Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 20:56:00 -
[301]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 04/11/2009 20:56:52
Originally by: Murina
1. We are discussing BS blasters and ammo.
Ammo is perfectly scalable. Multiply by 2 for Medium, by 4 for Large. You are asking for Large Iron ammo to have 48 base damage.
Quote: 2. How does that 140% increase in dmg in frig sized blasters compare to pulse lasers....never mind il check myself.
A single T2 small pulse with faction AM on a retribution does 39dps with a 5.6km optimal and 2.5km falloff.
A single small neutron blaster on a enyo does 19dps (adding 12dps = 21dps) with a 5.4km optimal and 3.1km falloff.
You misunderstand how ammunition works. It is not adding 12 DPS. It is adding 12 damage before any modifiers are taken into account. If your small blaster does 19DPS with Iron loaded, it would do 45.6DPS with your suggestion.
And according to your suggestion, your Enyo would do 45.6DPS with AM loaded as well. So we've gone from just using AM to just using Iron?
Quote: Yes i think its absurd that pulse totally out dmg blasters at close range while also having the option for longer range AND insta reload.....will there be anything else?
I think laser dominance is absurd as well, but your suggestion would obsolete Projectiles, even AFTER the buff train gets done running through with them. It would obsolete all ammo but Iron at every size. It would even obsolete Tachyon Apocs, which would look like they had pathetic DPS at any range compared to a Rail Mega, not even mentioning a Rokh.
Quote:
PS: i added 12dps not just 12 dmg and considering that blasters have a ROF of 2.52 seconds with max skills that is a actual ammo dmg increase of only 4.76 giving plenty of room for increasing the other ammos.
That's all fine and good, but be careful what you are talking about then. What you really want is a damage modifier increase to blasters, which adds DPS, not an increase in ammo damage value. Messing with the ammo itself as you suggested screws up absolutely everything else in the game.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 21:07:00 -
[302]
Edited by: Murina on 04/11/2009 21:11:09
Originally by: Seriously Bored
You misunderstand how ammunition works. It is not adding 12 DPS. It is adding 12 damage before any modifiers are taken into account. If your small blaster does 19DPS with Iron loaded, it would do 45.6DPS with your suggestion.
And according to your suggestion, your Enyo would do 45.6DPS with AM loaded as well. So we've gone from just using AM to just using Iron?
If blasters fitted with iron did 39dps (like pulse with MF do) and each lower ranged blaster ammo (AFTER BEING FITTED) had increased slightly dmg as the range decreases down to AM that could be doing around or maybe a little more then it does now (after all 45dps with 1.7km optimal vs 39dps with 5.6km optimal is hardly much of a differance).
Originally by: Seriously Bored
EDIT: Toned the language down a little. I'm not trying to insult you, I just want to show how that suggestion would be very, very imbalancing.
Actually it was your interpretation and slight misreading of the idea that is at fault as the increases i was discussing are AFTER the ammo is fitted obviously and if you had read the posts thoroughly you would see that.
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 21:11:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Murina
The increases i was discussing are AFTER the ammo is fitted obviously if you had read the posts thoroughly you would see that.
That's cool, that's fine. But to affect DPS after ammo is fitted, you change a gun's damage modifier or lower it's ROF. Which = straight DPS buff for blasters. We should stop mentioning ammo then.
We're going through this issue in the Projectile balancing thread right now, where messing with the ammo is causing some very big side effects. Ammo is touchy, touchy, touchy. Small changes in its value equal very large changes elsewhere.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 21:15:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Murina
The increases i was discussing are AFTER the ammo is fitted obviously if you had read the posts thoroughly you would see that.
That's cool, that's fine. But to affect DPS after ammo is fitted, you change a gun's damage modifier or lower it's ROF. Which = straight DPS buff for blasters. We should stop mentioning ammo then.
The effect is what is needed how it is achieved can be implemented by whatever way is the best.
