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 : ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 ... : last (42)

Author Topic

Ath Amon
Posted - 2009.09.12 10:33:00 - [1051]
 

Originally by: Tyler Lowe
Edited by: Tyler Lowe on 12/09/2009 07:31:08
Well, there is a way to test at least the falloff change I'm thinking of, and that is using an Ambit rigged Vargur. You really cannot make a direct comparison to other potential artillery platforms using that ship, but certainly, anyone interested in seeing what effect the additional falloff would have on hit quality at 200km+ would be able to get a very clearcut idea by heading to Sisi and trying it out.

I don't believe you can fix the Tempest with a projectile fix alone, but what I'm getting at is a fix to artillery. I don't really understand what you're refering to with 192km vs 202km. Could you please elaborate? By my math, the current situation is that 1400's have a maximum effective range of about 152+(44/1.6)=~180km assuming TA V which no one trains right now. This change would extend that range to closer to 205km, which is a fairly nice boost in effective range, and starts to look like something that, if I have understood the criteria people have listed for it could find a home in a fleet role as a sniper- given an effective platform.

The Tempest itself is not an effective platform right now, which is I guess the reason we're all here.Very Happy

Edit:

I do see what you're saying with the close range damage potential, but think this one over. If the increase in range is to falloff, and that falloff is increased to around 80km, that means that close range, high damage ammo can be used at ranges of 85+ km using the same fit you would for longer range fighting. That's versatility. The only missing thing then is tracking.

Anyway, I'm not married to this idea, it's just something that looked like it had some promise as I mulled it over.



you should look around for the dmg spreadsheet, pretty good sheet to do compare dmg curves (not just dps) and how dmg build up and even to mess a bit with weapon stats... but anyway to get 192 i just got your 52 optimal from falloff and subtracted 20% that is the perchentage boost to faloff (as is percentage we can apply it) but anyway

my main point was another, minnie have not just low range arties but target range too, boosting faloff, expecially in a way that it will still require the same number of TC will not benefit the ship as yes, you will be able to hit up to 200km but you will probably need 1 more sensor booster than other races...

considering that minnie have alredy a weak tank, and that arty dps suck big time, to fit yet another module that will make the tank/dps weaker to get the full benefit of a range boost is imo a bad idea and will not resolve much

another problem with arty is that at lowe range it dont tank for crap, so at "mid range" (the "optimal" minnie range considering its sensors) you may have troubles to hit and do poor dmg...

if generally minnie is designed to be "lower range" than other races, then its weapons should be pretty effective at that range, and this is something that is not happening atm...

falloff also is a strange beast, too low and you just get some range (that as said imo is not that usefull for arties) too much and you risk to use quake at tremor range

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.09.12 11:39:00 - [1052]
 

That is the reason why i defend the fix for arties be to make them the BEST sniper gun UP to 150 km. Make them have MORE alpha and MORE dps. Enough so the option becomes.. ok we can go short sniper range with brutal arties or go extreme range with apoc, rokhs and emgas.....

And by brutal i mean. !400 mm would need to MATCH tachyons in power (but still having the tracking and the finite clip issues).

Then you increase tempest DAMAGE modifier 7.5% or even 10% while removing most of its drone bay. And DONE. you have a ship that outdones ANY bombardment platform from 100-152 km. But that rapdly becomes crap over 170 km

Tyler Lowe
DROW Org
Brotherhood of the Spider
Posted - 2009.09.12 15:28:00 - [1053]
 

Originally by: Ath Amon

you should look around for the dmg spreadsheet, pretty good sheet to do compare dmg curves (not just dps) and how dmg build up and even to mess a bit with weapon stats...


I'd love to mess around with it, but isn't that set up for Excel? Or is there an Open Office friendly version floating around out there? In particular, I am interested in a damage curve vs 425 rails and Tach beams at 150km given an increase in falloff and reduced reload time.

I get the sensor boost argument, but that is a Tempest problem, not really an artillery problem.

I'm not sure it's the drone bay getting in the way either. I think it's those two launcher slots that CCP keeps taking into account whenever they look at this ship. Everytime someone tries to get the Tempest looked at, and this is not the first time for this, someone from CCP points at the two empty slots, put a couple of missile launchers in there that no one is going to fit except for maybe out of desperation, and calls the ship good.

