted - 2008.11.01 14:43:00 - [1] The new patch makes it alot easier for smaller shipclasses to dive under the tracking of the bigger guns of higher shipclasses. So has a Armageddon fitted with current standards no luck of hitting a Hac that is Anti-Bs fitted, ie. AB scambler. Same for a af diving under cruiserguns etc. With these changes it might be the time to review dual-guns, or lower tiers in general, upping their tracking, lowering their ranges and adjusting their damage depending on their ability of hitting smaller ships so that a battleship dont have to fit Medium or small guns. Fitting the lowest tier guns to have a chance of hitting lower shipclasses, while at the same time it will be alot less effective against battleships, or commandships, seems fair to me. The new patch makes smaller ships more valuable in gangs, being able to avoid some of the battleships damage while putting out dps, scrambling/webbing or Ewaring. With lower tier guns too strong all this would be negated so it needs careful balancing, but still with battleship being able to compete with battlecruisers and cruisers, more or less, in killing medium shipclasses - battlecruisers and cruisers still have the mobility advantage as well as they are eble to fit lower tier guns to be able to hit frigs properly. - Boosters and PirateProfessions
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.01 15:12:00 - [2] I've suggested this multiple times. IMO I think that the lowest tier of each type of weapon should have the same sig res and tracking as the largest tier of the next smallest sized weapon. Did that make sense? Example: Large Electron Blaster Cannon IIs should have sig res/tracking of a Heavy Neutron Blaster II. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. [Vid] I M M O R T A L
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.11.01 15:17:00 - [3] Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 01/11/2008 15:17:11 No. A short list of the options you have to boost your tracking -Tracking computers (+ Tracking speed scripts) -Tracking enhancers -Tracking links -Target painters -Proper movement to lower angular velocity -webs or you could just have a gangmate shoot the guy orbiting you. Originally by: Catharacta My CNR runs on salvager tears.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.01 18:25:00 - [4] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists The new patch makes smaller ships more valuable in gangs, being able to avoid some of the battleships damage while putting out dps, scrambling/webbing or Ewaring. Do I need to paint you a picture of what happens to a dual-webbed cruiser hull trying to mantain transversal to 2+ BS? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Reptar Dragon THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2008.11.01 18:36:00 - [5] Probably should remind people that you don't always have the luxury of a gangmate and that's not a solution to the problem, it's encouraging blobbing. When you lose a battleship to a thorax late at night with no help around I guarantee you will be making your own thread. (And he making his own in Crime & Punishment)
Nikolae Varius Amarr Exiled. Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.11.01 19:14:00 - [6] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I've suggested this multiple times. IMO I think that the lowest tier of each type of weapon should have the same sig res and tracking as the largest tier of the next smallest sized weapon. Did that make sense? Example: Large Electron Blaster Cannon IIs should have sig res/tracking of a Heavy Neutron Blaster II. Sounds good but I don't agree with the sig rad part. Sounds too "unfluffy" though I'd definitely agree with some kind of tracking boost to compensate in ratio. Possibly lower some damage multiplier too.. ==================================== Looking for a 0.0 PvP corp? Check me out.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.01 20:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Nikolae Varius Originally by: Bellum Eternus I've suggested this multiple times. IMO I think that the lowest tier of each type of weapon should have the same sig res and tracking as the largest tier of the next smallest sized weapon. Did that make sense? Example: Large Electron Blaster Cannon IIs should have sig res/tracking of a Heavy Neutron Blaster II. Sounds good but I don't agree with the sig rad part. Sounds too "unfluffy" though I'd definitely agree with some kind of tracking boost to compensate in ratio. Possibly lower some damage multiplier too.. Unfluffy? Example: dual 250mm rails vs. a medium 250mm rail turret: 250mm guns should have the same sig resolution, regardless of a dual or single mount. If anything, they should have same sig res, and slightly reduced tracking (compared to the medium turret)(due to the increased weight of the dual mount. Sounds like it works with fluff just fine to me. And no need to lower the DPS. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. [Vid] I M M O R T A L
