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 : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : last (42)

Author Topic

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.08.31 00:13:00 - [841]
 

Edited by: Ecky X on 31/08/2009 00:13:01
And mine? Very Happy

Check page 27, or the assembly hall thread, for a summary.

EDIT: Btw welcome back

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.08.31 00:23:00 - [842]
 

Originally by: Ecky X
Edited by: Ecky X on 31/08/2009 00:13:01
And mine? Very Happy

Check page 27, or the assembly hall thread, for a summary.

EDIT: Btw welcome back


I actually thought quite a while about whether I should +1 both of your suggestions. You made some very good observations in your response to Astro's suggestions, but what really sealed the deal for me was that I didn't believe CCP would actually follow through with giving a BS the Marauder bonus.

Also, it's good to be back. I've been trying to download the Eve client again, but every time I run the installer it restarts X for me. I have temporarily given up for my sanity. I don't want to reinstall Windows.

-Liang

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.08.31 02:55:00 - [843]
 

Originally by: Seishi Maru
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.
sure... if you're still using EMP ammo on a BS level, be my guest.
45% of it get effectively halved thus loosing a quarter of effectiveness against armor.
sry, but in current fleet fights, i just prefer the ammo that does 9% less EFT damage but gets "fully" applied.
too bad i can't throw in the arty-arguments of optimal or clip size with them sucking this much atm -.-

but yes, you're still right - all of this adds to the suckiness of projectiles -.-
a 500 explo-dps machine may be equivalent to a 600+ em/thm-dps one. alas, the latter deal much higher numbers

Marn Prestoc
Minmatar
Maelstrom Crew
Paradigm Alliance
Posted - 2009.08.31 13:56:00 - [844]
 

Utility slots were great when the utility mods that go in them were great, they made the ship balanced and entertaining to fly. Such as Pre-nerf Nos, Pre-nerf ECM or scriptless EW. They got nerfed because other ships were too awesome with them, the same ships (Domi for example) are still great ships, the Tempest is not.

This sums up my thoughts:
Quote:
The A-Team was awesome because BA Baracus was badass and a good mechanic, Face could charm the ladies, Murdock could jury rig stuff like MacGuyver, and Hannibal had plans that always came together and not because they all had two utility highslots.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.08.31 14:57:00 - [845]
 

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 31/08/2009 14:57:59
Just posting to say that for the record, I voted for Astro's idea. It really was the best and most well thought out option.

Also, nice to see Liang's back. We've got an army of number-crunchers on this board now! I expect to see every thread in Ships and Fittings riddled with statistics, optimal fits, real experience, and demeaning comments for the ignorant. Wink

Orakkus
Minmatar
m3 Corp
Posted - 2009.08.31 15:25:00 - [846]
 

So, Seriously Bored, do you want me to continue maintaining your Assembly Hall post, or just let it fade?

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.08.31 16:40:00 - [847]
 

Originally by: Orakkus
So, Seriously Bored, do you want me to continue maintaining your Assembly Hall post, or just let it fade?


Go ahead and let it fade. It hasn't gotten any attention, and in terms of realistic effects on the ships, Astro's suggestions incorporate everything I said for the most part. His Tempest ideas are different, but I care more about the ammo getting fixed, as that'll help every other Minmatar ship in general.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.31 17:18:00 - [848]
 

I just have a little bit of forum swagger. Laughing I'm very very surprised that nobody has spoken out against the proposed changes yet (with the exception of Roemy it appears, but he/she doesn't seem to have much idea of what they're talking about).

@to mare: The DPS will actually increase for all realistic purposes. I have a 9% ammo DPS boost in place which puts it just marginally shy of the current effective turret amount (9.81 if we figure that the DPS boost is the same no matter where it's applied), coupled with the falloff bonus it will do more DPS at every range past say 4km. Not to mention I gave the new ammo sexier damage types (more EM in EMP, highest damage 75% explosive), so we could see selective damage types make a comeback as a "pro" for minnie. Once you include reload times as well, the DPS is always higher. It does drop down to 9 effective turrets, but again for all real purposes your damage will increase.

