|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 11:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
maybe my look at things is too simply as i only know TEs in their current form, but i always thought the biggest issue with autocannons was the non-influence of the high dmg projectile ammo on their range.
high dmg crystals and hybrid charges cut the weapon range roughly in half. Fusion, EMP and Phased Plasma do this only when used with artillery. They only modify the optimal range which is non-existent for autocannons. When a malus on falloff would be introduced, kiting ships with autoannons would be either forced to come closer or rely on the ammo with no such malus. barrage is locked into explo/kin dmg and the dmg selection is reduced further, dealing with yet another thing everybody and his dog complains about. of course introducing both ammo changes and the TE nerf would be brutal. so choose between an across the board nerfling or the autocannon specific tweak.
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 21:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:seth Hendar wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: (...)
(...) That was intentionally made that way so that minamtar woudl have the so called damage selection. The real price is in tracking. The trackign of AC was reduced back then and the mid range ammo got a tracking bonus. They simply made the things DIFFERENT. and that is intentional.
well then the projectile ammo experiment failed imho. there are few situations where you actually have to use the "midrange" or even "longrange" ammo. in a lot of cases this situations can be handled with T2 ammo. so fusion, emp and phased are the ones mostly used with depleted uranium on some occasions. would it not be more sensible to use falloff too for tuning the projectile range?
the extensive use of high dmg ammos might be a product of TEs giving so much range which would be somewhat adjusted with the proposed changes. but still, i have the feeling autocannons aren't that strong in midrange combat because of TEs. alot of people have pointed out and done the math that the proposed changes will not alter the dmg projection of autocannons in a tremendous fashion.
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
[quote=Milton Middleson]
I came here to say that the word you are looking for is penalty. [\quote]
thank you :)
i still think ACs are great. you just need to know when to use them. some form of ammo/crystall/charge revamp would be nice. makes me sad that there are so many ammunitions which are totally worthless.
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny Cha Ching PLC
115
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 13:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Akonnen wrote:As a Vargur pilot using 2 TE to be effective without having to fly all over the ******* space i call BS on this. If you want to nerf a Ship, the machariel in particular, then nerf it. not the modules everyone else uses to be effective. The range on projectiles are already a problem because of falloff, not to mention you have to switch ammo all the times. there's no reason to nerf it even lower if you won't increase the speed to get in range faster or add something else to compensate.
if your doing L4s, fit an Afterburner. You'll be ridiculously overtanked anyway. Afterburner even adds to that too. when you are doing sites in 0.0 you should not have to switch ammo and certainly enough range with two TEs. even after patch. choosing ammo for autocannons is a non-issue. load fusion, emp or phased. when doing angels use hail. just considering that you still have 44km falloff with hail (falloff penalty n'stuff) and 2 TEs. How can you possibly be lacking range?
|
|
|
|