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.01 23:21:00 - [8] Originally by: Reptar Dragon Probably should remind people that you don't always have the luxury of a gangmate and that's not a solution to the problem, it's encouraging blobbing. When you lose a battleship to a thorax late at night with no help around I guarantee you will be making your own thread. (And he making his own in Crime & Punishment) It was more aimed at people who are saying smaller ships will be more welcome in gangs. That said, flying a solo BS post patch is suicidal, simple as that. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.11.02 00:10:00 - [9] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Reptar Dragon Probably should remind people that you don't always have the luxury of a gangmate and that's not a solution to the problem, it's encouraging blobbing. When you lose a battleship to a thorax late at night with no help around I guarantee you will be making your own thread. (And he making his own in Crime & Punishment) It was more aimed at people who are saying smaller ships will be more welcome in gangs. That said, flying a solo BS post patch is suicidal, simple as that. I'll still do it. Screw the devs and their game design. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. [Vid] I M M O R T A L
Grim Vandal Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.11.02 00:29:00 - [10] downsized hardpoints would do the trick ... it would mean way more highslots tho ... lets make a maxium of 4 new high slots which are ONLY *****ble by downsized weapon systems and not ANYTHING else ... eg. tempest: 6 guns / 3 downsized guns 4 launchers / 2 downsized launcher 8 high slots 4 downsized high slots downsized slots do NOT receive ship bonuses! grid and cpu should NOT change or apoc: 8 guns / 3 downsized guns 11 high slots or rupture 4 turret hardpoints / 2 downsized turret hardpoints 3 launcher hardpoints / 1 downsized launcher hardpoint 6 high slots 3 downsized high slots and so on ... downsized simply means: you can fit guns or missile launchers of the class below it ... meaning you can chose either medium guns or small guns in case of a battleship and only small guns in case of a cruiser/battlecruiser the total dmg output of these downsized weapons should be lower compared to similar fittings on cruiser or frigates ... minmatar would have the most downsized slots although split between guns and missile slots while caldari would have the least amount of downsized high slots main problem devs would need to find quite a few new gunspots on quite a few ships ... Greetings Grim
Lin Xiao Caldari GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.02 04:41:00 - [11] To the suggestion of giving the smaller, dual-gun battleship turrets a role in engaging battlecruiser and cruiser hulls, agreed. They don't really have a role right now so setting them up as a middle to long-range anti-support sniping weapon would make fleet engagements a little more interesting since FCs would have more flexibility to deal with support ships at the expense of doing less damage to battleship class targets. To the (oft-repeated) suggestion of mounting multiple smaller turrets in a single next larger size turret slot, not agreed. (That's what Destroyers and Battlecruisers are for...fitting lots and lots of small and medium-sized guns.) To those that suffer from the privations of smaller ships out-tracking your main guns, I suggest the following: 1. Fit a heavy Energy Neutralizer 2. Have a wing of Warrior II drones on standby 3. Fit some kind of propulsion module unless you like being a stationary target 4. Thermodynamics + Stasis Webifier == unpleasant surprise for tacklers
Kreeak	Posted - 2008.11.02 07:19:00 - [12] Narrow minds who want game play to conform to their chosen play style. If a cruiser lives long enough to get in close, beats your drones, overcomes your electronic warfare, and cracks your tank then yes, he deserves some juicy BS pilot clone goo. Be glad that the speed age is finally ending and you can actually lock a cruiser sized ship before it burns off the grid. Oh, and fit a dam neut.
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.11.02 08:10:00 - [13] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I've suggested this multiple times. IMO I think that the lowest tier of each type of weapon should have the same sig res and tracking as the largest tier of the next smallest sized weapon. Did that make sense? Example: Large Electron Blaster Cannon IIs should have sig res/tracking of a Heavy Neutron Blaster II. I've always wondered why some things got balanced certain ways. but... lets say deimos vs dominix. The Dominix would easily win; if sigres/tracking were identical. So I think I guess the balance sort of is there. ------------------------ Have you fed your slaves recently? -BRB Rens
ArmyOfMe Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.11.02 08:31:00 - [14] Originally by: Cpt Branko That said, flying a solo BS post patch is suicidal, simple as that. hyperion still works, even though you now have to fit dual webs rather then a eccm Originally by: deadmaus Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.11.02 22:32:00 - [15] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Unfluffy? Example: dual 250mm rails vs. a medium 250mm rail turret: 250mm guns should have the same sig resolution, regardless of a dual or single mount. If anything, they should have same sig res, and slightly reduced tracking (compared to the medium turret)(due to the increased weight of the dual mount. This is something that always confused me and seemed pretty broken. It seems like if you have a dual 250mm it should behave like, well, two 250mms (including using the correct size ammo).
Kayosoni Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.11.03 00:35:00 - [16] This change is needed. The lowest tier guns for all classes should easilly be able to hit the next-lower tier ship class (standard assault launchers anyone?) -----------------------------------
Camdim Caldari The first genesis INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.11.03 09:20:00 - [17] Originally by: Grim Vandal downsized hardpoints would do the trick ... it would mean way more highslots tho ... lets make a maxium of 4 new high slots which are ONLY *****ble by downsized weapon systems and not ANYTHING else ... eg. tempest: 6 guns / 3 downsized guns 4 launchers / 2 downsized launcher 8 high slots 4 downsized high slots downsized slots do NOT receive ship bonuses! grid and cpu should NOT change or apoc: 8 guns / 3 downsized guns 11 high slots or rupture 4 turret hardpoints / 2 downsized turret hardpoints 3 launcher hardpoints / 1 downsized launcher hardpoint 6 high slots 3 downsized high slots and so on ... downsized simply means: you can fit guns or missile launchers of the class below it ... meaning you can chose either medium guns or small guns in case of a battleship and only small guns in case of a cruiser/battlecruiser the total dmg output of these downsized weapons should be lower compared to similar fittings on cruiser or frigates ... minmatar would have the most downsized slots although split between guns and missile slots while caldari would have the least amount of downsized high slots main problem devs would need to find quite a few new gunspots on quite a few ships ... This idea would be the best solution but with a few modifications. Instead of adding tothe count of turrent or missles avaliable make it so high slots are listed as L M S. 2 smalls could fit into a med slot, 2 med could fit into a high slot and 4 smalls would fit into a large slot. So with 8 large slots on a bs you could fit 6 large guns 2 med guns and 4 small guns or some combination like that. That does mean that a BS could go running around with 32 small guns or launchers but they wouldn't do much except to smaller targets. It would also give cruisers the option to use some small guns as defense against frigates as well. Each slot group would act as one gun for the purpose of hitting and damage and targeting. But it would also require you to carry the ammo for each of the diffrent sized weapons. In a sense high slots would work like drone bays X amount of space fill it with what you like.
Mister Xerox	Posted - 2008.11.03 09:51:00 - [18] I fully agree. The lowest tier weapon system (let's say: Quad Light Beam) should have the exact same tracking and range of it's frigate sized variant (Dual Light Beam) but do twice the damage. This will allow larger hulls to fit smaller guns without gimping themselves to uselessness in the face of their own sizeclass... well, much anyway. With 'smaller gun' range they'll have difficulty in 'larger gun' range fights, and their DPS is considerably lower than the ship's same hullclass size guns.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.11.03 10:30:00 - [19] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/11/2008 10:32:12 Originally by: Camdim So with 8 large slots on a bs you could fit 6 large guns 2 med guns and 4 small guns or some combination like that. That does mean that a BS could go running around with 32 small guns or launchers but they wouldn't do much except to smaller targets. Guns don't scale the way you guys think they do. Bigger guns do 33% more DPS then smaller ones, so it's a 76.9% increase from small gun to large gun. Fitting 4 smalls rather then 1 large is therefore a 226% damage increase Originally by: various sources 'dual' guns should do twice the DPS of the smaller gun If D180mm ACs did the damage of two lower tier ACs, they would outdamage 425mm ACs (biggest cruiser sized ones) by 50.3%, and actually outdamage battleship guns Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
dojocan81	Posted - 2008.11.03 10:55:00 - [20] how about, for example Blasters, this signature resolutions for the different tiers: Light Electron Blaster II 25m Light Ion Blaster II 40m Light Neutron Blaster II 55m Heavy Electron Blaster II 100m Heavy Ion Blaster II 125m Heavy Neutron Blaster II 150m Electron Blaster Cannon II 350m Ion Blaster Cannon II 400m Neutron Blaster Cannon II 450m then for artillery the same basics but -10% on all tiers and pulse laser +10% this b/c artillerys have the worst tracking and pulse lasers the best tracking only a thought ....
Nuts Nougat SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.11.03 11:23:00 - [21] Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 03/11/2008 11:25:03 Dual 425mm autocannons, barrel size is same as 425mm autocannons: Make them use medium ammo, keep same capacity and damage multiplier, increase rof, set sig radius of cruiser guns. Maybe (but just maybe) slightly increase tracking. Same with dual 150mm rails and other such crap. Basically assault launchers but for every size. I remember when I first started eve a couple years back I thought I had to load small ammo in my dual150mm fitted moa, and it'd just fire faster... Originally by: Mister Xerox I fully agree. The lowest tier weapon system (let's say: Quad Light Beam) should have the exact same tracking and range of it's frigate sized variant (Dual Light Beam) but do twice the damage. This will allow larger hulls to fit smaller guns without gimping themselves to uselessness in the face of their own sizeclass... well, much anyway. With 'smaller gun' range they'll have difficulty in 'larger gun' range fights, and their DPS is considerably lower than the ship's same hullclass size guns. This would make lowest tier guns do waaaay more damage than they currently do, decimating smaller craft instantly. ---
Tnam Caldari Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2008.11.03 11:49:00 - [22] This suggestion is stupidly complicated. Just put webs back how they were.