But the fact is that MF should not almosty match or out dmg all blaster ammo while vastly out ranging ALL of them while amaar also have the option of other insta reload ammos that give vastly larger ranges and very good dps as well.
|
Razor Blue
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 22:10:00 -
[305]
I havent been reading about the projectile buff threads, but i think iŠve read somewhere that Tracking Comps and Tracking Enchancers are going to get slightly buffed? Like adding some falloff? If so, how they will affect blasters?
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 22:24:00 -
[306]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 04/11/2009 22:24:42
Originally by: Razor Blue I havent been reading about the projectile buff threads, but i think iŠve read somewhere that Tracking Comps and Tracking Enchancers are going to get slightly buffed? Like adding some falloff? If so, how they will affect blasters?
It's very, very, up in the air... but according the latest proposal (should be on Sisi now):
TCs will add +15% Falloff base, +30% with the range script, and TEs will have +30% falloff base. By all accounts, this is a buff for Projectiles as well as Hybrids, and only a moderate one for lasers.
Some Minmatar players want the big falloff addition to TCs and TEs removed, and the large falloff built into ACs instead. I'm not one of these people, because I think blasters (as well as artillery) could use the help as well.
Falloff gets 2x the modifier of optimal because it takes twice as much falloff to get the same amount of effectiveness as optimal.
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 02:08:00 -
[307]
Well, the problem I see with boosting iron is what it does to rail fits and so on.
I think it might be more sensible to boost blaster damage a bit (base turret DPS) and boost Null specifically (after all, it gets less of a range increase percentage wise with 1.25x on both optimal and falloff then Scorch or even Barrage do, both affecting a single parameter with a 50% boost).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 08:36:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Cpt Branko and boost Null specifically (after all, it gets less of a range increase percentage wise with 1.25x on both optimal and falloff then Scorch or even Barrage do, both affecting a single parameter with a 50% boost).
Yeah. All long-range ammo should be +50% (or +40% or something) to optimal and falloff both so that the only weapons (blasters) which need both don't get in effect halved bonuses. -- Gradient forum |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 09:52:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Well, the problem I see with boosting iron is what it does to rail fits and so on.
You would need to adjust both the turret systems and the ammo:
A single turret on a blaster mega gets 34dps using faction iron(14+13 OPTIMAL/FALLOFF).
A single turret on a pulse geddon gets 74dps using faction MF(15+10 OPTIMAL/FALLOFF).
If you just adjust the turret so they match you will be giving a blaster BS with AM fitted a 200+ % boost in dps lol.
Of course CCP could not be lazy gits and just introduce a seperate T1/T1 faction rail ammo as tbh trying to fit 1 ammo into 2 vastly differant systems is what is causing the problems in the first place.
|
Laur Khal
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 09:54:00 -
[310]
Yeah more than anything, the biggest imbalance lies in the Scorch-Null comparison and the instant-switch ammo.
If I were CCP, I'd focus on correcting the imbalance there before modifying blasters themselves any further.
|
|
wallenbergaren
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 10:54:00 -
[311]
Yeah The ammo is really designed around rails blasters aren't like rails at all. The small optimal bonus means nothing when you're mostly into falloff anyway
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 11:16:00 -
[312]
introducing a new set of ammo for close range weapons, while drastic does intrigue me alot. Long range ammos get more range for less dps, perhaps close range ammos should have a small amount of range modification (instead of minus 50% to +60%, say minus 20% to plus 20%) but with less dmg the further out you go, the tracking INCREASES with the range.
This would mean somthing thats hard to hit reuires faster tracking lighter ammo that does less dps.
Radical and extreme but, worth considering for the sake of ballance.
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 16:06:00 -
[313]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 05/11/2009 16:06:57
Originally by: Murina
You would need to adjust both the turret systems and the ammo:
A single turret on a blaster mega gets 34dps using faction iron(14+13 OPTIMAL/FALLOFF).
A single turret on a pulse geddon gets 74dps using faction MF(15+10 OPTIMAL/FALLOFF).
And that is how it is supposed to be. You are comparing the lowest damage ammunition of one weapon to the highest of another, which is a horrific example.
Your desire to do the same damage as pulses at range and more damage up close would break the game, can't you see that? If blasters need a boost to anything, it's close range damage.
Quote:
At the moment T1 ammo is pretty much set to be used in rail guns so it sucks sweaty donkey balls in blasters, but as we see if we fix it to work in blasterrs it ferks up rails....so a seperate ammo for each system is needed.
Murina, ALL ammo for ALL turret systems is supposed to be comparable. The differences in DPS and range between blasters, rails, beams, and pulses has absolutely nothing to do with T1 ammunition. Projectiles are the only outlier, and beside damage type, they really aren't all that different on TQ at the moment.
Asking for separate hybrid ammunition is as ridiculous as asking for an entirely new weapon system. The problem is with the weapons themselves, or the ships those weapons are fit on. You're showing a startling lack of understanding about how ammunition works. STOP talking about ammo.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 17:50:00 -
[314]
Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 17:51:50
Originally by: Seriously Bored
And that is how it is supposed to be. You are comparing the lowest damage ammunition of one weapon to the highest of another, which is a horrific example.
Your desire to do the same damage as pulses at range and more damage up close would break the game, can't you see that? If blasters need a boost to anything, it's close range damage.
WTF are you smoking?.
When one systems ammo (MF) out ranges AND out damages at close range EVERY ammo from another system apart from one (AM) and also vastly out ranges ALL of them things are BROKEN.
The normal rule for eve weapons is that the lower the range of a ammo the higher the DMG and the longer the range the lower the dmg, but MF breaks this rule cos it has loads more dmg than all but blaster ammo AM while also out ramnging them.
Originally by: Seriously Bored Your desire to do the same damage as pulses at range and more damage up close would break the game, can't you see that?
Are you blind it would fix the problem, the cross over point for the two systems (blasters and pulse) is around 14-15km, this is the point of blasters maximum optimal and lasers minimum optimal so the dps should roughly match.
Then as the range decreases blasters should do more dmg than pulse as they are for closer ranges, and as the range increases pulse should do more dmg than blasters as they are longer range.
But as things are now lasers out damage all blaster ammo apart from AM while also vastly out ranging them with a single ammo (MF), and not only that lasers also have the option of scorch that also out damages a lot of blaster ammo but also has a 45km optimal ffs.
THAT IS BROKEN.
Originally by: Seriously Bored Asking for separate hybrid ammunition is as ridiculous as asking for an entirely new weapon system.
1. Rails and blasters ARE differant weapon systems you clown lol, they have totally differant modifiers and that is why they need seperate T1 ammos just like they do T2. Its the reason why all T1 ammo in blasters apart from maybe AM sucks cos its setup to be used for rails,.
Originally by: Seriously Bored You're showing a startling lack of understanding about how ammunition works. STOP talking about ammo.
You are way to cluelesss to understand this so stfu and let ppl who have a clue discuss it.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:05:00 -
[315]
Personally I think that the best fix for blaster would be to make their damage considerably higher at close range.
As it is now lasers have 25% less damage for 300% more range. increasing blasters damage in 60% would make blasters have twice the laser damage at close range. Which is a fair trade off for the much lower range. To avoid shifting the damage at larger ranges to silly values, blasters' falloffs could be cut considerably to make them really short range, and Null damage can be adjusted to decrease this damage bonus.
Blasters would still suck at larger gangs, because of their extremely close range, but at least in solo and small gangs they would be the best, as they should.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:30:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Personally I think that the best fix for blaster would be to make their damage considerably higher at close range.
The problem is that a lot of ppl consider "close range" to be 4.5km when the truth is that close range starts at around 13-14km as that is where standard webs take effect and its well within point range and as such blasters should at least match or out damage with its various ammos every other system within that range the closer to 0 you get.
So neutron blasters on a mega:
With iron matches the dmg of MF with a 14km optimal.
