These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Boost minmatar
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lili Lu
#21 - 2011-11-11 17:05:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Oh Naomi. It must be miserable being such a bitter Caldari chauvanist forum alt for so long. Sad

Not that projectiles aren't arguably the best weapon system atm. But I am more amazed at the serious responses you elicited in this thread. Responses that would have been more constructive in other threads with a better constructed op and reasoned argument.

May you find some happiness with your chosen Caldari ships and weapons at some time. They really aren't as bad as you think. At some point maybe you will train other races and weapons and have a more wholistic view of the game's racial variations, instead of your perpetual grass is always greener presumption.Straight
Kira Deschain
Arcane Odyssey
Electus Matari
#22 - 2011-11-11 21:39:53 UTC
Minmatar is perfect IMO, no changes needed. Big smile
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2011-11-12 10:47:02 UTC
Okay what about , increasing matar signature? I see no reason why they need to be so small.
Goose99
#24 - 2011-11-12 16:14:18 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Okay what about , increasing matar signature? I see no reason why they need to be so small.


Also decrease winmatar speed, given their AC having the longest range, I see no reason why they need to be also faster than everyone else.Cool
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#25 - 2011-11-12 16:19:16 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
Okay what about , increasing matar signature? I see no reason why they need to be so small.


Also decrease winmatar speed, given their AC having the longest range, I see no reason why they need to be also faster than everyone else.Cool



Faster, better range dmg application, better dmg type selection and don't forget the so underpowered range bonus webs.

Lol
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#26 - 2011-11-12 17:49:55 UTC
Putting weapon balance to the side for a bit, Minmatar's real Achilles' heel is supposed to be ewar. I would suggest giving tracking disruptors, sensor dampeners, and target painters their own sensor strength. If the targeted ship has a smaller sensor strength then the module pointed at it, that e-war weapon gets a bonus proportional to the difference. If the targeted ship has a larger sensor strength, the module gets a penalty.
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2011-11-13 06:33:27 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
Okay what about , increasing matar signature? I see no reason why they need to be so small.


Also decrease winmatar speed, given their AC having the longest range, I see no reason why they need to be also faster than everyone else.Cool


How do ACs have the longest range again?
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#28 - 2011-11-13 13:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington
I'm onboard with Gypsio's suggestion of nerfing autocannon tracking and damage. If they're going to be that good at a distance they should be worse up close.

I mean really, what exactly is the drawback to using autocannons these days? They track well, use no cap, have low fitting, selectable damage type and do solid DPS. Blasters and lasers both have negative points that need to be considered, so where is the disadvantage to using ACs?
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2011-11-13 13:31:20 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
I'm onboard with Gypsio's suggestion of nerfing autocannon tracking and damage. If they're going to be that good at a distance they should be worse up close.

I mean really, what exactly is the drawback to using autocannons these days? They track well, use no cap, have low fitting, selectable damage type and do solid DPS. Blasters and lasers both have negative points that need to be considered, so where is the disadvantage to using ACs?

ac disadvantage:
only matar ships get bonuses for them ....
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#30 - 2011-11-13 14:34:04 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
I'm onboard with Gypsio's suggestion of nerfing autocannon tracking and damage. If they're going to be that good at a distance they should be worse up close.

I mean really, what exactly is the drawback to using autocannons these days? They track well, use no cap, have low fitting, selectable damage type and do solid DPS. Blasters and lasers both have negative points that need to be considered, so where is the disadvantage to using ACs?

ac disadvantage:
only matar ships get bonuses for them ....


Lol

Also: I have to OH my mwd to reduce transversal and kill ceptors with my 425mm T2 auto canons.

I need some buffs CCP, don't you see my ships are nerfed? -c'mon !!
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#31 - 2011-11-13 16:19:24 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
I'm willing to lower auto-cannon tracking slightly below pulse lasers. As long as I can keep the current changes to falloff. CCP can remove their changes to ammunition entirely. This would revert all changes, with the exception of tracking enhancer (and increase to turret falloff).

Take a look below and you'll understand why the changes did not appear signification. Now, add tracking enhancers and natural mobility and you'll understand what we have now. 1 module changed the dynamics of this game significantly. Otherwise, no significant changes happened to auto-cannons (artillery is another matter (ha!))

New Tempest, 2 Gryostabilizer, Republic Fleet Emp, 6 800mm repeating artillery (longer damage curve and output)
770 damage per second, 2531 per salvo, 3km optimal, 24km falloff, selectable damage

Old Tempest, 2 Gryostabilizer, Republic Fleet Emp, 6 800mm auto-cannons
670 damage per second, 2320 per salvo, 3km optimal, 20km falloff, less focused selectable damage

New Hurricane, 2 Gryostabilizer, Republic Fleet Emp, 6 425mm auto-cannons
550 damage per second, 1355 per salvo, 1,5km optimal, 12km falloff, selectable damage (longer damage curve and output)

Old Hurricane, 2 Gryostabilizer, Republic Fleet Emp, 6 425mm auto-cannons
500 damage per second, 1240 per salvo, 1,5km optimal, 10km falloff, less focused selectable damage

Nice! 50 damage per second has made the Hurricane over powered. Now that the Brutix has this awesome increase. I can only imagin the cries there will be for NERF.
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#32 - 2011-11-13 17:50:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus Arcova
This is an awesome idea.

I'd do everything the OP said. Combine this with a modest buff to TD falloff penalty, and a modest nerf to TE falloff modifier. And make RSDs not suck donkey balls.

Finally, give Minmatar's sig radius advantage to a race that doesn't design their ships around rust and huge, pointless wingy bits (like sleek Gallente).

Et Voila! Minmatar are still Minmatar, but they're no longer the apex predators. 75% of New Eden rejoices.
Previous page12