(and the mael will get a hefty nudge too - wink wink Wink)

CAREBEARSTAR3
Brool Story Co
Posted - 2009.08.31 20:49:00 - [849]
 

BUMP
Can a dev at least acknowledge this thread?

Orakkus
Minmatar
m3 Corp
Posted - 2009.08.31 20:59:00 - [850]
 

I should update folks regarding this topic. Four CSMs contacted me (after my Aug. 27th mailing campaign, thank you for all that participated) regarding this issue. Three directly told me that they would bring it up with CCP when they arrive at their CSM meeting. The fourth hadn't looked at this particular issue yet.

So far, I have yet to hear from any Devs or the like, but I figured that by at least giving the CSMs some options (like those given by Astrophobics, Nikon, etc.) we actually give them something to work with. It also helped that the CSMs updated some information regarding what happened with proposed AC problems about a year ago. CCP Dev Fendahl conceded that the community had some good points regarding problems with ACs, but somehow nothing happened after that and no CSMs followed up on it.


AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.08.31 21:19:00 - [851]
 

Edited by: AstroPhobic on 31/08/2009 21:21:09
Orakkus, could you link this thread in the assembly hall threads? So we can discuss here if need be instead of muddy up the tallies. I like discussing here better anyway.

@ Volir: Interesting point. It has merit, and I see where you're coming from, but I don't see it as a big issue. I think the 3 most seperate types (EMP, Phased Plasma, Fusion) should be the top 3 damage dealers so we can have choice. Bumping PP down another 2 "damage" slots severely decreases our options when fighting say ships with t2 resistances, or even NPCs. In regular play though I don't think I've ever used half the minnie ammo (titanium sabot, nuclear, depleted uranium, proton) in normal circumstances. I'm not against an overhaul of those types too - and your point is valid, it would give more reasonable options when looking at damage types at certain ranges. However it only applies to artillery which is usually seen at absolute low (EMP, hopefully soon to be fusion) or high (tremor) ranges. I don't think it's a very pressing issue and perhaps should be brought up separately.

edit: jinxed.

Kismo
Posted - 2009.08.31 23:12:00 - [852]
 

I like Astrophobic's suggestions, and don't think I'm going to send any in.

Tyler Lowe
DROW Org
Brotherhood of the Spider
Posted - 2009.09.01 04:24:00 - [853]
 

I was thinking about Astro's proposal again, specifically about the autocannon and the tiered falloff. I like it, but you know something that has always bothered me nearly as much as the way falloff on autocannon is set up now, is the skill effecting it. There is currently zero reason to train Trajectory Analysis past rank 4. You maybe already see where I'm headed with this.

dual 425mm falloff: 10km
dual 650mm falloff: 13km
800mm: 16km

change to Trajectory Analysis: 10% per level bonus to Falloff.

In your current proposal, the 800mm would have roughly a 24km falloff. This would produce the same result at the highest level. The penalty for fitting smaller AC's would be more pronounced however, with the dual 650mm coming in at 19km instead of 22km, and 425's would remain at very close to their current (pitiful) falloff with the full bonus at rank 5 applied.

CAREBEARSTAR3
Brool Story Co
Posted - 2009.09.01 04:56:00 - [854]
 

Originally by: Tyler Lowe
I was thinking about Astro's proposal again, specifically about the autocannon and the tiered falloff. I like it, but you know something that has always bothered me nearly as much as the way falloff on autocannon is set up now, is the skill effecting it. There is currently zero reason to train Trajectory Analysis past rank 4. You maybe already see where I'm headed with this.

dual 425mm falloff: 10km
dual 650mm falloff: 13km
800mm: 16km

change to Trajectory Analysis: 10% per level bonus to Falloff.

In your current proposal, the 800mm would have roughly a 24km falloff. This would produce the same result at the highest level. The penalty for fitting smaller AC's would be more pronounced however, with the dual 650mm coming in at 19km instead of 22km, and 425's would remain at very close to their current (pitiful) falloff with the full bonus at rank 5 applied.

This. Also might compensate for it being a x5 skill vs. x2 skill for sharpshooting. I don't understand why it isn't just a x2 skill.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.09.01 05:57:00 - [855]
 

I always thought the trajectory analysis skill was always a bit of a slap in the face.

I don't think it's very pressing either - once we take a look at the ships. The maelstrom has no issues fitting a full rack of 800s and whatever else it pleases. The proposed tempest has a 25% falloff bonus ontop of the 35% proposed lengthening, and another 10% if you squeeze on 800s. Combined with the ammo changes it will see some major change. The phoon is the only ship that really fits D425s - and the fit (torps) is completely short range anyway. The extra proposed grid (1250 when looking at eng 5) should be enough to fit D650s anyway.

It's a good idea, but not something I think we should fudge into the suggestion thread. I'd be very cautious to change or add anything at the moment, simply because of the overwhelming positive response.

Spaztick
Terminal Impact
Kairakau
Posted - 2009.09.01 06:04:00 - [856]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
I always thought the trajectory analysis skill was always a bit of a slap in the face.
Yes, just because of that I'd swear CCP hate having to design Minmatar. It's why I laugh at the people that complain we don't have to train controlled burst, when you can train controlled burst from I to V TWICE in the time it takes to get TA from VI to V.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.09.02 00:11:00 - [857]
 

Come on.. we are almost at page 30!

Chestrano
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.02 01:13:00 - [858]
 

Edited by: Chestrano on 02/09/2009 01:13:57
Edited by: Chestrano on 02/09/2009 01:13:40
Well, I agree with Apo, but like already said: after the boost the tracking enhancer and tracking computer should increase falloff. Maybe even more then optimal?


Spaztick
Terminal Impact
Kairakau
Posted - 2009.09.02 06:12:00 - [859]
 

Originally by: Chestrano
Edited by: Chestrano on 02/09/2009 01:13:57
Edited by: Chestrano on 02/09/2009 01:13:40
Well, I agree with Apo, but like already said: after the boost the tracking enhancer and tracking computer should increase falloff. Maybe even more then optimal?


It's a fine line on actually balancing it; if you have it increase falloff you would have to either have a very small increase in it or have a larger increase but nerf the base falloff. I would much rather have a 5-10% falloff increase per TE than have 15% and a lower falloff on my vagabond.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.09.02 08:11:00 - [860]
 

... and tracking links!

HankMurphy
Minmatar
Pelennor Swarm
Posted - 2009.09.02 08:38:00 - [861]
 

i wish ccp were able to be more open in discussing stuff like this on the forums. you guys have some great ideas and i'd love to hear their take on some of them.

Vrabac
Zawa's Fan Club
Posted - 2009.09.02 08:58:00 - [862]
 

Tiered falloff makes sense for sure, however tempest's proposed bonuses would be a rather weird precedent. A 10% dmg and 5% falloff bonus on a t1 ship looks weird. Then again so does apoc's 7.5% optimal I suppose. But still.

It's not a bad idea, I just don't like the peculiarity. Simpler solution in my opinion would be to add 7th turret. In this case perhaps going with 5% dmg (or rof, which is more common as single minmatar dps bonus) and 10% falloff would be more in-line with the rest of the game, although it would still be only t1 ship with falloff bonus.

Falloff is a weird thing anyhow and I can't really think of a situation where there can be too much of it, especially when comparing to scorch. Anyhow, this would turn the tempest into a huge vaga which is a rather interesting concept, not sure how would it work balance-wise but at first glance looks maintainable. Only experience with tempest I got is with fleet issue tho, so could be wrong. Was efting ambit fleet pest last night for that matter. Laughing

Typhoon on the other hand I really don't think should be changed in any way. The shield/armor hp ratio isn't really that important once you start plating it and the ship already is as awesome and versatile as it can get. It also needs no fitting boost for sure.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.09.02 09:36:00 - [863]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/09/2009 09:40:31
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 02/09/2009 09:39:09
Originally by: Tyler Lowe
the way falloff on autocannon is set up now, is the skill effecting it. There is currently zero reason to train Trajectory Analysis past rank 4


Oh yes there is.

AC falloff on mid-ranged ships is low enough to make everything which extends it worthwhile. You suffer from a very significant DPS reduction fighting in heavy falloff (remember that your vaga without ambit rigs is going to do 39% of its paper Barrage M DPS at edges of point range) - anything which alleviates this by even a few % is worth training.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.09.02 11:21:00 - [864]
 

Well the falloff opens another ground o balance AC. A change in faloff mechanics could do it...

changing the falloff curve would be a good start. But even so there shoudl be modules to boost falloff.

Changing skills to give 10% falloff per level would also be a GREAT move to make AC and lasers closer to each others.


The ultimate boost would be to make it work the same way a lot of noobs think it works when they read modules descriptiosn at their first days in game.


At optimal range you have no modifier chance to hit.. further away you get a panelty.. in a curve towards optimal + falloff. And CLOSER than optimal you get also a penalty.. in a curve towards optimal - falloff.


What that would make? Would means that blasters would not suffer any significant changes since their falloff and range are close to each other, only at under 1 km they would hit less. Lasers would have a hard time fighting things out of 10 km from their optimal. Arties would be FAR superior than other long range guns when engaging close range.


Yes.. that woudl be a massive nerf to overall weapons effectiveness except to AC..... yes I know would make a lot of people mad. But i am just raising this as to show there are near infinite ways to solve these issues.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.09.02 14:23:00 - [865]
 

Edited by: AstroPhobic on 02/09/2009 14:23:53
Edited by: AstroPhobic on 02/09/2009 14:22:58
Originally by: Vrabac
Tiered falloff makes sense for sure, however tempest's proposed bonuses would be a rather weird precedent. A 10% dmg and 5% falloff bonus on a t1 ship looks weird. Then again so does apoc's 7.5% optimal I suppose. But still.

It's not a bad idea, I just don't like the peculiarity. Simpler solution in my opinion would be to add 7th turret. In this case perhaps going with 5% dmg (or rof, which is more common as single minmatar dps bonus) and 10% falloff would be more in-line with the rest of the game, although it would still be only t1 ship with falloff bonus.

Falloff is a weird thing anyhow and I can't really think of a situation where there can be too much of it, especially when comparing to scorch. Anyhow, this would turn the tempest into a huge vaga which is a rather interesting concept, not sure how would it work balance-wise but at first glance looks maintainable. Only experience with tempest I got is with fleet issue tho, so could be wrong. Was efting ambit fleet pest last night for that matter. Laughing

Typhoon on the other hand I really don't think should be changed in any way. The shield/armor hp ratio isn't really that important once you start plating it and the ship already is as awesome and versatile as it can get. It also needs no fitting boost for sure.


Does it help to mention that 7.5% ROF bonus (see nag) is the same as a 12.5% damage bonus? It's not that far from the realm of reality.

The phoon has forever had switched armor and shield HP, no other ship has this "issue". It was probably just an oversight and CCP never fessed up. About the fittings - it's one of the toughest ships to fit. I have max fitting skills and after a MWD and 8 highs you're already scraping the bottom. There's no chance of fitting all t2 either, CPU is low considering the launcher points, and if you go ACs and torps you have to (iirc) drop to the lowest tier auto. It's a pain to fit and even worse if you're out in a 0.0 (t2 only) economy.

Vrabac
Zawa's Fan Club
Posted - 2009.09.02 14:46:00 - [866]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
About the fittings - it's one of the toughest ships to fit.


Heh phoon is certainly not one of the toughest ships to fit. Simple as that.

As for 7.5% bonus on nag, we also got 7.5 rof bonus on navy omen. It still doesn't mean creating another ship with funny bonus is good if it can be simply bypassed by adding something as a turret. Pest is the only 6-turret bs in the game, it looks to me like design oversight that ship should get 2 bonuses on a weapon it gets in insufficient amount to fully use.

Your 10% dmg / 5% falloff suggestion would probably make it better than it is now, I'd simply be more in favour of a solution that follows majority of in-game ship bonus designs more closely.

Orakkus
Minmatar
m3 Corp
Posted - 2009.09.02 15:22:00 - [867]
 

Originally by: Vrabac
Heh phoon is certainly not one of the toughest ships to fit. Simple as that.


I have to disagree. It's very tough to fit and you certainly don't have the PG/CPU to fit a 4/4 T2 Long range weapon loadout without seriously gimping your tank. Close range setups are hampered by the 4/4 configuration (with Torps being the primary weapon). Not saying that a couple configurations aren't good.. it just needs a tweak is all.

Vrabac
Zawa's Fan Club
Posted - 2009.09.02 15:32:00 - [868]
 

Originally by: Orakkus
Originally by: Vrabac
Heh phoon is certainly not one of the toughest ships to fit. Simple as that.


I have to disagree. It's very tough to fit and you certainly don't have the PG/CPU to fit a 4/4 T2 Long range weapon loadout without seriously gimping your tank. Close range setups are hampered by the 4/4 configuration (with Torps being the primary weapon). Not saying that a couple configurations aren't good.. it just needs a tweak is all.


Well I happen to be flying it regularly with awu4 and have no issues fitting it at all, actually just checked and saw 20 fits for it on eft which is more than I got for any other ship.

As for 4/4 close range configuration, this hasn't got to do with fitting but skilling. Because in classical plate gank setup it fits with t2 sieges and 650mm t2 acs with no problem whatsoever, while obviously requiring lot of SPs. The dps and ehp amounts it achieves are very solid, and in combination with very high speed for a plated bs and flexible dmg types I'd go so far to say it's the best close range BS in game. Fitting a raven is certainly way harder than phoon, same goes for mega pulse geddon.

Anyhow since this isn't a phoon thread I don't think it should be discussed much further.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.09.02 16:25:00 - [869]
 

Addign a 7th turret woudl be far far more complicated.

Would need art department input. Would **** off people that use the 2 high slots, would make more expensive to fit ship. Would require a HUGE boost on PG and CPU to fit 1400MM T2 x 7 Even with 7 turrets ship would need a 7.5% bonus to keep same damage as a ship with 6 turrets and 2 damage bonuses.

And all that would REDUCE THE SHIP FLAVOR!


Eve needs MORE flavor.. not less! The fact that common bonuses are 5% not 10% is nothing but cosmethics.. does not improve or hamper the game in NOTHING! Its as relevant as the age old argument of "but the ship is vertical!"


10% damage bonus is very likely the very best way to go while keeping some flavor. Other option is a 7.5% rof bonus for MORE dps.. but would cripple it as a sniper and make the Clip size issue even worse.


Astrophobic proposal is basically the a on spot solution, maybe CCP will not admit that much but is the very essence of what is NEEDED. But even withthat I think tempest NEED a bit more PG to be a competitive sniper.

Ecky X
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.09.02 16:25:00 - [870]
 

Originally by: Vrabac



It is worth mentioning though.

Fitting the Phoon gets very tricky once you start trying to put large reps on it. 2 reps + mwd + 4 cruise + 4 d425 and the grid is maxed, you don't even have room for a medium injector with AWU V. Forget about torps, or even mid-tier autocannons.



Pages: first : previous : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : 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