Then:
With tungson 3% more dmg than MF with a 13km optimal. With iridium 6% more dmg than MF with a 11km optimal. With lead 9% more dmg than MF with a 9km optimal. With thorium 12% more dmg than MF with a 7.9km optimal. With urainium 15% more dmg than MF with a 6.8km optimal. With plutonium 18% more dmg than MF with a 5.6km optimal.
And at the lowest range AM out damaging MF by 21% at 4.5km optimal.
Blaster falloff would need to be reduced or adjusted and these figures may need to be altered slightly as they are just rough but at least they will give ppl with a clue the basic idea of a fix that would make blasters the best close range weapon system again instead of pulse ruling long and short range.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:47:00 -
[317]
Originally by: Murina
The problem is that a lot of ppl consider "close range" to be 4.5km when the truth is that close range starts at around 13-14km as that is where standard webs take effect and its well within point range and as such blasters should at least match or out damage with its various ammos every other system within that range the closer to 0 you get.
So neutron blasters on a mega:
With iron matches the dmg of MF with a 14km optimal.
Then:
With tungson 3% more dmg than MF with a 13km optimal. With iridium 6% more dmg than MF with a 11km optimal. With lead 9% more dmg than MF with a 9km optimal. With thorium 12% more dmg than MF with a 7.9km optimal. With urainium 15% more dmg than MF with a 6.8km optimal. With plutonium 18% more dmg than MF with a 5.6km optimal.
And at the lowest range AM out damaging MF by 21% at 4.5km optimal.
Blaster falloff would need to be reduced or adjusted and these figures may need to be altered slightly as they are just rough but at least they will give ppl with a clue the basic idea of a fix that would make blasters the best close range weapon system again instead of pulse ruling long and short range.
If these figures are about large blasters, and blasters's falloff would be reduced to pretty much nothing that seems perfectly sensible, and easily achievable by just changing blasters damage multipliers and falloff.
Still I think ammo damage should scale better. At the closest range AM should be devastating. 21% more raw damage than MF just doesn't cut it.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 19:00:00 -
[318]
Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 19:00:33 Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 19:00:01
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
If these figures are about large blasters, and blasters's falloff would be reduced to pretty much nothing that seems perfectly sensible, and easily achievable by just changing blasters damage multipliers and falloff.
1. I dont think falloff is gonna be a problem really after all they are supposed to be close range, maybe a adjustment to null could keep ppl happy with that though.
For iron to match MF it would need to be doimng over DOUBLE dmg than it is now so adjusting only the guns will not work cos DOUBLE dmg increase to AM..
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Still I think ammo damage should scale better. At the closest range AM should be devastating. 21% more raw damage than MF just doesn't cut it.
Maybe but with the other blaster ammo finally being scaled correctly it maybe enough.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 19:06:00 -
[319]
Edited by: ropnes on 05/11/2009 19:06:06
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Still I think ammo damage should scale better. At the closest range AM should be devastating. 21% more raw damage than MF just doesn't cut it.
How about the 6% with which a Mega out-DPSes a Geddon then? (in EFT)
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 19:25:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Murina
1. I dont think falloff is gonna be a problem really after all they are supposed to be close range, maybe a adjustment to null could keep ppl happy with that though.
For iron to match MF it would need to be doimng over DOUBLE dmg than it is now so adjusting only the guns will not work cos DOUBLE dmg increase to AM..
Blasters with a damage modifier 60% greater than now and 50% less falloff would be a good compromise, in my opinion. Null could be adjusted to have 70% of its current damage and a +50%/+50% modifier to optimal range and falloff values.
Iron would have lower damage than MF at 15, but damage would scale quickly as distances get shorter and you used higher damage ammo. The break even point would be at 12 or so, and from there on the damage would increase rapidly. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
|
Captainplankface
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 20:06:00 -
[321]
How about simply switching blaster optimal and falloff ranges? Perhaps having something like 9-10km optimal and 7-8km falloff.
This would make them king of dps in thier optimals while not leaning too heavily into the other weapon system's ranges. Projectiles would still be able to kite somewhat and lasers would still out range everything.
Obviously this would require a complete redesign of hybrid ammo, especially the range bonuses. But this is not a bad thing since most hybrid ammo is redundant anyways.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 20:14:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Captainplankface How about simply switching blaster optimal and falloff ranges? Perhaps having something like 9-10km optimal and 7-8km falloff.
This would make them king of dps in thier optimals while not leaning too heavily into the other weapon system's ranges. Projectiles would still be able to kite somewhat and lasers would still out range everything.
Obviously this would require a complete redesign of hybrid ammo, especially the range bonuses. But this is not a bad thing since most hybrid ammo is redundant anyways.
Unfortunately that does not cut it. It would make very little difference as both ranges are very similar.
Anything that increases blasters range sufficiently to be of consequence would just make them more like lasers. In my opinion that is the wrong direction to go. Blasters are supposed to be a "get on your face and melt you down" weapon type. Current damage is underwhelming for this task, especially after all the tank improvements that came into the game. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 20:35:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Murina
When one systems ammo (MF) out ranges AND out damages at close range EVERY ammo from another system apart from one (AM) and also vastly out ranges ALL of them things are BROKEN.
It means that the weapon systems are broken (specifically, lasers). Antimatter and Multifrequency are exactly the same. Each has 48 base damage at the large level, with a 0.5x range modifier. One does not out range or out damage the other based on anything having to do with the ammunition.
Quote: The normal rule for eve weapons is that the lower the range of a ammo the higher the DMG and the longer the range the lower the dmg, but MF breaks this rule cos it has loads more dmg than all blaster ammo but AM (that it almost matches) while also out ranging ALL of them.
I'll say it again, because it might need to sink in. Multifrequency does not break any rules. It has the same damage and same range modifier as Antimatter, NOT more. The same is exactly true of EVERY step of Hybrid and Laser ammo. What "breaks the rules" are pulse lasers themselves, and their ridiculous damage/range stats.
Quote: Its the reason why all T1 ammo in blasters apart from maybe AM sucks cos its setup to be used for rails.
Hybrid ammo is not "setup" for rails any more than Laser Crystals are "setup" for beams or Projectile shells are "setup" for artillery. They all have comparable stats. I suggest you check the EVE wiki. Or would you like to split all three ammo types up into six?
Quote:
You are way to cluelesss to understand this so stfu and let ppl who have a clue discuss it.
You can do math. But you show very little understanding for how the game works, or in what situations the various ammo types are used. But yes, let's have people with an understanding of all of the above have a go at it, hey?
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
If these figures are about large blasters, and blasters's falloff would be reduced to pretty much nothing that seems perfectly sensible, and easily achievable by just changing blasters damage multipliers and falloff.
That sounds good to me.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:09:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
It means that the weapon systems are broken (specifically, lasers). Antimatter and Multifrequency are exactly the same. Each has 48 base damage at the large level, with a 0.5x range modifier. One does not out range or out damage the other based on anything having to do with the ammunition.
I'll say it again, because it might need to sink in. Multifrequency does not break any rules. It has the same damage and same range modifier as Antimatter, NOT more. The same is exactly true of EVERY step of Hybrid and Laser ammo. What "breaks the rules" are pulse lasers themselves, and their ridiculous damage/range stats.
OMG you are totally clueless and its you that needs to comprehend ffs.
If just you increase the dmg modifier of blasters so that while they are fitted with iron they match the dps of MF fitted pulse just how much dps do you think they will be getting when they are with AntiMatter????...you NEED to adjust the ammo as well or it screws things up ffs.
You cannot just double the dmg modifyer of blasters to make iron match MF cos if you do it will also double the dps blasters do with AM ammo and that would make AM fitted blasters way too powerful...DO YOU COMPREHEND?.
Originally by: Seriously Bored You can do math. But you show very little understanding for how the game works, or in what situations the various ammo types are used.
I suppose my roughly 2000-3000 pvp kills in a vast variety of ships and setups compared to your 7 kills make you the expert huh?...stfu you have no idea of what is being discussed here and your niave posts show that clearly.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:17:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Murina
OMG you are totally clueless and its you that needs to comprehend ffs.
If just you increase the dmg modifier of blasters so that while they are fitted with iron they match the dps of MF fitted pulse just how much dps do you think they will be getting when they are with AntiMatter????...you NEED to adjust the ammo as well or it screws things up ffs.
You cannot just double the dmg modifyer of blasters to make iron match MF cos if you do it will also double the dps blasters do with AM ammo and that would make AM fitted blasters way too powerful...DO YOU COMPREHEND?.
Sorry, but you don't NEED to adjust the damage modifiers so Iron get the same damage as MF at 15 km. It is quite goos enough if Tungsten gets the same damage as MF at 11-12.
Having 60% more damage than the current value at point blank range more than makes for the bad performance beyond 12 km.
So no, you don't need to adjust the ammo too. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:23:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Murina
OMG you are totally clueless and its you that needs to comprehend ffs.
If just you increase the dmg modifier of blasters so that while they are fitted with iron they match the dps of MF fitted pulse just how much dps do you think they will be getting when they are with AntiMatter????...you NEED to adjust the ammo as well or it screws things up ffs.
You cannot just double the dmg modifyer of blasters to make iron match MF cos if you do it will also double the dps blasters do with AM ammo and that would make AM fitted blasters way too powerful...DO YOU COMPREHEND?.
Sorry, but you don't NEED to adjust the damage modifiers so Iron get the same damage as MF at 15 km. It is quite goos enough if Tungsten gets the same damage as MF at 11-12.
Having 60% more damage than the current value at point blank range more than makes for the bad performance beyond 12 km.
So no, you don't need to adjust the ammo too.
Maybe if you do it that way you do not but thats not what the argument was about ffs.
The fact is that IF you wanted iron to be a worthwhile ammo instead of being worthless just increasing the blasters dmg mod to get it to match pulse fitted with MF would boost blasters fitted with AM to a point that it would be doing way too much damage.
Why move the goal posts?..
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:25:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 05/11/2009 21:26:07
Originally by: Murina
If just you increase the dmg modifier of blasters so that while they are fitted with iron they match the dps of MF fitted pulse just how much dps do you think they will be getting when they are with AntiMatter????...you NEED to adjust the ammo as well or it screws things up ffs.
I never said anything about Iron. I never said anything about balancing around ammo. I actually specifically said DO NOT balance around ammo, and leave ammo alone.
Etho's suggestion to shorten falloff and increase the blaster damage modifier is a sensible one, and has nothing to do with Iron or rebalancing ammunition. I would actually prefer to see a less extreme DPS increase (maybe +25%-+30% of current damage? Would have to run the numbers) and a slight falloff increase. Either would be good, IMO.
Quote: I suppose my roughly 2000-3000 pvp kills in a vast variety of ships and setups compared to your 7 kills make you the expert huh?...stfu you have no idea of what is being discussed here and your niave posts show that clearly.
Oh look, you know the URL for Battle Clinic.
I don't care about your kills, and I don't care for anyone's ego. Your arguments must stand on their own weight, and demonstrate a proper understanding of their ultimate effects on the game.
Your ideas are extreme and have far-reaching effects that you don't account for. There are much simpler solutions to the problem.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:27:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Murina
Why move the goal posts?..
For starters, because, as you said, the goal is unachievable, without changing ammo too.
Also, because it is not a good solution either. Lasers would still have too much advantage for too little disadvantage at close range.
It is much better to have the intervals of advantage clearly distinguished. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:40:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Seriously Bored words
You have added nothing to this discussion apart from irrelavant argumentative trolls.
The shorter falloff and higher dmg idea was one i mentioned but you seemed to ignore.... try reading post 258 a little better, especially the beginning of last paragraph.
|
Soft Love
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:44:00 -
[330]
amarr have asshat bonus to lolzorz cap use, wanna dmg changed to same bonus on blasterboats ? me dont think so
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |