These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP - Selectable Damage Types for Amarr pretty please
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
David Clausewitz
David Clausewitz Corporation
#81 - 2011-12-01 16:36:13 UTC
Malkev wrote:
Brothar Rey wrote:
I'd think they'd be way faster to track and fire then auto-cannons easily. Auto cannon have long-ish metal barrels and a belt of ammo causing some kind of movement limitation.

CIWS would like to have a word with you.

4500 of them per minute to be exact.


Ok.. and that comes even close to the speed of light? Didn't think so.
Arcosian
Arcosian Heavy Industries Corp Holding
#82 - 2011-12-01 17:21:27 UTC
I really don't see what the issue is. Lasers are fine just ask the sansha and blood raiders I've come across. And if you are wanting selectable damage lasers to fight guristas/angles just spend 3 weeks of training and get a tengu (you will eventually).

As for PVP it doesn't really matter if you have selectable damage types or not as people omni-tank and it's impractical to take the time during a fight to figure out what their lowest resist is and even then this only applies when you are solo pvping. If you are in fleet everyone will be shooting different damage unless of course you are in an Amarr only fleet (which I haven't seen since the projectile buff).

All in all I think lasers work as intended.
Fix My Lasers
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2011-12-01 17:34:09 UTC
The question is why ACs compared to Lasers use less powergrid, less CPU, have almost the same DPS (5% difference), do not use cap when you shoot, have higher Tracking, less affected by Tracking Disruptor, have the highest Alpha if you use arti and finally have selectable damage type.

Another question, why every ship that doesn't have any Turret type dependance like Myrmidon usually (almost every time) uses ACs as a weapon?
Why no one fits Lasers since they are so good?!
Why every Amarr ship that uses missiles or drones usually have ACs on?

Tippia wrote:

Oh, and again: what reload times, ammo (and cargo space) consumption, and reduced range brackets are you proposing as a counter to this increased damage application ability?


"counter to this increased damage application ability" - Is this a joke or a troll?!
Being able to chosse damage type is what every race can do except Amarr, it's not something that makes your weapon so godly.

Here is your counter if you never opened Amarr ships info: almost every Amarr ship have crappy bonus called "Reduction in laser capacitor need" while other races can have double damage bonus i.e. RoF% and Damage%.
If you compare Cane to Harbinger you'll see that Cane does more damage (6 Cane's turrets do more damage then 7 lasers), faster and selectable damage type. Plus you can use Cane's 2 empty High slots for launchers or anything else.

Bring back Blaze and Lux crystals! http://eve.battleclinic.com/item/i12812-Blaze-L-details.html http://eve.battleclinic.com/item/i12832-Lux-L-details.html
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#84 - 2011-12-01 17:39:35 UTC
Fix My Lasers wrote:

Another question, why every ship that doesn't have any Turret type dependance like Myrmidon usually (almost every time) uses ACs as a weapon?


Actually I have a Laser Myrm fit that's pretty cool. I need to fly that more.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
SpaceSquirrels
#85 - 2011-12-01 17:42:14 UTC
Called your 3-4 missile boats...maybe 5 cause the legion gets a HAM bonus no?

Other than that the physics dont add up.
Arcosian
Arcosian Heavy Industries Corp Holding
#86 - 2011-12-01 17:43:58 UTC
Fix My Lasers wrote:
The question is why ACs compared to Lasers use less powergrid, less CPU, have almost the same DPS (5% difference), do not use cap when you shoot, have higher Tracking, less affected by Tracking Disruptor, have the highest Alpha if you use arti and finally have selectable damage type.

Another question, why every ship that doesn't have any Turret type dependance like Myrmidon usually (almost every time) uses ACs as a weapon?
Why no one fits Lasers since they are so good?!
Why every Amarr ship that uses missiles or drones usually have ACs on?

Tippia wrote:

Oh, and again: what reload times, ammo (and cargo space) consumption, and reduced range brackets are you proposing as a counter to this increased damage application ability?


"counter to this increased damage application ability" - Is this a joke or a troll?!
Being able to chosse damage type is what every race can do except Amarr, it's not something that makes your weapon so godly.

Here is your counter if you never opened Amarr ships info: almost every Amarr ship have crappy bonus called "Reduction in laser capacitor need" while other races can have double damage bonus i.e. RoF% and Damage%.
If you compare Cane to Harbinger you'll see that Cane does more damage (6 Cane's turrets do more damage then 7 lasers), faster and selectable damage type. Plus you can use Cane's 2 empty High slots for launchers or anything else.




Oh so this is a nerf winmatar thread...
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#87 - 2011-12-01 17:55:02 UTC
Fix My Lasers wrote:

Another question, why every ship that doesn't have any Turret type dependance like Myrmidon usually (almost every time) uses ACs as a weapon?


Because they are the only turrets not using cap and aren't a bad weapon system. For example the strength of the myrm is in it's repping power and drones, and a dual or tripple repper myrm will eat cap like a mofo, so even with a cap booster or two you need every last drop of your cap on other things than turrets. It's also nice to have cap independent DPS on a ship, so weapon systems that don't use cap are always an attractive option in some situations and fits.
Sai Hai
Funk Freakers
#88 - 2011-12-01 17:57:23 UTC
Arcosian wrote:
Fix My Lasers wrote:
The question is why ACs compared to Lasers use less powergrid, less CPU, have almost the same DPS (5% difference), do not use cap when you shoot, have higher Tracking, less affected by Tracking Disruptor, have the highest Alpha if you use arti and finally have selectable damage type.

