open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked It's time to rebalance the weapons.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:04:00 - [301]
 

Edited by: bubbly bird on 02/06/2009 12:32:54

Originally by: Deva Blackfire


Those are your words. And i said already: if it goes for rr it loses DPS.


It starts with 8 guns and most of the other RR BS start with 7 so it can afford to lose one and still almost match the geddons turret dps.


Originally by: Deva Blackfire
It has capacitor issues (how long can you perma rr and fire before your cap dies and you are useless?).


It lasts until it runs out of cap 800's just like the mega and other RR ships that need cap to fire.

Although not needing to choose between massivly reduced dmg or mwding into range of targets is a big help.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:42:00 - [302]
 

Did someone already propose a smaller artillery for large projectiles?

Something like a Quad 720mm Siege Artillery I, with lower range and damage than 1200mm but with better tracking and slightly better RoF and ammo capacity. This would give large projectiles a weapon for use in medium ranges, where at least a lot of PvE happens.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:59:00 - [303]
 

Meh, all the stuff in the Thread would help the Blastership as a general ship in gangs. It would do nothing about the Issues QR caused for Blastership in her solo role.

- To mutch movement under Webs -> more cap/time spend controling range and more of the DPS advantage lost.

Both ships move, you are sliding under and out of the range you want to your target to do your EFT DPS(that you only will see if both ships realy are at 0m/s and you are at the edge of Blaster Optimal). Also you need your MWD(capburn), what it makes you a perfect target for the other ship(signature radius bloom). It also causes terrible tracking issues at point blank if the target moves in another direction since you will pass your target at 100-200m/s under 2km range(where your tracking starts to fail rapidly.

- To mutch cap spend to get in range -> actualy quite a problem combind with active tanking or Cap Warfare it is negotiatable in buffer setups.

- Kitting in web range since a sub BS blastership that loses his MWD is dead in the water by his very low combat range.

A Thorax/Brutix with Electrons(what is quite common) loses around 50% of his DPS(with Antimatter) at 6-7km allready. The number Null will get you is a bit better but still only around 60-70%(of the allready reduced Null DPS, before we count in the Falloff Penaltys to the Hit Quality). Frigates can avoid this by a AB, Cruisers/BCs and especialy Blaster Cruisers canīt to this because they need the MWD speed to get in range/catch stuff. This can quite easy kill your ship against a resonable fitted ship of the same class in solo fight(where you actualy need any DPS you have on the target to win).

- A Blaster BS that canīt follow his primary by beeing tackeled by a Frig(Scram).

You could say good teamwork, but actualy it is only a combination of poor range and the need of a MWD to move your ship in a resonable timeframe to do your DPS. The Warp Scrambler isnīt the solution on the BS level, it takes fare to long to get in this range to stop people from warping away if you donīt land on top of them.

This are all very real issues for a solo Blastership what takes the bite they had with the 90% Web away from them. I would like to see this fixed first, preferable by a stronger Web in general or for the Blastership itself(by a role Bonus buffing the Web to 70-75%). After this a 10-20% DPS boost might be needet to outgank ships at close range solo(with gank fittings, like nuking Tier 3 BS by breaking thrue the tank if itīs T2 fitted) like before QR.

To the Blaster BS pawn in RR BS gangs point. I actualy did this the last 2 weeks quite a couple of times(6-10 Ships in the gang). A Null Mega wonīt do mutch more damage than Laser ships(Null vs AN Multifrequency). A Antimatter Mega is basicly a heavy heavy tackler that goes for a Bump and also trys to put a extra Web and Scram(actualy by CPU Issues, not because it is the better soulution here) on the target most of the time.

In full closerange battles(RR BS vs RR BS gang) the Mega does consideralbe more damage but we got quite some Amarr BS in the Gang that performe against anything that donīt fights at point blank fare better(Hacs and Recons mostly). So it is not like Blasterships are better by default, just in anti RR BS takedowns. Anything else will die anyway against 6 BS this fast that the diffrence is negotiatable and often enught suits the range > raw DPS advantage in the favor of Laser BS if the battle not starts at 5km for anybody(what happens only if you bait other people and get a warp in point at point blank).

Beverly Sparks
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:00:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: Seishi Maru
AC do nto need that much range. They need to have worse range than lasers. Why? because they already have better tracking and no cap usage ( small advantage but an advntage nontheless). A simple 10% increase in falloff for all AC would do the trick. That is NEEDED to compensate for the loss on engagement range minmatar ships had with the advent of overheat to tackling mods.


You don't sound much like a projectile user to me. You can fix tracking with mods and webs. How do you fix falloff dependent range and sub-par damage?

Adding falloff to tracking mods would be a step in the right direction. But if AC's have shorter range, then they should do more damage at those ranges. It seems to me the original concept for AC's were to have them do good damage over a large range of enagement, but not great damage anywhere. Thus the whole, tight versus lasers, and Far versus Blasters, and Minmatar are supposed to be able to exploit that by having faster more agile ships.

It seems to work properly versus Blasters, however lasers are still out damaging AC's even when AC's are in the range where they are supposed to have an advantage, due to webs and such. Plus it is infinitely more difficult to try and control transverse velocity into a specific window, where you guns are exploiting a 25% bonus in tracking.

Lose the tanking bonus on the Mael, and add a 10% falloff bonus... that would be sweet.

Also the Mael is way to slow and immobile to use AC's, it's speed and agility don't really allow it to dictate range against anything smaller then a Capital, in any kind of timely fashion. I think this should also be addressed as well. It can be the largest slowest Minnie BS, but just not by so much. Maybe a base speed of 105 or 110 m/s and a buff to it's agility as well.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:06:00 - [305]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 02/06/2009 11:45:08
Does mael really need that much of a damage boost? Flown it only briefly but with 4x gyros and it deals nice DPS + has godly tank at the same time (no-mwd setup for gatecamp breaking). Thing is i had only best named guns (no skill for t2 ones, its qued ;p) so i felt the faloff issue a bit. Thinking now about it... 10-15% higher faloff could help it quite a lot.


if it need 4 damage mods to do the same damage of another ships with 1 damage mod at same range i think it need it.
not to mention falloff dynamics

Beverly Sparks
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:23:00 - [306]
 

I am still trying to figure out why he is using 4 Gyro's. The 4th Gyro adds 38 EFT DPS onto 876 with a full rack of 800's. A net gain of 4%. What a waste of a low slot. Nano, ECCM maybe.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:29:00 - [307]
 

Originally by: Beverly Sparks
I am still trying to figure out why he is using 4 Gyro's. The 4th Gyro adds 38 EFT DPS onto 876 with a full rack of 800's. A net gain of 4%. What a waste of a low slot. Nano, ECCM maybe.


because he have to prove his point that AC are fine Rolling Eyes

also the only way to fit 4 gyro is to go faction with multiple modules.

Egorik O
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:38:00 - [308]
 

We have tracking computers for med slots and tracking enhancers for low slots.
What about damage modifiers for medium slots with big cap consumption?

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:39:00 - [309]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 02/06/2009 13:44:43
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 02/06/2009 13:41:57
Originally by: To mare
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 02/06/2009 11:45:08
Does mael really need that much of a damage boost? Flown it only briefly but with 4x gyros and it deals nice DPS + has godly tank at the same time (no-mwd setup for gatecamp breaking). Thing is i had only best named guns (no skill for t2 ones, its qued ;p) so i felt the faloff issue a bit. Thinking now about it... 10-15% higher faloff could help it quite a lot.


if it need 4 damage mods to do the same damage of another ships with 1 damage mod at same range i think it need it.
not to mention falloff dynamics


I used 4 because... well... it fits. Nothing better to put in spare lowslot anyways (4x gyro + dc). Same for torp raven: 4x bcu+dc (4th damage mod still gives around 5-6% = 50-60dps)

Quote:
I am still trying to figure out why he is using 4 Gyro's. The 4th Gyro adds 38 EFT DPS onto 876 with a full rack of 800's. A net gain of 4%. What a waste of a low slot. Nano, ECCM maybe.


38dps is a lot if you consider enemy tank. If enemy can tank 800dps and you deal 840 or 880 its almost 2x damage boost. Plus on shieldtanks i always use 4 damage mods. Nightmare, Mael, Raven = 4 dmg mods. If i run large booster (not xl) on sleip i also use 4 gyros.

Nano = waste. Maybe it gives agility+speed but: i want to sit on gate (so no movement) and nano takes my structure away. Not good idea. ECCM? Doesnt matter. If i get ECMd under sentry guns ill either kill falcon (or gate guns will) or will just tank and jump out. And if there is no falcon then its a wasted slot. Adding 4th damage mod is never waste of slot.

Quote:
because he have to prove his point that AC are fine


Dont you love those conspiracy theories?

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2009.06.02 13:48:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 02/06/2009 11:09:51
Never said it was BAD rr ship. Just said it was not as perfect as you made it.

Quote:

Just how perfect can one ship be ffs?.


Those are your words. And i said already: if it goes for rr it loses DPS. It has capacitor issues (how long can you perma rr and fire before your cap dies and you are useless?). But like above, i NEVER said its bad. I just said i will take geddon over aba any day and thats exactly what i do. Fly rr geddons because i dont like abaddon and its cap dependancy. plus i'd hate to remove turret to fit rr.

what would be a better choice than? does any other rr ship have overall less cap issues AND better range/damage coverage AND better tank?
while other have issues of, "oh dam, i can't apply my dps properly" or "oh dam my tank is failing" on top of cap issues, all you say is "me no wants to give up a gun".
and why are you talking about remote reps here when the topic is about guns?

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.06.02 14:34:00 - [311]
 

Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Originally by: Seishi Maru
AC do nto need that much range. They need to have worse range than lasers. Why? because they already have better tracking and no cap usage ( small advantage but an advntage nontheless). A simple 10% increase in falloff for all AC would do the trick. That is NEEDED to compensate for the loss on engagement range minmatar ships had with the advent of overheat to tackling mods.


You don't sound much like a projectile user to me. You can fix tracking with mods and webs. How do you fix falloff dependent range and sub-par damage?

Adding falloff to tracking mods would be a step in the right direction. But if AC's have shorter range, then they should do more damage at those ranges. It seems to me the original concept for AC's were to have them do good damage over a large range of enagement, but not great damage anywhere. Thus the whole, tight versus lasers, and Far versus Blasters, and Minmatar are supposed to be able to exploit that by having faster more agile ships.

It seems to work properly versus Blasters, however lasers are still out damaging AC's even when AC's are in the range where they are supposed to have an advantage, due to webs and such. Plus it is infinitely more difficult to try and control transverse velocity into a specific window, where you guns are exploiting a 25% bonus in tracking.

Lose the tanking bonus on the Mael, and add a 10% falloff bonus... that would be sweet.

Also the Mael is way to slow and immobile to use AC's, it's speed and agility don't really allow it to dictate range against anything smaller then a Capital, in any kind of timely fashion. I think this should also be addressed as well. It can be the largest slowest Minnie BS, but just not by so much. Maybe a base speed of 105 or 110 m/s and a buff to it's agility as well.


aa sure then I likely trained Large AC specialization V jsut to waste my time then?

AC should not deal more damage than Lasers at long range. Damage at long range is laser thing. Damage up close is blasters thing. AC shoudl be able to outrange blasters and out track lasers. But currently the outrange blasters almost does not work anymore. Check damage graph between tempest and megatron. That is why the extra range is needed.

On a hypotetical 1 v 1 a tempest WAS defeat any ammar Battleship by outtracking it at border of web range.. at 10 km. Now that range is 13 km what maeks outtrackign much harder. That could possibly be improved a bit with a reduction (slight to lasers tracking) and with the increase in falloff.

Beverly Sparks
Posted - 2009.06.02 15:09:00 - [312]
 

Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 02/06/2009 15:15:08
Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 02/06/2009 15:11:08
Originally by: Seishi Maru
aa sure then I likely trained Large AC specialization V jsut to waste my time then?


I'll take your word for it.

Originally by: Seishi Maru
AC should not deal more damage than Lasers at long range.


They don't, but they don't out damage them at close range either. Except for an extremely small window, and not by much. And then that is still dependent on transverse velocity. So when the laser boat has range, he is winning, or if he has low transverse velocity at short range he is winning. And even if you do get the range and transverse velocity right, by the time you get there, the difference in your DPS and his is not going to make up for the amount of damage you just took to get there.

Originally by: Seishi Maru
On a hypotetical 1 v 1 a tempest WAS defeat any ammar Battleship by outtracking it at border of web range.. at 10 km. Now that range is 13 km what maeks outtrackign much harder. That could possibly be improved a bit with a reduction (slight to lasers tracking) and with the increase in falloff.


Exactly, so the Tempest has a 3 km window, at an exact speed, that he has to maintain to compete with the laser users damage. If anything other then that happens he loses... and that sounds like it just needs a minor tweak to you? The whole problem is that tracking is not a reliable way to assure that the minmatar BS is going to out damage the Amarr BS at short range. Especially considering that the minnie bs is starting with much lower base DPS to start with.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.06.02 15:28:00 - [313]
 

Seishi, those numbers are using Barrage L, which would *have* to be re-balanced if the autocannons are changed as dramatically as I said they should be. Clearly the mael should not be shooting at 50km for decent damage (300+) with autocannons.

But the point remains that if you look at the math, giving the mael a 10% falloff bonus means it will still be completely useless, only it will be completely useless from 1.5-3km further out. Who cares if my maelstrom does 200 dps at 31 or 34 km? I still won't be flying it, and I'd still rather be in a amarr battleship doing 800-900 for full damage from 45.

Another set of numbers, using RF EMP L, mael, 800's, 3 gyros (because honestly, nobody fits 4 :P):

at present:
optimal 3km, falloff 20

3km - 800
13km - 600
23km - 400
33km - 200
43km - nil

with the 10% falloff boost:
optimal 3km, falloff 22km

3km - 800
14km - 600
25km - 400
36km - 200
47km - nil

What's the difference? Now it still does crap dps, only it does it from 1km, 1.5km, 3km, and 4km further. It's still vastly sub-par to amarr, and its still the lowest dps of all the ships we've surveyed.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.06.02 15:41:00 - [314]
 

if we want to speak about falloff we could hold the actual 16km for dual 425 and increase it by 2 km with the tier of the gun 18km for dual 650 and 20 km for 800mm.
but this wont solve the problem of autocannons, yeah maybe a 800mm with those changes would get a dps advantage over a neutron blaster at range but it will still be outdamaged by a megapulse at any range. and AC should outdamage megapulse at point blank combat while megapulse get their advantages when the distance start to be greater than 15km but if the ac boat catch the laser boat under that distance it should win.

CCP Mitnal


C C P
Posted - 2009.06.02 15:53:00 - [315]
 

Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: CCP Mitnal

Please attempt to come up with a consensus opinion or recommendations for developers to move forward, otherwise this is just a waste of time for all concerned.


We cant realistically come to a community consensus on what specifically needs to be changed to re-balance weapons systems.

We are not in full possession of the same Data CCP employees are.

What we can do is point out the imbalance in the current divisions between weapons systems and roles.

This process requires that Devs read the thread in depth, rather than skim it looking for 'community consensus'


I would be happy with a troll free discussion culminating in a round up of the issues rather than a lock Very Happy

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.02 15:53:00 - [316]
 

That's it - I've had it. Time that my Badger II can carry as much as the ity 5. What is this unfairness!? CCP! Make my badger carry MOAR!!!

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.06.02 16:01:00 - [317]
 

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

I would be happy with a troll free discussion culminating in a round up of the issues rather than a lock Very Happy


Not to be "that guy", but you have it, located on page 9.

Quote:
Amarr spec don't want their OP weapons nerfed

Minmatar spec are unhappy with losing 60% of thier DPS as they have to fight in falloff all the damn time.

Galente spec need a tracking boost- or they need to start fitting dual webs and stop whining

Caldari spec moan about the missile nerf that means they have to fit webs or TP's and drop some tank- just like other shield tankers have always done.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.06.02 16:02:00 - [318]
 

Originally by: CCP Mitnal
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: CCP Mitnal

Please attempt to come up with a consensus opinion or recommendations for developers to move forward, otherwise this is just a waste of time for all concerned.


We cant realistically come to a community consensus on what specifically needs to be changed to re-balance weapons systems.

We are not in full possession of the same Data CCP employees are.

What we can do is point out the imbalance in the current divisions between weapons systems and roles.

This process requires that Devs read the thread in depth, rather than skim it looking for 'community consensus'


I would be happy with a troll free discussion culminating in a round up of the issues rather than a lock Very Happy


and we would be happy to know what you guys think to do Rolling Eyes

Beverly Sparks
Posted - 2009.06.02 16:07:00 - [319]
 

Originally by: CCP Mitnal
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: CCP Mitnal

Please attempt to come up with a consensus opinion or recommendations for developers to move forward, otherwise this is just a waste of time for all concerned.


We cant realistically come to a community consensus on what specifically needs to be changed to re-balance weapons systems.

We are not in full possession of the same Data CCP employees are.

What we can do is point out the imbalance in the current divisions between weapons systems and roles.

This process requires that Devs read the thread in depth, rather than skim it looking for 'community consensus'


I would be happy with a troll free discussion culminating in a round up of the issues rather than a lock Very Happy


Adapt or Die!!! Wink

Mes Ren
No Trademark
Posted - 2009.06.02 22:16:00 - [320]
 

Originally by: Galan Undris
Edited by: Galan Undris on 02/06/2009 09:27:13
Originally by: Mes Ren
I used EFT to determine the numbers as it was easier than figuring it by hand, but so you know, you have a 50% chance to hit when at MAX falloff (assuming 0 transversal again).


EFT doesn't consider the hit-table. Low quality hits are at the bottom, 'excellent' hits are the first to miss, so effective dps at optimal+falloff is about 40% (39.75% to be exact, formula here).

isdisco3's numbers are incorrect as well, the 21km number is too low and the 36 km and 51 km numbers are too high. Correct numbers would be (assuming 700 'paper' dps):
6km - 714 (due to 1% wreckings)
21km - 556 dps
36km - 278 dps
51km - 105 dps

It's not a linear falloff, up to about 50% falloff you don't loose that much at all, but from about 50-60% it drops off pretty fast. EFT is not accurate in this regard.


Yes, I know EFT is not accurate in that regard, but it's close enough for government work. It's nearly impossible to get accurate numbers since many other factors play into it .... but for the numbers I posted, they are more than close enough (not far enough out of line to force me to do it by hand).

Mes Ren
No Trademark
Posted - 2009.06.02 22:30:00 - [321]
 

Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Originally by: Seishi Maru
AC do nto need that much range. They need to have worse range than lasers. Why? because they already have better tracking and no cap usage ( small advantage but an advntage nontheless). A simple 10% increase in falloff for all AC would do the trick. That is NEEDED to compensate for the loss on engagement range minmatar ships had with the advent of overheat to tackling mods.


You don't sound much like a projectile user to me. You can fix tracking with mods and webs. How do you fix falloff dependent range and sub-par damage?

Adding falloff to tracking mods would be a step in the right direction. But if AC's have shorter range, then they should do more damage at those ranges. It seems to me the original concept for AC's were to have them do good damage over a large range of enagement, but not great damage anywhere. Thus the whole, tight versus lasers, and Far versus Blasters, and Minmatar are supposed to be able to exploit that by having faster more agile ships.

It seems to work properly versus Blasters, however lasers are still out damaging AC's even when AC's are in the range where they are supposed to have an advantage, due to webs and such. Plus it is infinitely more difficult to try and control transverse velocity into a specific window, where you guns are exploiting a 25% bonus in tracking.

Lose the tanking bonus on the Mael, and add a 10% falloff bonus... that would be sweet.

Also the Mael is way to slow and immobile to use AC's, it's speed and agility don't really allow it to dictate range against anything smaller then a Capital, in any kind of timely fashion. I think this should also be addressed as well. It can be the largest slowest Minnie BS, but just not by so much. Maybe a base speed of 105 or 110 m/s and a buff to it's agility as well.


Couple things. First, Autocannons are outperforming lasers when you figure typical resists. Second, the tracking speed comes into play when shooting at smaller ships than the one you are in (which is just about every engagement out there), the smaller ships themselves dictate the range -- which is generally a good range for your own weapon system. Third, are you talking about balancing autocannons or the maelstrom? -- Not every ship is suited for every situation, you may be simply trying to have the ship rebalanced to a situation it wasn't intended for.

Oxykill
Posted - 2009.06.02 22:40:00 - [322]
 

rebalance? they are quite balanced imo.

but i'd like to see them made even more different.

lasers should use more cap and have better sig resolution
projectiles should do more volley dmg and have bigger falloff at cost of clip size and rof
hybrids should have better tracking

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.06.02 23:37:00 - [323]
 

Originally by: CCP Mitnal
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: CCP Mitnal

Please attempt to come up with a consensus opinion or recommendations for developers to move forward, otherwise this is just a waste of time for all concerned.


We cant realistically come to a community consensus on what specifically needs to be changed to re-balance weapons systems.

We are not in full possession of the same Data CCP employees are.

What we can do is point out the imbalance in the current divisions between weapons systems and roles.

This process requires that Devs read the thread in depth, rather than skim it looking for 'community consensus'


I would be happy with a troll free discussion culminating in a round up of the issues rather than a lock Very Happy

Sigh, sarcasm!

Any conclusion on the issues at hand will instantly be disputed by dozens of people. There will be no consensus, no agreement. Only trolling. Now go fix blasters cuz it will take me months to cross train to lasers.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.02 23:44:00 - [324]
 

Originally by: Oxykill
rebalance? they are quite balanced imo.

but i'd like to see them made even more different.

lasers should use more cap and have better sig resolution
projectiles should do more volley dmg and have bigger falloff at cost of clip size and rof
hybrids should have better tracking



Yup

hybrid tracking improvement is NECESSARY, and should be considered a FIX, not balance

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.06.03 00:20:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: Leto Aramaus
Originally by: Oxykill
rebalance? they are quite balanced imo.

but i'd like to see them made even more different.

lasers should use more cap and have better sig resolution
projectiles should do more volley dmg and have bigger falloff at cost of clip size and rof
hybrids should have better tracking



Yup

hybrid tracking improvement is NECESSARY, and should be considered a FIX, not balance

No. Don't even think about it.

Deva explained exactly why a tracking boost bigger than 10% would make Blasters seriously overpowered.

But then, will 10% tracking boost help Blasters anything at all?.

I don't think so.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.06.03 00:43:00 - [326]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 03/06/2009 00:46:33
Actually it was tracking boost+(huge)damage boost at same time that made stuff stupid. 5% damage boost+10-15% tracking should be easily doable. Too late now for me to number crunch tho. Thing is: if you want to fix blasters do not touch damage, it screws waaaaay too many things up.

Also on the ACs. 5% damage across the line, slight faloff boost and now... ze tempest:
why not change its bonuses towards damage. 10% damage bonus/level (instead of 5% rof 5% damage) and add another 5/7,5/10% faloff/lvl bonus. Up drone bay to 100-125 at the same time. Effect? Tempest still wont be the best damage dealing platform but: you get more-less same DPS from ACs (loses rof but gains 50% damage at lvl5 and another 5% from AC buff) and at the same time gets huge faloff + some more all round damage from drones.

Result? Better AC boat with 2 spare hislots (for neuts/nosf warfare), better sniper boat (both range boost from faloff and higher alpha from damage instead of ROF).

Just a late night idea tho + i've never flown a pest ;p So i might be totally missing it. What ya think?

EDIT:
actually i think it wouldnt need larger drone bay after all those changes. current pest is 670gun dps (rf emp) 3+20range. After changes it would be around 670dps but at 3+30 range and 3+45 on barrage. Hmmmm.... barrage hitting up to 80km? ;p O well just an idea.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.06.03 00:51:00 - [327]
 

No, you're wrong because I know for a fact that blasters need better tracking than their current stats to make them -at all- fair.

I will not try to explain it whatsoever, because you will never explain why I am wrong, so why bother explaining why I'm right in the first place.

All you can do is say "lol keep dreaming blaster-***** they will never improve blasters because they are not underpowered at all"

Lol me to sleep electric

Yea, a small boost to tracking, small boost to damage is what blasters need. Of course the flamers won't even read that line. Somebody can't realize that I'm not asking for 600% damage increase to hybrids, I'll say it again, I wan't balance and blasters need love,

deimos is the shafted hac, lets go to the test server and prove it? anybody?

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.06.03 01:32:00 - [328]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 03/06/2009 02:05:11
Originally by: Leto Aramaus
No, you're wrong because I know for a fact that blasters need better tracking than their current stats to make them -at all- fair.

I will not try to explain it whatsoever, because you will never explain why I am wrong, so why bother explaining why I'm right in the first place.

All you can do is say "lol keep dreaming blaster-***** they will never improve blasters because they are not underpowered at all"

Lol me to sleep electric

Yea, a small boost to tracking, small boost to damage is what blasters need. Of course the flamers won't even read that line. Somebody can't realize that I'm not asking for 600% damage increase to hybrids, I'll say it again, I wan't balance and blasters need love,

deimos is the shafted hac, lets go to the test server and prove it? anybody?

Question.

Why do you say that Blasters need a tracking boost when i know many that don't have any problems with the small, medium and large Blasters tracking at all?.

Do tracking on Blasters need a boost ONLY because your not smart enough to use the Blasters right, or not smart enough to understand how the tracking works, or not smart enough to find out what you have to do to hit the targets better?.

Many of my friends have passed all of those 3 things over, also that they are doing the 3 things over right. And the results = They hit targets really nice and don't have any problems to kill what they are shooting.

Ripping off the inappropriate comment. ~Weatherman

SmokeyJones
Posted - 2009.06.03 02:35:00 - [329]
 

I'm a drone user and focused in this "weapon" as it is the most effect for Gallentes against NPCs.

Yesterday I tried out a Railgun Hyperion in some mission as i also have good gunnery skill (can use T2 Large Rails). For my surprise I spent the same amount of time to complete the mission in comparison with my Dominix.

About 40% of the Hyperion damage came from Drones, so you have the drone "travel" effect anyway.

Against weak rats, isn't a problem.... but when shooting a 1 Mil bounty BS or elite cruisers its a pain to kill. And when you have a target with a high transversal velocity your guns miss.

In wormholes a drone user isn't effective against Sleepers, and a railgun ship has the same problem with your "splited" weapon type.

The most effective ship against both sleepers and missions are the caldari ships. Missiles never miss and you can count with its damage.

The proposed isn't nerf missiles but focus on balance the effectiveness of drones and guns.

Drone ships should give more bonus to the drones resistance and HP and have a more dronebay space to avoid be out of "ammo".

Railguns ships, should only have bandwidth for 5 small drones (focus in frigates) and boost the medium/long range damage.

These are my 2 cents for gallente weapon rebalance.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.06.03 04:18:00 - [330]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 03/06/2009 04:41:37
disclaimer: numbers not 100% accurate, i didn't factor into every little thing like chances of wreckings inside optimal etc. i took raw dps, assumed full damage through optimal, then reduced as falloff was reached. damage halfed at optimal + falloff, reduced to 0 at optimal + (falloff * 2). its not 100% accurate, but its close enough to get the picture.

Mael, 800's, 3 gyros, 5% damage (flat, not per level), 10% falloff (flat, not per level) + RF EMP:
optimal 6, falloff 22:

Quote:
3km - 840 dps
14km - 630
25 - 420
36 - 210
49 - 0


Baddon, Megapulse ii's, 3 heat sinks using present attributes and Amarr Multispec (everyone uses scorch, but whatever):

Quote:
15km - 916 dps
20km- 687
25 - 458
30 - 229
35 - 0


So the baddon out-damages, significantly, the maelstrom up to about 28 or so km. at which point the mael begins to be able to put out 400ish dps, about that of your typical hac.

Mael, 800's, 3 gyros, 5% damage(flat, not per level), 10% falloff (flat, not per level) + barrage:
optimal 6, falloff 33

Quote:
6km - 735
22.5 - 551
39 - 367
55.5 - 183
72 - 0


Baddon with 3 megapulse, 3 heatsinks, scorch:

Quote:
45km - 730
50km - 547
55km - 365
60 - 185
65 - 0


- in both cases, baddon outdamages mael in all cases where the damage is significant. i could care less if my maelstrom is able to hit someone for 250 dps, if i want dps that low i'll fly a t1 cruiser.
- in both cases, the mael gains a range advantage over the baddon, but the damage dealt at ranges which the baddon cannot hit varies from 125ish (with barrage) to 240ish (with RF EMP) at maximum.
- the mael gains a lot of range with barrage, probably too much; imo no short-range weapon should be able to hit from 70km, even if it is for nothing as far as damage goes. we should come up with a distance maximum that short-range weapons should be able to hit. that would help us define the different race's roles.
- in both cases, the amarr is significantly better at all reasonable engagement ranges at which significant dps (500+, which is what you expect on the extreme low end of battleship dps) is put out.
- 10% falloff flat is a bad idea, it will result in a still-gimped series of battleships. proof is above.

and for the textually illiterate:

http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imagelnk.png

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (22)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only