| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dar Torn
   |
Posted - 2004.07.06 19:02:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Dar Torn on 06/07/2004 19:09:49
why is it that a 650 is better than a dual 650?
Isn't the dual supposed to be a linked version of the base 650. But since a dual 650 can't hit a cruiser there really is no point in having the gun is there. To me CCP has been working around the turret problems and just creating more confusing problems for themselves. Giving the guns more damage output doesn't help the issue. the issue is I shouldn't have to fit a medium turret let alone a small one on my battleship. And the idea of forcing players to fly in groups is just stupid. To answer the turret problems i would suggest you change dual turret weapons to have the same stats as their single turret counterpart only give them half the rate of fire and twice the ammo space. This would also require the duals to use the same ammo as the base turret aswell and the signature resolution would also reflect the same as the base weapon. I would also suggest a quad small turret weapon like 'quad 200mm' which would be the same as a 200mm with a 4 times faster rof and ammo hold but would be a large turret.
|
Dar Torn
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 19:02:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Dar Torn on 06/07/2004 19:09:49
why is it that a 650 is better than a dual 650?
Isn't the dual supposed to be a linked version of the base 650. But since a dual 650 can't hit a cruiser there really is no point in having the gun is there. To me CCP has been working around the turret problems and just creating more confusing problems for themselves. Giving the guns more damage output doesn't help the issue. the issue is I shouldn't have to fit a medium turret let alone a small one on my battleship. And the idea of forcing players to fly in groups is just stupid. To answer the turret problems i would suggest you change dual turret weapons to have the same stats as their single turret counterpart only give them half the rate of fire and twice the ammo space. This would also require the duals to use the same ammo as the base turret aswell and the signature resolution would also reflect the same as the base weapon. I would also suggest a quad small turret weapon like 'quad 200mm' which would be the same as a 200mm with a 4 times faster rof and ammo hold but would be a large turret.
|
Seraph Demon
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:34:00 -
[3]
it's funny you should say this because I was totally thrown for a loop when I discovered it wasn't so... I agree, and I'm as confused by this as you are 
|
Seraph Demon
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 22:34:00 -
[4]
it's funny you should say this because I was totally thrown for a loop when I discovered it wasn't so... I agree, and I'm as confused by this as you are
|
Garric Vor'g
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:15:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Dar Torn
Edited by: Dar Torn on 06/07/2004 19:09:49
why is it that a 650 is better than a dual 650?
Isn't the dual supposed to be a linked version of the base 650. But since a dual 650 can't hit a cruiser there really is no point in having the gun is there. To me CCP has been working around the turret problems and just creating more confusing problems for themselves. Giving the guns more damage output doesn't help the issue. the issue is I shouldn't have to fit a medium turret let alone a small one on my battleship. And the idea of forcing players to fly in groups is just stupid. To answer the turret problems i would suggest you change dual turret weapons to have the same stats as their single turret counterpart only give them half the rate of fire and twice the ammo space. This would also require the duals to use the same ammo as the base turret aswell and the signature resolution would also reflect the same as the base weapon. I would also suggest a quad small turret weapon like 'quad 200mm' which would be the same as a 200mm with a 4 times faster rof and ammo hold but would be a large turret.
I totaly agree, though ammo used would also have to double as well as cap usage. But still DUAL/QUAD weapons should be that, dual/quad of the same gun. Just like you said, ex. a dual 250 hybrid, should have same range,tracking, resolution, same ammo; but with twice the rate of fire, cap usage, and ammo usage.
General of Escape Pod Testing |
Garric Vor'g
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:15:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Dar Torn
Edited by: Dar Torn on 06/07/2004 19:09:49
why is it that a 650 is better than a dual 650?
Isn't the dual supposed to be a linked version of the base 650. But since a dual 650 can't hit a cruiser there really is no point in having the gun is there. To me CCP has been working around the turret problems and just creating more confusing problems for themselves. Giving the guns more damage output doesn't help the issue. the issue is I shouldn't have to fit a medium turret let alone a small one on my battleship. And the idea of forcing players to fly in groups is just stupid. To answer the turret problems i would suggest you change dual turret weapons to have the same stats as their single turret counterpart only give them half the rate of fire and twice the ammo space. This would also require the duals to use the same ammo as the base turret aswell and the signature resolution would also reflect the same as the base weapon. I would also suggest a quad small turret weapon like 'quad 200mm' which would be the same as a 200mm with a 4 times faster rof and ammo hold but would be a large turret.
I totaly agree, though ammo used would also have to double as well as cap usage. But still DUAL/QUAD weapons should be that, dual/quad of the same gun. Just like you said, ex. a dual 250 hybrid, should have same range,tracking, resolution, same ammo; but with twice the rate of fire, cap usage, and ammo usage.
General of Escape Pod Testing |
Dar Torn
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 03:39:00 -
[7]
Yes cap usage would also reflect being a large turret aswell.
|
Dar Torn
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 03:39:00 -
[8]
Yes cap usage would also reflect being a large turret aswell.
|
Dar Torn
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 04:14:00 -
[9]
it seems that dual 650s are twice as fast as 650s now not sure why the opt range is so different. The signature resolution still needs to change on the duals to match the single 650s. Dual rails need change for sure still.
|
Dar Torn
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 04:14:00 -
[10]
it seems that dual 650s are twice as fast as 650s now not sure why the opt range is so different. The signature resolution still needs to change on the duals to match the single 650s. Dual rails need change for sure still.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |