open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Tempest needs changing.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 ... : last (42)

Author Topic

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.08.28 16:10:00 - [781]
 

Edited by: Ecky X on 28/08/2009 16:10:47
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Was this not the Vargur that CCP prenerfed into near uselessness so it couldn't be used in PvP? I don't see CCP doing anything like that, especially when it contradicts their prenerf. That, and they won't put a 100% role bonus on a t1 ship.



These are the Vargur's T1 bonuses:

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large projectile turret rate of fire and 10% bonus to large projectile turret falloff per level


These are its T2 bonuses:


Marauder Skill Bonus: 7.5% bonus to shield boost amount and 7.5% bonus to large projectile turret tracking per level


The Vargur also has 7 highs, a slight resist increase, a superior slot layout (the Maelstrom's), as well as extra base cap recharge. I would like the Tempest to have the Vargur's T1 bonuses.

Yifrosky
Posted - 2009.08.28 16:52:00 - [782]
 

Just fix Arty, give it a bigger clip and get rid of the insane power grid............

I personally consider the powergrid fitting requirement being the most annoying of the Arty's problem. Whats the point of using it when you cant even...........fit it.

Eli Porter
Posted - 2009.08.28 17:16:00 - [783]
 

Originally by: Yifrosky
Just fix Arty, give it a bigger clip and get rid of the insane power grid............

I personally consider the powergrid fitting requirement being the most annoying of the Arty's problem. Whats the point of using it when you cant even...........fit it.


The problem with boosting artillery as a fix is that the Tempest will stay far inferior to the Maelstrom. The fact is that the Maelstrom takes away from the Tempest's "Core" role(Its in-game description as a long range specialist).

Indeed, Artillery has issues with both DPS and range, but just boosting artillery is not the way to go, as you might solve one problem with Minmatar being sub-par snipers but you won't solve the problem of the Tempest being terrible.

IMO, a boost to both the Tempest and Artillery is required. My goal would be to make the Tempest a bit better for Sniping than the Maelstrom, keeping the Maelstrom a better "overall" ship than the Tempest, and most importantly bringing Minmatar on par with the other races for sniping.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.08.28 17:19:00 - [784]
 

Originally by: Ecky X


These are the Vargur's T1 bonuses:

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large projectile turret rate of fire and 10% bonus to large projectile turret falloff per level
....

I would like the Tempest to have the Vargur's T1 bonuses.


Not to be a naysayer, but that would make the Tempest do 20% less damage than it currently does. 50% falloff wouldn't make up for that...you wouldn't have any sort of advantage until well beyond point range.

What else would you change about it to make up for that?

SickSeven
Simplistic Syndicate
Posted - 2009.08.28 17:44:00 - [785]
 

Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Ecky X


These are the Vargur's T1 bonuses:

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large projectile turret rate of fire and 10% bonus to large projectile turret falloff per level
....

I would like the Tempest to have the Vargur's T1 bonuses.


Not to be a naysayer, but that would make the Tempest do 20% less damage than it currently does. 50% falloff wouldn't make up for that...you wouldn't have any sort of advantage until well beyond point range.

What else would you change about it to make up for that?


well with a proper boost(balance) of artillery those ship bonuses would be great!

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.08.28 18:14:00 - [786]
 

Edited by: Ecky X on 28/08/2009 18:14:13
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Ecky X


These are the Vargur's T1 bonuses:

Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large projectile turret rate of fire and 10% bonus to large projectile turret falloff per level
....

I would like the Tempest to have the Vargur's T1 bonuses.


Not to be a naysayer, but that would make the Tempest do 20% less damage than it currently does. 50% falloff wouldn't make up for that...you wouldn't have any sort of advantage until well beyond point range.

What else would you change about it to make up for that?


Erm, sorry.


In the post before that one I proposed giving the Tempest a "marauder" layout, like the Nightmare has; 4 turrets, 6 highs. The Tempest's bonuses would read like this:



Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to large projectile turret rate of fire (OR DAMAGE) and 10% bonus to large projectile turret falloff per level

Role Bonus: 100% bonus to large projectile weapon damage

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.08.28 18:57:00 - [787]
 

Originally by: Eli Porter
Originally by: Yifrosky
Just fix Arty, give it a bigger clip and get rid of the insane power grid............