CrestoftheStars Recreation Of The World	Posted - 2008.11.03 12:47:00 - [23] a bs is not supposed to be able to hit a cruiser fitted for bs' attacking. but here is my problem, the cruisers dps, a well fitted cruiser can easily cross 300 dps. which means almost any bs (unless lucky enough to have res against the excat dmg type) will die eventually with no means of escape. this is due to the scrambler being a "hit and you can't warp, forever!", which is the fault, they shouldn't scram forever, just add a extra time it takes to get into warp, like adding a extra 30 sec or 1 minute per point of scram. this would mean that if your attacking a well fitted bs in a well fitted cruiser, the bs is not able to kill the cruiser, EVER, but the cruiser would not be able to solo kill the bs if the bs decides to disengage and warp out (unless the bs is badly fitted and can't restand the solo cruisers dps for a respectible amount of time, which almost any good bs can, normally it dies when it is out of cap boosters against a cruiser since the cruiser can't break it's actual tank, but since it can hit with 1 point scram and keep it there forever and ever, even if it is not able to break it's tank it is just a matter of time) well the timer is the only logical solution i can come up with that will bring the balance of risk vs. reward back to the ship classes (since we already see the most effective groups are just a ton of people in worthless throw away ships, which is wrong in my oppinion) ___________________________________________ 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
Tnam Caldari Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2008.11.03 13:19:00 - [24] personally I think its fine for: Carrier to be able to easily kill BS, BS to easily kill cruiser or BC or HAC, cruiser/BC to be able easily kill frigate. The only thing that should stop that happening is if the pilot of the smaller ship is either better skilled, better fitted (specifically anti-bs fitted), or if the BS pilot is badly fitted (like he is fitted for ratting while living in 0.0). As it is, its just over the top, Command ships like the nighthawk that do good dps, have good tank and have specific bonuses that help them kill smaller ships are in god mode.
Zhula Guixgrixks Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.11.03 13:34:00 - [25] "Fitting the lowest tier guns to have a chance of hitting lower shipclasses, while at the same time it will be alot less effective against battleships, or commandships, seems fair to me." Yes. Thats true versatility and fits new concept well.
Camdim Caldari The first genesis INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.11.03 13:49:00 - [26] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/11/2008 10:32:12 Originally by: Camdim So with 8 large slots on a bs you could fit 6 large guns 2 med guns and 4 small guns or some combination like that. That does mean that a BS could go running around with 32 small guns or launchers but they wouldn't do much except to smaller targets. Guns don't scale the way you guys think they do. Bigger guns do 33% more DPS then smaller ones, so it's a 76.9% increase from small gun to large gun. Fitting 4 smalls rather then 1 large is therefore a 226% damage increase Originally by: various sources 'dual' guns should do twice the DPS of the smaller gun If D180mm ACs did the damage of two lower tier ACs, they would outdamage 425mm ACs (biggest cruiser sized ones) by 50.3%, and actually outdamage battleship guns Sorry didn't do the math was late when I put that up but the general principle is sound just make the numbers scale right. Solves the issue doesn't gimp the ship as much and allows it to have weapons to deal with all classes of ships.
Strill	Posted - 2008.11.03 13:53:00 - [27] Originally by: CrestoftheStars a bs is not supposed to be able to hit a cruiser fitted for bs' attacking. but here is my problem, the cruisers dps, a well fitted cruiser can easily cross 300 dps. A well fitted ASSAULT FRIGATE can cross 300 DPS. A well fitted cruiser can get well over 600.
Rhaegor Stormborn Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.11.03 14:18:00 - [28] I would really like to see the dual version of smaller calibar guns have the same tracking, or nearly the same tracking as thier singular counterparts. With the upcoming web changes I think this would be an excellent complimentary change.
Zhula Guixgrixks Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.11.03 14:29:00 - [29] Edited by: Zhula Guixgrixks on 03/11/2008 14:31:33 Although I somehow like the idea of revitalizing dual guns, I don't think CCP will go in this direction. Why ?? : Originally by: Cpt Branko Guns don't scale the way you guys think they do. Bigger guns do 33% more DPS then smaller ones, so it's a 76.9% increase from small gun to large gun. Fitting 4 smalls rather then 1 large is therefore a 226% damage increase Enabling proper size guns with tracking/sig of smaller class AND bonus of current ship would just create next cookie cutter ship setup. A "dual-enabled" ship would be able to hit smaller class ships and still do enough DPS in his own class. I'm pretty sure CCP is not heading this way.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.11.03 15:12:00 - [30] Originally by: Cpt Branko If D180mm ACs did the damage of two lower tier ACs, they would outdamage 425mm ACs (biggest cruiser sized ones) by 50.3%, and actually outdamage battleship guns Heh. Good example of 'can't fix broken behavior A because broken behavior B depends on it' If they had split the gun classes better so that big guns could only really hit big things (but did big damage) then smaller guns could be doubled up on a single mounting point to hit smaller stuff. It would also help reduce this 'solo BS should rock!' stuff since there would be a real tradeoff between mounting single/dual/quad guns in order to hit smaller targets rather then wining that big guns should be able to hit everything. I am always shocked at how easy it is to take out frigates with 1400s,... that just shouldn't be.

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.