I can understand the concern with Quake, but I worked it out at least somewhat on EFT, and if you drop the launcher slots, use an unlikely 3x gyrostabs, 3 sentries and drone rigs, you would hit about 720DPS at 70km with Quake. That's really good, but it doesn't seem game breaking, and the fit is not even practical for real use.

Roland Thorne
Minmatar
Jian Products Engineering Group
Posted - 2009.09.12 17:11:00 - [1054]
 

Edited by: Roland Thorne on 12/09/2009 17:14:13
Edited by: Roland Thorne on 12/09/2009 17:11:53
Originally by: Tyler Lowe


I'm not sure it's the drone bay getting in the way either. I think it's those two launcher slots that CCP keeps taking into account whenever they look at this ship. Everytime someone tries to get the Tempest looked at, and this is not the first time for this, someone from CCP points at the two empty slots, put a couple of missile launchers in there that no one is going to fit except for maybe out of desperation, and calls the ship good.



That is an interesting point which reminds me of the same weaknesses of the 'phoon. Top DPS needs top SP, a typical minmatar speedbump :)

This is distressing to me though, if ccp is going to be so divided in theory about a ship that is supposed to be a projectile-only "Pest". This will only exacerbate matters with the ship if even ccp can't see its weaknesses.

Edit: fun with quotes lol

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.09.12 17:28:00 - [1055]
 

Originally by: Tyler Lowe
I think it's those two launcher slots that CCP keeps taking into account whenever they look at this ship. Everytime someone tries to get the Tempest looked at, and this is not the first time for this, someone from CCP points at the two empty slots, put a couple of missile launchers in there that no one is going to fit except for maybe out of desperation, and calls the ship good.


[Tempest, Plate Gank copy 1]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II

Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron

800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I


Hammerhead II x5
Warrior II x5

PPHHEEEAAAARRRR the 973 [email protected] Tempest! Blargh. What a crappy fit. Probably better off to use D650s or maybe D425s if you're going in that close anyway.

-Liang

Roland Thorne
Minmatar
Jian Products Engineering Group
Posted - 2009.09.14 17:27:00 - [1056]
 

Dude, 800s will actually be worth it after a fix like what's proposed.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.09.14 17:41:00 - [1057]
 

Originally by: Roland Thorne
Dude, 800s will actually be worth it after a fix like what's proposed.


If it gets fixed.......

-Liang

Ath Amon
Posted - 2009.09.14 23:48:00 - [1058]
 

800mm is epic fail :P factoring reload same dps as 650, it requires more fitting, have a small range gain (not that is worth that much) and track worse than a neut blaster :( i didnt use it even on my crappastrom :P

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:14:00 - [1059]
 

Originally by: Ath Amon
800mm is epic fail :P factoring reload same dps as 650, it requires more fitting, have a small range gain (not that is worth that much) and track worse than a neut blaster :( i didnt use it even on my crappastrom :P


I think you're confusing ACs with 1200mm and 1400mm artillery. 800mm ACs do indeed have better DPS than 650mm, though it isn't an extreme difference.

And blasters have the best absolute tracking, so...sure?

Ath Amon
Posted - 2009.09.15 00:21:00 - [1060]
 

Edited by: Ath Amon on 15/09/2009 00:23:55
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Ath Amon
800mm is epic fail :P factoring reload same dps as 650, it requires more fitting, have a small range gain (not that is worth that much) and track worse than a neut blaster :( i didnt use it even on my crappastrom :P


I think you're confusing ACs with 1200mm and 1400mm artillery. 800mm ACs do indeed have better DPS than 650mm, though it isn't an extreme difference.

And blasters have the best absolute tracking, so...sure?


nah

800mm = 0.0432 vs neut = 0.0433 (thiny bit but 800mm track worse than neut)
650mm = 0.048 vs ion = 0.046 (of course 650mm wins... AC theorically should be the king of tracking)

i'm speaking of dps factoring reload, too lazy to test but i think 650mm is actually a thiny bit better, but anyway imo they are so close that not worth the higher fit and loss in tracking

Tyler Lowe
DROW Org
Brotherhood of the Spider
Posted - 2009.09.15 03:56:00 - [1061]
 

Originally by: Roland Thorne
Dude, 800s will actually be worth it after a fix like what's proposed.


Not holding my breath.

Aranis Nax
Minmatar
Minmatar United Freedom Front
The 11th Hour
Posted - 2009.09.16 08:28:00 - [1062]
 

Edited by: Aranis Nax on 16/09/2009 08:29:31
Full Tempest fix suggestion:
For the tempest in my opinion the relative "versatility" should be increased for it.
Best way to accomplish it would be the addition of a 6th midslot. It would enable more possible fits that could be unique to the Tempest. It would have to give up a slot somewhere and I think the best compromise would be to remove a high slot. It would lose a utility high slot but I think the relative usefullness of that high is lower then what a 6th midslot would provide.
To compensate for the loss of a highslot I think it should receive an increase of 25mł to drone bandwith/bay size. Since 1 heavy drone approximates 1 unbonused siege launcher in dps.
Combined with a maneuverability increase(a little extra velocity/agility) it should be able to fill a different role then Mael.

Another part would be to change T1 projectile ammo in this way:

EM EX KI TH range
Fusion 0 28 20 0 -50%
Phased P 0 16 0 28 -37.5%
EMP 24 16 0 0 -25%
Tsab 0 12 24 0 -12.5%
DPU 0 12 0 20 0%
Proton 20 8 0 0 +20%
Carb L 0 8 16 0 +40%
Nuclear 0 12 8 0 +60%

I wanted a bigger emphasis on the primary damage type for minmatar while still retaining some of the choice in damage type, so all ammo types have an explosive component and then have a second component that varies.

Increasing the highest damage ammo(Fusion here) to 48 damage(like AM and MF) increases dps output by 9% at the lowest range.
For artillery, I would suggest increasing the damage mod by 20-30% and decrease rate of fire by the same amount. Increasing the volley would go a ways to making artillery's old strength back to what it was and make the 10-shots-in-gun a slightly less irritating issue.

Finally for autocannons: I think they're OK where they are except for one thing, range. Currently when a Tempest would have to go up against a megathron there is only a small area where AC falloff works in favour of the Tempest, ever since the introduction of T2 ammo(null) this area has shrunk considerably. Tiering falloff and increasing it by perhaps 20% on average would be a good assistance there. The Dual 425mm would have current falloff(16km), dual 650mm 20km and 800mm 24km.

And then a nerf to pulse lasers(sorry I hate myself too(Amarr bs 5, T2 large pewpew char reporting)), remove the tracking boost they received last, though I haven't actually found which patch exactly it was applied in, I have a distinct memory it was around the same time the whole "nano nerf" happened that changed the whole webbing mechanic. It is only this that is making pulse better then they should be imo, they're good outside web range, they're still good inside web range, there is no way to reliably outtrack them close range without suffering from tracking issues yourself, I tried on sisi with tempest vs. abaddon. It just did not work without my own dps being seriously gimped.

(edit) it's alive! aaaaliiiiiive!!Wink(/edit)

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.09.16 11:07:00 - [1063]
 

The tempest cannot loose its 2 high slots as the machariel and fleet tempest are. THat would destroy the ONLY good thing about the tempest and relegate it to become a THINNER, less damaging and slightly faster megatron.

A 6th mid WIHTOUT removing high could work. Same way as naglfar was observed to NEED an extra slot. But that would only help on close range semi solo fights.

Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
Posted - 2009.09.16 11:28:00 - [1064]
 

I think we should give up the idea of coping with just falloff. Add some optimal range to the ammos so that AC's can actually do better damage at some range. For BS sizes I would imagine something like 0-5km = blaster dominion, 5-15km = ac dominion and 15-25(+) = laser dominion. Something like 10km opt 20km falloff with Barrage (7.5 + 10 with EMP?) would probably do the trick here. Though lasers will still probably be better at 10-15 (and Null would be equalish?) but at least AC's could compete.

No matter what the numbers, falloff is just too inferior to work so imo we need optimal. The alternative is flat out increasing damage output but that would risk stepping onto blasters' toes.

Btw, the idea of reducing reload time to 5 secs is interesting, too. As it is, 10 seconds makes it unviable to switch ammo in most situations (so it is only used before engaging based on intel). This could be one way of improving projectile damage aswell (not sure exactly how much that would translate to, though).

Aranis Nax
Minmatar
Minmatar United Freedom Front
The 11th Hour
Posted - 2009.09.16 11:45:00 - [1065]
 

lose 2 highs? just the one. So it would be 7-6-6 with 6 turret hardpoints and 3 launcher hardpoints and 100 MBit/s drone bandwith(with matching drone bay). DPS in a full damage fit(that includes launchers and drones) would stay approx. the same while gaining a 6th mid which opens up options. In exchange of losing that high slot it gains a mid and a 4th heavy drone, imo it's worth the sacrifice.
CCP has made the mistake of just arbitrarily giving a mid to a ship before and promptly forgot all about it when expanding the ship lineup later on. One of the reasons why tier 1 bc's are meh relative to the tier 2's, most of them are 2 slots down to the tier 2, except for one, the Cyclone.
Now I don't really agree with the rule, one high = one mid = one low = one turret hardpoint = one launcher hardpoint, that CCP employs but at least they should be consistent and actually follow it properly not make exceptions whenever suitable. And then forget about it. In honesty though, they should really get rid of that rule(and the +1 tier, +1 slot rule)and think of a better way to balance all ships.

kyrv
Posted - 2009.09.16 11:54:00 - [1066]
 

Edited by: kyrv on 16/09/2009 11:55:07
Im willing to bet no one figures this out at all Laughing

edit- the problem is massive

Lucifien
Posted - 2009.09.16 12:02:00 - [1067]
 

Rework the falloff forumula, make it exponential, not that neverending tail and steep middle-ground it is now:

Falloff ratio (r) = min(0, (range - optimal) / falloff)
Chance to hit = 1 + (1 - (sqrt(2) ^ r) )

* Almost unchanged from 0-0.5x falloff

* Higher hit chance from 0.5-1.5x falloff. You will now be able to move into about 1.2x before getting below 50%. This is no longer the steepest bit of the function, moving past 1x is not as detrimental as it used to be.

* Lower hit chance from about 1.5x, dropping to 0% @ 2.0x. Allows increasing falloff slightly without overtaking lasers at any point, making autos the medium range turret.

Won't be enough on its own, but it will be about 20% more dps around 1x falloff, without increasing dps in "blaster range"

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.09.16 12:16:00 - [1068]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Tyler Lowe
I think it's those two launcher slots that CCP keeps taking into account whenever they look at this ship. Everytime someone tries to get the Tempest looked at, and this is not the first time for this, someone from CCP points at the two empty slots, put a couple of missile launchers in there that no one is going to fit except for maybe out of desperation, and calls the ship good.


[Tempest, Plate Gank copy 1]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II

Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron

800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
800mm Repeating Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP L
Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo
Siege Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo

Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I


Hammerhead II x5
Warrior II x5

PPHHEEEAAAARRRR the 973 [email protected] Tempest! Blargh. What a crappy fit. Probably better off to use D650s or maybe D425s if you're going in that close anyway.

-Liang


It is a crappy fit because you refuse to shield tank a shield tanking ship Laughing

Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
Posted - 2009.09.16 12:18:00 - [1069]
 

Originally by: Lucifien
Rework the falloff forumula, make it exponential, not that neverending tail and steep middle-ground it is now:

Falloff ratio (r) = min(0, (range - optimal) / falloff)
Chance to hit = 1 + (1 - (sqrt(2) ^ r) )

* Almost unchanged from 0-0.5x falloff

* Higher hit chance from 0.5-1.5x falloff. You will now be able to move into about 1.2x before getting below 50%. This is no longer the steepest bit of the function, moving past 1x is not as detrimental as it used to be.

* Lower hit chance from about 1.5x, dropping to 0% @ 2.0x. Allows increasing falloff slightly without overtaking lasers at any point, making autos the medium range turret.

Won't be enough on its own, but it will be about 20% more dps around 1x falloff, without increasing dps in "blaster range"


I proposed a similar idea a year ago. But campaigning for more simple solutions is more likely to succeed.

Aranis Nax
Minmatar
Minmatar United Freedom Front
The 11th Hour
Posted - 2009.09.16 13:08:00 - [1070]
 

Originally by: Lindsay Logan
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Tyler Lowe
I think it's those two launcher slots that CCP keeps taking into account whenever they look at this ship. Everytime someone tries to get the Tempest looked at, and this is not the first time for this, someone from CCP points at the two empty slots, put a couple of missile launchers in there that no one is going to fit except for maybe out of desperation, and calls the ship good.


[...]
PPHHEEEAAAARRRR the 973 [email protected] Tempest! Blargh. What a crappy fit. Probably better off to use D650s or maybe D425s if you're going in that close anyway.

-Liang


It is a crappy fit because you refuse to shield tank a shield tanking ship Laughing

ShockedShockedSince when is the Tempest absolutely a shield tanker?ShockedShocked(one more for good measure Shocked)

Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: Lucifien
Rework the falloff forumula, make it exponential, not that neverending tail and steep middle-ground it is now:...


I proposed a similar idea a year ago. But campaigning for more simple solutions is more likely to succeed.
Yes, I think going for a simpler solution would be better, it took CCP only 6 years to fix a bug in the current tracking formulaWink. Who knows how long it would take next time(they've been improving though, i'll give em thatRazz)
Oh on your 10km optimal/20km falloff suggestion, Jin. How would it change current situation, considering that ammo like EMP has -50% optimal penalty, that 10km would just be a 2-3 km difference(5 km optimal) from current(3 km optimal) with EMP. Few people would sacrifice damage for more range as it is.
What I would find interesting is adding a falloff modifier on projectile ammo, just not convinced it would do all that much either. Especially in light of T2 ammo messing up any desire for making T1 ammo selection meaningfull beyond getting most damage out of guns.

Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
Posted - 2009.09.16 14:13:00 - [1071]
 

Originally by: Aranis Nax

Oh on your 10km optimal/20km falloff suggestion, Jin. How would it change current situation, considering that ammo like EMP has -50% optimal penalty, that 10km would just be a 2-3 km difference(5 km optimal) from current(3 km optimal) with EMP. Few people would sacrifice damage for more range as it is.


Those ranges were with ammunition, so with whatever changes to ammo range penalties that would be neccessary to achieve the outcome.

Aranis Nax
Minmatar
Minmatar United Freedom Front
The 11th Hour
Posted - 2009.09.16 22:49:00 - [1072]
 

Originally by: Jin Entres
Originally by: Aranis Nax

Oh on your 10km optimal/20km falloff suggestion, Jin. How would it change current situation, considering that ammo like EMP has -50% optimal penalty, that 10km would just be a 2-3 km difference(5 km optimal) from current(3 km optimal) with EMP. Few people would sacrifice damage for more range as it is.


Those ranges were with ammunition, so with whatever changes to ammo range penalties that would be neccessary to achieve the outcome.

Aha, my ForumWarrior™ Brainsuckor 9000 must be broken Razz the superior replacement still hasn't arrived(the Braindrain 9001 CCP edition is far superior last I heard and comes with a free crystal ball to bootWink)

Anyway if that's with range bonuses applied, you're asking for weapons that have 20km falloff and 20km optimal? I don't think CCP would go along with that, unfortunately.
Assuming CCP would stick to the classic ranges on projectile ammo.
That said I think they maybe should dust off that ol' devblog about ammo changes and consider that again for projectile weapons only, they're the only turret that has varying damage types.

Ath Amon
Posted - 2009.09.17 03:23:00 - [1073]
 

Originally by: Aranis Nax
Aha, my ForumWarrior™ Brainsuckor 9000 must be broken Razz the superior replacement still hasn't arrived(the Braindrain 9001 CCP edition is far superior last I heard and comes with a free crystal ball to bootWink)

Anyway if that's with range bonuses applied, you're asking for weapons that have 20km falloff and 20km optimal? I don't think CCP would go along with that, unfortunately.
Assuming CCP would stick to the classic ranges on projectile ammo.
That said I think they maybe should dust off that ol' devblog about ammo changes and consider that again for projectile weapons only, they're the only turret that has varying damage types.



better to keep that devblog buried where is it :P
the different dmg type could have be ok for that time whitout t2 equip, t2 ships (with t2 resists), rigs, t2 ammos and so on... basically for a very different game

nowaday ships have kinda balanced resists, of course you still have some differences but it depends by the fitting you are going to face, not just by the ship so you cant really guess what dmg is the best to use just looking to a ship

proj also are not like missiles that deal standard full type dmg, with ammos there is a mix and a variation in dps too, not to say that if you spend hourse reloading guns you willnot do much dmg.

incidentally also the resists that probably give a bit better results are alo kin and therm that are the dmg type of the best weapon system... so is not that huge bonus to be able to switch dmg type if you have not a real gain vs other turrets...

proj dmg types are ok for pve but for pvp the use is quite limited and situational at best, not a real factor to balnce a weapon

eve changed a lot in these years, many of the good things that proj provided (alpha, dmg type, faloff before t2 ammos) where gone... imo thers no need to try to rework them, a boost should focus on the main factors of various weapaons and their dmg curve

Tyler Lowe
DROW Org
Brotherhood of the Spider
Posted - 2009.09.17 04:05:00 - [1074]
 

Edited by: Tyler Lowe on 17/09/2009 04:05:10
I did have another idea for how to get away from the need for a double damage bonus with this ship while still making projectiles less effective on non-Matar platforms, one that might even address the split weapon platforms, at least to a degree. I'm not sure if this one is practical, but it might offer some advantages.

I was thinking that you could get rid of the rate of fire bonus on the ships, increase the turret signature resolution by 50%.

This would basically kill tracking on non matar ships, and then replace the RoF bonus with one of two ship bonus:

-7.5% lowered projectile turret signature resolution per ship skill level in the case of pure gunboats

+7.5% target painter effectiveness per ship skill level for the split weapon hulls

This is going to leave projectiles somewhat less accurate than other turrets even at level 5 ship skill so they would need a tracking buff to compensate. The main things this would allow for, at least what I was hoping for here, are:

1. The weapons would not need to be balanced for dual damage bonus and single damage bonus ships at the same time. It seemed to me that this might be one of the problems CCP is having in balancing projectiles.

2. This would allow an opportunity for Matar racial e-war (target painting) to have some sort of relevance to the ships and weapons.

3. It would provide an opportunity to give split weapon hulls a meaningful ship bonus that has a positive impact on both weapon systems.

4. It would provide Matar weapons a very unique racial flavor. Projectiles would really stand apart from any other weapon system in game.

I still believe in a tiered falloff system and a 10% per skill level boost for trajectory analysis, in addition to the 5 second reload mechanic for projectiles. I'm not going to pretend this is an instant cure-all or anything, but the idea seemed interesting to me.

Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
Posted - 2009.09.17 08:12:00 - [1075]
 

Originally by: Aranis Nax

Anyway if that's with range bonuses applied, you're asking for weapons that have 20km falloff and 20km optimal? I don't think CCP would go along with that, unfortunately.



I assume you mean as a base weapon range. While base range without ammo has no relevance, it's not actually even neccessary to change the base stats: you could just increase the optimal modifier on ammo like Barrage. Or perhaps you just misread me again since I said 10km optimal + 20km falloff with Barrage? Razz

P.S. Doesn't it strike you as odd how 20 + 20 intuitively sounds too much to us when we think of autocannons -- yet the 45 + 10 of lasers is just fine -- they are lasers, afterall!
P.S.S. Before anyone jumps in, I don't want lasers nerfed.

Roland Thorne
Minmatar
Jian Products Engineering Group
Posted - 2009.09.17 08:38:00 - [1076]
 

Edited by: Roland Thorne on 17/09/2009 08:44:11
Originally by: Tyler Lowe


I was thinking that you could get rid of the rate of fire bonus on the ships, increase the turret signature resolution by 50%.

This would basically kill tracking on non matar ships, and then replace the RoF bonus with one of two ship bonus:

-7.5% lowered projectile turret signature resolution per ship skill level in the case of pure gunboats

+7.5% target painter effectiveness per ship skill level for the split weapon hulls



I find this interesting as well. This requires changes on all ships though, and perhaps even a mandatory extra mid on some of the shield-tanked ships or this could be a very comprehensive nerf to the mael, for example. Another point is there are almost always only two bonuses, and again the mael could easily be nerfed by having to replace the shield boost bonus. The tempest and the 'phoon would probably be ok because of armor tanking; but again, this makes target painters pretty much a must have and it will change what the armor tankers can and can't do. Any kind of tackle fitted ship will suffer a dps loss because of limited mids, especially the frig class.

Edit: Don't forget that target painters have range and falloff too... I don't have the info on that right here but I think the basic t1 ones have about 60 km falloff. This change may nerf what sniper capability minny's have, and limit mission boats.

Sputnik Tsygan
Posted - 2009.09.17 09:59:00 - [1077]
 

I could only be bothered reading the 1st and last pages of this 32 page topic and it seems it's been derailed onto a conversation about projectiles.

The tempest is quite possibly the worst battleship in the game (IMO it is). But with skills, a decent sniper.

However, I'd choose a gank fitted maelstrom over tempest every time. Smile

Ath Amon
Posted - 2009.09.17 11:14:00 - [1078]
 

Originally by: Tyler Lowe
Edited by: Tyler Lowe on 17/09/2009 04:05:10
I did have another idea for how to get away from the need for a double damage bonus with this ship while still making projectiles less effective on non-Matar platforms, one that might even address the split weapon platforms, at least to a degree. I'm not sure if this one is practical, but it might offer some advantages.

I was thinking that you could get rid of the rate of fire bonus on the ships, increase the turret signature resolution by 50%.

This would basically kill tracking on non matar ships, and then replace the RoF bonus with one of two ship bonus:

-7.5% lowered projectile turret signature resolution per ship skill level in the case of pure gunboats

+7.5% target painter effectiveness per ship skill level for the split weapon hulls

This is going to leave projectiles somewhat less accurate than other turrets even at level 5 ship skill so they would need a tracking buff to compensate. The main things this would allow for, at least what I was hoping for here, are:

1. The weapons would not need to be balanced for dual damage bonus and single damage bonus ships at the same time. It seemed to me that this might be one of the problems CCP is having in balancing projectiles.

2. This would allow an opportunity for Matar racial e-war (target painting) to have some sort of relevance to the ships and weapons.

3. It would provide an opportunity to give split weapon hulls a meaningful ship bonus that has a positive impact on both weapon systems.

4. It would provide Matar weapons a very unique racial flavor. Projectiles would really stand apart from any other weapon system in game.

I still believe in a tiered falloff system and a 10% per skill level boost for trajectory analysis, in addition to the 5 second reload mechanic for projectiles. I'm not going to pretend this is an instant cure-all or anything, but the idea seemed interesting to me.



to remove a bonus can be interesting, same for resolution (that in the end is a worse tracking) but few things...

if you remove the rof bonus you need to boost the dmg by a huge margin 30-40% more base dmg... also if you make them worse (worse tracking) the dmg should go up even more to balance that or you end with a weapon that not only do crap dps but also track worse than lasers

a bonus to tp is out of question, or you will force all the minnie ships to carry a tp to use their weapons and if they dont carry that they waste a bonus... also tp have range... can work for close range but of course not for arty (that have alredy crappy tracking)

following these principles probably ACs should have base dmg very similar to blasters to make them kinda balanced and arty should probably outdps beams

Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.09.17 11:25:00 - [1079]
 

Funny how Pest is regarded as worst while it is almost the same as Raven. It totaly has nothing to do with projectiles, I swear.

Well, 8/5/6 is also surprisingly inferior to 8/6/5 and Caldari "brick" approach works better for BS class but the weapon have huge say in that. Accidentaly both are capless and get to pick damage type (lol yeah on paper maybe, it can get thermal heavy which is cool except the baseline DPS is nerfed and then it has explosive or stupid).

And now we have CCP giving Fleet Pest the treatment of Navy Raven and going "oops" the very moment that shtty draft gets read by someone, anyone... and still not moving a finger at all.

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.09.17 11:32:00 - [1080]
 

Originally by: Aranis Nax
Originally by: Lindsay Logan
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Tyler Lowe
I think it's those two launcher slots that CCP keeps taking into account whenever they look at this ship. Everytime someone tries to get the Tempest looked at, and this is not the first time for this, someone from CCP points at the two empty slots, put a couple of missile launchers in there that no one is going to fit except for maybe out of desperation, and calls the ship good.


[...]
PPHHEEEAAAARRRR the 973 [email protected] Tempest! Blargh. What a crappy fit. Probably better off to use D650s or maybe D425s if you're going in that close anyway.

-Liang


It is a crappy fit because you refuse to shield tank a shield tanking ship Laughing

ShockedShockedSince when is the Tempest absolutely a shield tanker?ShockedShocked(one more for good measure Shocked)




Since it has more shields,since it can fit a decent buffer, and with good dps (considering the state of AC) and two netus to boot.

These guys in here want to make it an RR Mega/Geddon clone it seems. If anything lets focus on its shield properties and lets make a new shield BS, not another chip on the block armor one.


Pages: first : previous : ... 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 ... : 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