I personally consider the powergrid fitting requirement being the most annoying of the Arty's problem. Whats the point of using it when you cant even...........fit it.


The problem with boosting artillery as a fix is that the Tempest will stay far inferior to the Maelstrom. The fact is that the Maelstrom takes away from the Tempest's "Core" role(Its in-game description as a long range specialist).

Indeed, Artillery has issues with both DPS and range, but just boosting artillery is not the way to go, as you might solve one problem with Minmatar being sub-par snipers but you won't solve the problem of the Tempest being terrible.

IMO, a boost to both the Tempest and Artillery is required. My goal would be to make the Tempest a bit better for Sniping than the Maelstrom, keeping the Maelstrom a better "overall" ship than the Tempest, and most importantly bringing Minmatar on par with the other races for sniping.


That is why I proposed something SIMPLY and easy to push.


Change damage bonus to 7.5% damage per level. Increase PG by 15% (allow dropping of the RCU).. increase ship agility ENOUGH to be an advantage (MUST be able to warp out in less than 10 seconds since 10 seconds is the MAXIMAL time any ship takes to warp with mwd trick). Also increase lock range by 10%.

That would make it an agile sniper, with good alpha strike , While maelstrom would be much less agile and only advantageous if you plant to DD tank fit.


AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.28 19:48:00 - [788]
 

I'm not sure why I didn't put my proposed changes in this thread, perhaps Orakkus wants to keep them under wraps for whatever reason. If he gives the go ahead for whatever he's planning I'll post my master change list here. It includes fixes for autocannons, artillery, ammo, the tempest, muninn, and typhoon.

Kismo
Posted - 2009.08.28 19:53:00 - [789]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
I'm not sure why I didn't put my proposed changes in this thread, perhaps Orakkus wants to keep them under wraps for whatever reason. If he gives the go ahead for whatever he's planning I'll post my master change list here. It includes fixes for autocannons, artillery, ammo, the tempest, muninn, and typhoon.


I rather strongly suspect that I'll endorse Astrophobic's list of changes now that he no longer champions adding optimal to ACs. However, I will be able to supply my own list of proposed changes as of Thursday, which is when the phone company says they can get my internet back up. Until then, I can't evemail Orakkus.

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.08.28 20:06:00 - [790]
 

I wasn't one of the ones "invited" by Orakkus, but I'm working on some graphs and a master-list of changes as well. I'm just a little concerned you'll all find me a bit conservative in my proposals.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.28 20:08:00 - [791]
 

Originally by: Ecky X
I wasn't one of the ones "invited" by Orakkus, but I'm working on some graphs and a master-list of changes as well. I'm just a little concerned you'll all find me a bit conservative in my proposals.


Mine are all fairly moderate when considering some of the more off-the-wall things in this thread. Many minor changes.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.08.28 20:30:00 - [792]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: Ecky X
I wasn't one of the ones "invited" by Orakkus, but I'm working on some graphs and a master-list of changes as well. I'm just a little concerned you'll all find me a bit conservative in my proposals.


Mine are all fairly moderate when considering some of the more off-the-wall things in this thread. Many minor changes.


Same here. I was only proposing some fairly common sense changes to the Pest and ammo. I found out some fairly interesting things while I was researching changes to Artillery though...

Just about everyone who cares knows that close-range projectile ammo has 10% less total damage than the other breeds of turrets. I didn't know that long-range projectile has 10% more damage though until recently. That might have been interesting in the days before T2 sniper ammo, but it's just a nerf now.

I also found out that Artillery always does 23% less base DPS than beams whether it's small, medium, or large. Artillery always has the exact same optimal as beams, and almost always has exactly twice the falloff.

There's only one exception to this: Tachs. The above things hold true for Mega Beams, which are balanced (in terms of medium and small weapons) relative to the other weapons. But for some reason, CCP decided at the Large level Amarr should get a weapon that beats every other Large weapon at everything in almost every stat.

It took a while to crunch the numbers, but it was a bit of an eye-opening experience. (Especially about the Artillery range = laser range thing.) I can post the numbers here later, if anyone is interested. Though with the size of this threadnaught, I should probably just make a new one.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.28 20:33:00 - [793]
 

Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: Ecky X
I wasn't one of the ones "invited" by Orakkus, but I'm working on some graphs and a master-list of changes as well. I'm just a little concerned you'll all find me a bit conservative in my proposals.


Mine are all fairly moderate when considering some of the more off-the-wall things in this thread. Many minor changes.


Same here. I was only proposing some fairly common sense changes to the Pest and ammo. I found out some fairly interesting things while I was researching changes to Artillery though...

Just about everyone who cares knows that close-range projectile ammo has 10% less total damage than the other breeds of turrets. I didn't know that long-range projectile has 10% more damage though until recently. That might have been interesting in the days before T2 sniper ammo, but it's just a nerf now.

I also found out that Artillery always does 23% less base DPS than beams whether it's small, medium, or large. Artillery always has the exact same optimal as beams, and almost always has exactly twice the falloff.

There's only one exception to this: Tachs. The above things hold true for Mega Beams, which are balanced (in terms of medium and small weapons) relative to the other weapons. But for some reason, CCP decided at the Large level Amarr should get a weapon that beats every other Large weapon at everything in almost every stat.

It took a while to crunch the numbers, but it was a bit of an eye-opening experience. (Especially about the Artillery range = laser range thing.) I can post the numbers here later, if anyone is interested. Though with the size of this threadnaught, I should probably just make a new one.


My changes address both of those issues. Well, at least artillery separating from lasers. My changes won't make artillery as good as lasers in fleet combat, not by a long shot.

Orakkus
Minmatar
m3 Corp
Posted - 2009.08.29 02:26:00 - [794]
 

Okay.. I have receieved three proposals and have put them up in the Assembly Hall. Please view them, and support which one you think would be the best solution. Please limit your comments because right now we are trying to avoid the run around that has happened with the previous threads on this issue. Thank you all for your time. If more proposals show up I put them up, but only until Sunday.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.08.29 09:08:00 - [795]
 

well, projectiles got one thing going for them; they got explo damage. may sound negligible with all those if-s, but in a BS-fleet, armor tanking is the way to go.
EANMs only shift the base resists upwards but the base relation stays the same (assuming equal armor compensation skills) - so where EM deals 50 damage to armor, explo deals 90 points.

making ships doomsday proof in EFT led us to forget that a large chunk of the "effective kin or explo HP" actually resides in our shields.

it's slightly similar for shield tanks _if_ they have the ability to use em+thm+invul(s) hardeners - in that order. alas, that only "reliably" happens on a capital level -.-


dont get me wrong, i'm not trying to defend this status quo. but i do want to redirect the attention away from the EFT dps and more towards range, tracking and hoaxes like falloff, small signatures, selectable damage types and maybe split weapon systems while we're at it -.-

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.08.29 13:09:00 - [796]
 

Originally by: Roemy Schneider
well, projectiles got one thing going for them; they got explo damage. may sound negligible with all those if-s, but in a BS-fleet, armor tanking is the way to go.
EANMs only shift the base resists upwards but the base relation stays the same (assuming equal armor compensation skills) - so where EM deals 50 damage to armor, explo deals 90 points.

making ships doomsday proof in EFT led us to forget that a large chunk of the "effective kin or explo HP" actually resides in our shields.

it's slightly similar for shield tanks _if_ they have the ability to use em+thm+invul(s) hardeners - in that order. alas, that only "reliably" happens on a capital level -.-


dont get me wrong, i'm not trying to defend this status quo. but i do want to redirect the attention away from the EFT dps and more towards range, tracking and hoaxes like falloff, small signatures, selectable damage types and maybe split weapon systems while we're at it -.-


well if fusion were the top damage ammo for minmatar then that woudl be a very solid reasoning.

But most of our damage comes in EM!

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.29 15:03:00 - [797]
 

I think I just remembered I forgot the TC/TE fix. Oh well.

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.08.29 17:10:00 - [798]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
well if fusion were the top damage ammo for minmatar then that woudl be a very solid reasoning.

But most of our damage comes in EM!



EMP is 45% EM damage, the rest is explosive and kinetic.

Jim McGregor
Posted - 2009.08.29 19:55:00 - [799]
 

Edited by: Jim McGregor on 29/08/2009 19:55:45

Nice to see these threads are still going strong.

For new players, I can tell you that there has been threads like this for 3 years and CCP has not modified the minnie ships one bit. They think minnie are fine even though they are crap. Sorry. :)

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.08.29 21:30:00 - [800]
 

Originally by: Ecky X
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
well if fusion were the top damage ammo for minmatar then that woudl be a very solid reasoning.

But most of our damage comes in EM!



EMP is 45% EM damage, the rest is explosive and kinetic.


that is still the most. Both kin and explosive individually are less than em. So EM is the main damage on minmatar BASIC ammo.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.29 21:55:00 - [801]
 

Originally by: Jim McGregor
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 29/08/2009 19:55:45

Nice to see these threads are still going strong.

For new players, I can tell you that there has been threads like this for 3 years and CCP has not modified the minnie ships one bit. They think minnie are fine even though they are crap. Sorry. :)



My proposal thread seems to be getting fairly positive reviews and hasn't struck a nerve with anyone quite yet. Perhaps the trolls are sleeping.

If you would like to show support (for any of the proposals in assembly), another thumb up would be appreciated. Shameless self plug: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1165197

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.08.30 00:30:00 - [802]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 29/08/2009 19:55:45

Nice to see these threads are still going strong.

For new players, I can tell you that there has been threads like this for 3 years and CCP has not modified the minnie ships one bit. They think minnie are fine even though they are crap. Sorry. :)



My proposal thread seems to be getting fairly positive reviews and hasn't struck a nerve with anyone quite yet. Perhaps the trolls are sleeping.

If you would like to show support (for any of the proposals in assembly), another thumb up would be appreciated. Shameless self plug: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1165197


the only thing to be noted is, altough is a proposal on the measure needed, I don 't know if what is needed is somethign CCP would be willing to give us.

That is reason why I proposed a VERY light and easy to push proposal, that covers up only the tempest. Then on another geological age we can push a projectiles change.

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.08.30 00:41:00 - [803]
 

I would like to give my proposal some visibility as well. Astro, I'd appreciate some feedback. Wink


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1165407

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.30 00:52:00 - [804]
 

Originally by: Ecky X
I would like to give my proposal some visibility as well. Astro, I'd appreciate some feedback. Wink


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1165407


In that thread? I don't know if that's the best idea. I'd be happy to discuss the changes wherever, though.

In my years(Laughing) I have become a lot more agreeable on things so perhaps it's not my place. I just want something done period - whether it's your fix, my fixes, a combo or what have you. I don't think Kagura has the right mindset though - I'm completely of the opinions of projectiles first. Before I start going on about this and that, I want to note that I purposely have a long list of small to medium changes because frankly there's no way in hell that all of them would take place. CCP doesn't have the balls to do a massive overhaul on a weapon system that hasn't been even mentioned since the HP buff.

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.08.30 00:58:00 - [805]
 

Originally by: Me
My proposed changes are similar to Astrophobic's in a few key ways, I feel that my changes are superior in several ways, though a combination of both of our ideas may be best.

My thoughts:

Ammo change, swapping Fusion and EMP - I support swapping fusion with EMP as the top damage ammo, but upping the base damage to 48 may make the Maelstrom a monster, especially when combined with additional falloff and my proposed 8% increase to artillery damage mod.


Tiered falloff and + AC falloff - Tiered falloff has been long due on minmatar weapons. A 35% increase in the base falloff might be a bit too far for autos though, when you take my Tempest changes into account.


Tempest Change - Astrophobic's changes would make a mean Tempest for taking out with battlecruiser gangs, but would leave it as a relatively poor battleship. By changing its bonuses to 10% damage per level + 5% falloff per level, the Tempest goes from 10 effective guns to 9 - a 10% DPS loss, on a ship which already has the lowest DPS of all battleships (with a reallistic fit) sans the Scorpion. I propose instead, giving the Tempest a 10% falloff bonus and incorporating the alpha increase for artillery into its ship bonuses (4 turrets, 100% role + 5% dmg per level), which would have a secondary effect of increasing the length of time a clip lasts by dropping the RoF bonus. My changes leave the Tempest with the same DPS as it started with, but with a range bonus, much like the Apocalypse received.


Astro's artillery change - I would rather have the ship bonus dictate how artillery is used. Too much alpha can be a bad thing in some cases, such as running missions, and in fleet fights where ships go down in the first 2 volleys already.

I feel a better change is giving the Tempest an effecitve 8 guns + 25% damage bonus, while leaving the Maelstrom with its 8 guns and 25% RoF bonus (which gives more DPS). The 10% optimal bonus he proposed would not be necessary with the 8% damage mod increase, the slightly increased falloff on 1400's due to their being a higher tier, and the falloff bonus on a Tempest. Artillery will still not reach out as far as Tachs on an Apoc, but they will do more dps at their lesser range - which won't be as much less.


Muninn change - I support Astro's Muninn change. Currently, the Deimos is both faster and more agile than the Muninn.


Typhoon change - The Typhoon is already a great boat, but I suppose a bit of extra fittings wouldn't hurt. In the early days, having the grid to fit dual reps in its 7 lows with bonused capless weapons would have been too powerful, that probably isn't the case anymore.



Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.08.30 01:18:00 - [806]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
Originally by: Ecky X
I would like to give my proposal some visibility as well. Astro, I'd appreciate some feedback. Wink


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1165407


In that thread? I don't know if that's the best idea. I'd be happy to discuss the changes wherever, though.

In my years(Laughing) I have become a lot more agreeable on things so perhaps it's not my place. I just want something done period - whether it's your fix, my fixes, a combo or what have you. I don't think Kagura has the right mindset though - I'm completely of the opinions of projectiles first. Before I start going on about this and that, I want to note that I purposely have a long list of small to medium changes because frankly there's no way in hell that all of them would take place. CCP doesn't have the balls to do a massive overhaul on a weapon system that hasn't been even mentioned since the HP buff.


I also would prefer a boost projectiles THEN go for the ship. But The whole thread and the propositon on the assembly always moved more focused aroung the tempest, and I fear if you try to pass an ox and a horse by the same door, both will get stuck.

The Projectiles issues are much more easily visible when you work on ships with no double damage bonus, like maelstrom, because on that condition you can swap them for lasers and blasters with resulting massively superior combat chart. But when you try to use tempest as this example it fails and the suckiness of both issues get tangled together and hard to see apart.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.30 01:20:00 - [807]
 

Originally by: Ecky X

Ammo change, swapping Fusion and EMP - I support swapping fusion with EMP as the top damage ammo, but upping the base damage to 48 may make the Maelstrom a monster, especially when combined with additional falloff and my proposed 8% increase to artillery damage mod.


Not to sound pedantic, but I don't see any reason why projectile ammo should keep it's current damage range with t2 ammo as it is. If carbo lead and the other LR ammo had uses (at all), then I would be fine. At the moment they simply don't.


Quote:
Tiered falloff and + AC falloff - Tiered falloff has been long due on minmatar weapons. A 35% increase in the base falloff might be a bit too far for autos though, when you take my Tempest changes into account.


I think falloff range is a problem on every AC ship, not just the tempest. Look at all the ships that fit falloff rigs - other damage boats (see raven, mega, geddon..) don't have to throw away 3 very valuable rig slots just to get some decent damage. From there, the tempest can be looked at individually.


Quote:
Tempest Change - Astrophobic's changes would make a mean Tempest for taking out with battlecruiser gangs, but would leave it as a relatively poor battleship. By changing its bonuses to 10% damage per level + 5% falloff per level, the Tempest goes from 10 effective guns to 9 - a 10% DPS loss, on a ship which already has the lowest DPS of all battleships (with a reallistic fit) sans the Scorpion. I propose instead, giving the Tempest a 10% falloff bonus and incorporating the alpha increase for artillery into its ship bonuses (4 turrets, 100% role + 5% dmg per level), which would have a secondary effect of increasing the length of time a clip lasts by dropping the RoF bonus. My changes leave the Tempest with the same DPS as it started with, but with a range bonus, much like the Apocalypse received.


While this idea does a pretty good job of fixing the tempest, I don't think it's within CCPs viability scale. With my changes, the maelstrom pretty much takes over the role of gankytank battleship so the tempest can separate completely. It's pretty much shoehorned by the shield boost bonus. I think the mael should move towards the sniper role if needed, but the tempest for me has always screamed utility pirate yarr. YARRRR!!

Quote:
Astro's artillery change - I would rather have the ship bonus dictate how artillery is used. Too much alpha can be a bad thing in some cases, such as running missions, and in fleet fights where ships go down in the first 2 volleys already.


I'm not so concerned with fleet fights because minnie will never be strong there. I think the alpha increase is canceled out by the clip increase and slight optimal nudge.

Quote:
The 10% optimal bonus he proposed would not be necessary with the 8% damage mod increase...


I'd be fine with that switch if artillery didn't see my proposed 50%/50% change. I've never felt very strongly towards any artillery fixes. My fixes have small gang combat in mind before all else, so they may give the shaft towards PVE or fleet combat. I think I did a fairly good job of balancing it out though so artillery actually gains a bit of ground in both PVE and fleet, but becomes much more interesting in small gang PVP.

Tyler Lowe
DROW Org
Brotherhood of the Spider
Posted - 2009.08.30 02:22:00 - [808]
 

Edited by: Tyler Lowe on 30/08/2009 02:22:36
Since we were specifically asked not to do this in the assembly hall, I will post this here. I don't want to hurt the chances for any of those proposals, and there is a good chance that the people submitting them have put a great deal more thought and time into this and what I am going to say is nonsense. Regardless, I have some observations, which for better or worse, I will put out there:

Love the tiered falloff and EMP/Fusion ideas.

The artillery suggestion, I can't get behind. Artillery DPS is already pitiful in addition to it's (multiple) other issues. Increasing the alpha by 50% and reducing rate of fire by 50% results in a DPS shift of 1.5/2=.75. 75% of current DPS? This seems to me a poor tradeoff. I do like the idea of an increased alpha at the expense of rate of fire, but a 25% decrease in DPS is just too much. Artillery suffers from an identity crisis IMO, much like many things Matar. If it is not intended to trade shots effectively at extreme ranges with Beams and Rails, where is it expected to shine? I can't see a real fix for arty until that question is answered.

I like the Tempest as an AC boat. The speed and agility changes fit this well, but IMO, drop a high to a med slot, increase the turret hardpoints to 7 and cut it's grid to make fitting 1400's (and perhaps even 1200's) impractical. Give it a RoF bonus of 7.5%/level and a 10%/level falloff. This gives it a 1 turret DPS advantage over the Maelstrom, but with reduced tanking and a significantly different role.

While we're at it, the Golem has a shield boost bonus like the Vargur because it's a PVE ship. Give the Maelstrom a resistance bonus like the Rokh and gear it more towards the role of PvP.

Love the Munnin changes- maybe also add some grid, but that might just be greed.

Typhoon: I like the idea of loosening the fittings on it, but I think maybe this is a torps problem. Torps are now super short range, and they should have lower fitting requirements than cruise missiles. Reverse the fitting requirements between cruise and torps and the Typhoon is (mostly) fine, especially if your AC changes see the light of day.

[edit: to clarify, this is in regard to Astro's suggestions]

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.30 02:59:00 - [809]
 

Originally by: Tyler Lowe

The artillery suggestion, I can't get behind. Artillery DPS is already pitiful in addition to it's (multiple) other issues. Increasing the alpha by 50% and reducing rate of fire by 50% results in a DPS shift of 1.5/2=.75. 75% of current DPS? This seems to me a poor tradeoff. I do like the idea of an increased alpha at the expense of rate of fire, but a 25% decrease in DPS is just too much. Artillery suffers from an identity crisis IMO, much like many things Matar. If it is not intended to trade shots effectively at extreme ranges with Beams and Rails, where is it expected to shine? I can't see a real fix for arty until that question is answered.


The DPS remains constant (actually increases due less time spent reloading). Consider a current damage mod of 10x and 10s ROF. 50% more alpha gives you a 15x mod, and 50% slower ROF gives you 15s. Both give you 1x/s. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear, but your 1.5/2 would mean that ROF was doubled (100% increase) instead of 1.5x (50%).


Quote:
I like the Tempest as an AC boat. The speed and agility changes fit this well, but IMO, drop a high to a med slot, increase the turret hardpoints to 7 and cut it's grid to make fitting 1400's (and perhaps even 1200's) impractical. Give it a RoF bonus of 7.5%/level and a 10%/level falloff. This gives it a 1 turret DPS advantage over the Maelstrom, but with reduced tanking and a significantly different role.


The big thing that makes the pest stick out from the phoon and mael is "open" slots. The phoon's are more or less slated depending upon role, and the mael MUST fit a giant active shield tank which gives you the cookie cutter. I think if you move a high to a mid and throw on another turret we'll just see a shield buffered gank boat BS which tries to mimic a raven, and poorly at that. I think the 10% dmg/5% falloff gives it a nice mix between both arty and AC setups. You might see a few hanging around lowsec gates again, attempting to one-shot cruisers, or a quick support killer. A tempest should be feared, and regarding the BSvBS performance, nothing short of making it a quasi megathron will make this happen. Ask yourself, would you fly this new pest or would the phoon still do it better?

Quote:
While we're at it, the Golem has a shield boost bonus like the Vargur because it's a PVE ship. Give the Maelstrom a resistance bonus like the Rokh and gear it more towards the role of PvP.


While this is great in theory (and goes a long way towards fixing the minnie sniper boat situation), it's one of those racial things that simply won't be done. Minnie does the shield boost thing, whether we like it or not. See cyclone. Sad


Quote:
Typhoon: I like the idea of loosening the fittings on it, but I think maybe this is a torps problem. Torps are now super short range, and they should have lower fitting requirements than cruise missiles. Reverse the fitting requirements between cruise and torps and the Typhoon is (mostly) fine, especially if your AC changes see the light of day.

[edit: to clarify, this is in regard to Astro's suggestions]


I've never really had issues with making phoon fits except for fittings. Having to throw on 4-5 named mods is just plain annoying, and limits possible fits. I've got a nasty little neut/torp phoon that I'm currently skilling for (drone interfacing 5 ugh), and changing torp reqs doesn't do much. I find the CPU to be mostly the limiting factor, but PG is always tight.

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.08.30 03:19:00 - [810]
 

Originally by: Tyler Lowe
The artillery suggestion, I can't get behind. Artillery DPS is already pitiful in addition to it's (multiple) other issues. Increasing the alpha by 50% and reducing rate of fire by 50% results in a DPS shift of 1.5/2=.75. 75% of current DPS? This seems to me a poor tradeoff.



I'm fairly certain what he meant was that artillery would maintain the same DPS, but with increased alpha.



Originally by: AstroPhobic

Quote:
Tiered falloff and + AC falloff - Tiered falloff has been long due on minmatar weapons. A 35% increase in the base falloff might be a bit too far for autos though, when you take my Tempest changes into account.


I think falloff range is a problem on every AC ship, not just the tempest. Look at all the ships that fit falloff rigs - other damage boats (see raven, mega, geddon..) don't have to throw away 3 very valuable rig slots just to get some decent damage. From there, the tempest can be looked at individually.



I suppose you're right, but your ammo changes must be taken with it. 35% extra falloff would make EMP/fusion almost completely worthless, if they don't have significantly more DPS than barrage.

Even with the 50% falloff bonus I proposed, a Pest with 70km of falloff with autocannons (assuming ambits) would still not be anywhere near as absurd as an Apoc already is, with its 90km optimal using pulses - especially with the Tempest's low base lock range. I have to remember that falloff is a much weaker mechanic.



Originally by: AstroPhobic

Quote:
Astro's artillery change - I would rather have the ship bonus dictate how artillery is used. Too much alpha can be a bad thing in some cases, such as running missions, and in fleet fights where ships go down in the first 2 volleys already.


I'm not so concerned with fleet fights because minnie will never be strong there. I think the alpha increase is canceled out by the clip increase and slight optimal nudge.



It really is important though. Minmater ought to have at least one battleship which is useful on the field, even if it doesn't compete directly with rails and lasers, and that's the one thing I feel your proposal lacks. Huge alpha is simply not useful in fleets, and even with 10% extra optimal, artillery will fall short of other long range weapon systems. You either need to give Minmatar a ship with enough range, or a ship with enough damage that it wont be ignored despite its lack of range. I feel my fix gives a little of each, though perhaps not enough.

In my alliance, all of the Tempest pilots get made fun of... and you know what Pandemic says about them. "You're better off blowing up all the Tempests in your fleet, then engaging at 210km", or something along those lines.






Pages: first : previous : ... 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 ... : last (42)

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