Another question, why every ship that doesn't have any Turret type dependance like Myrmidon usually (almost every time) uses ACs as a weapon?
Why no one fits Lasers since they are so good?!
Why every Amarr ship that uses missiles or drones usually have ACs on?

Tippia wrote:

Oh, and again: what reload times, ammo (and cargo space) consumption, and reduced range brackets are you proposing as a counter to this increased damage application ability?


"counter to this increased damage application ability" - Is this a joke or a troll?!
Being able to chosse damage type is what every race can do except Amarr, it's not something that makes your weapon so godly.

Here is your counter if you never opened Amarr ships info: almost every Amarr ship have crappy bonus called "Reduction in laser capacitor need" while other races can have double damage bonus i.e. RoF% and Damage%.
If you compare Cane to Harbinger you'll see that Cane does more damage (6 Cane's turrets do more damage then 7 lasers), faster and selectable damage type. Plus you can use Cane's 2 empty High slots for launchers or anything else.




Oh so this is a nerf winmatar thread...


2/10 your trolling skills are of a newb
Selinate
#89 - 2011-12-01 19:13:45 UTC
Fix My Lasers wrote:
The question is why ACs compared to Lasers use less powergrid, less CPU, have almost the same DPS (5% difference), do not use cap when you shoot, have higher Tracking, less affected by Tracking Disruptor, have the highest Alpha if you use arti and finally have selectable damage type.

Another question, why every ship that doesn't have any Turret type dependance like Myrmidon usually (almost every time) uses ACs as a weapon?
Why no one fits Lasers since they are so good?!
Why every Amarr ship that uses missiles or drones usually have ACs on?

Tippia wrote:

Oh, and again: what reload times, ammo (and cargo space) consumption, and reduced range brackets are you proposing as a counter to this increased damage application ability?


"counter to this increased damage application ability" - Is this a joke or a troll?!
Being able to chosse damage type is what every race can do except Amarr, it's not something that makes your weapon so godly.

Here is your counter if you never opened Amarr ships info: almost every Amarr ship have crappy bonus called "Reduction in laser capacitor need" while other races can have double damage bonus i.e. RoF% and Damage%.
If you compare Cane to Harbinger you'll see that Cane does more damage (6 Cane's turrets do more damage then 7 lasers), faster and selectable damage type. Plus you can use Cane's 2 empty High slots for launchers or anything else.



Don't feed the troll (that is Tippia).
Brothar Rey
Ascendance Rising
Ascendance..
#90 - 2011-12-01 19:49:59 UTC
Malkev wrote:
Brothar Rey wrote:
I'd think they'd be way faster to track and fire then auto-cannons easily. Auto cannon have long-ish metal barrels and a belt of ammo causing some kind of movement limitation.

CIWS would like to have a word with you.

4500 of them per minute to be exact.



I see what your saying. I see that system relying on very rapid fire to spew out a cloud of projectiles that travel to a spot, based on a flight path that a computer has computed to intercept target.

What I'm saying is, light is WAY faster then those projectiles will ever be. And you'll agree I'm sure, that the carriage on that weapon system is capable of swiveling and rotating at a rapid rate - tracking. Couple that with the incredible speed of light. Hence, lasers should have incredible tracking I think.

Just an opinion I suppose.
Rhinanna
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2011-12-01 20:06:39 UTC
Quote:
Couple that with the incredible speed of light. Hence, lasers should have incredible tracking I think.


Its entirely likely there is a 'finishing aiming' to 'fire' delay while the laser charges and releases, the laser likely wouldn't be able to track during that period since the slightest vibration would upset the laser focus, effectively reducing the tracking.
This is also assuming the focusing array isn't bulky/weighty in itself and or senesitive to vibration or a thousand other factors that would cause it's tracking to be lower.

Quote:
The question is why ACs compared to Lasers use less powergrid, less CPU, have almost the same DPS (5% difference), do not use cap when you shoot, have higher Tracking, less affected by Tracking Disruptor, have the highest Alpha if you use arti and finally have selectable damage type.


1. > less affected by Tracking Disruptor - Affected exactly the same actually
2. > Optimal is the most important stat you've left out. Lets see 2km vs 20km. 10 times larger. At any range beyond 2km Minmatar damage is VASTLY reduced. BTW tracking loss in fall-off is exactly the same as tracking loss in optimal. In fact, basically Amarr always fight in optimal, minmatar normally fight well into fall-off, we have no choice doing under HALF the damage.
Is this a clue to you why we NEED to be able to hit the enemy vunverablities yet? Takes a long time to kill an enemy ships with an effective 150 dps (vaga at point range) been applied before resists.... even with hitting the weak spot.
3. > Notice how our only long range ammo with ACs IS restricted to exp/kin, only our T1 ammo has kin/em on it.

Now seriously, if you want to give minmatar a long enough optimal to fight with their full dps or nerf the amarr optimal or stop crying please. Lasers are still as good if not better than projectiles.

-The sword is only as sharp as the one who wields it! Other names: Drenzul (WoT, WoW, Lineage 2, WarH, BloodBowl, BSG, SC2 and lots more) 
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#92 - 2011-12-01 20:24:37 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
Lasers are still as good if not better than projectiles.

The punisher, maller, prophecy and devoter pilots who fit autocannons instead of lasers despite having a laser bonused hull would disagree with you.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#93 - 2011-12-01 20:33:05 UTC
i want an ice ray

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#94 - 2011-12-01 20:40:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Fix My Lasers wrote:
"counter to this increased damage application ability" - Is this a joke or a troll?!
Being able to chosse damage type is what every race can do except Amarr, it's not something that makes your weapon so godly.
You'll have to make up your mind about this.

Either it's something all races can do, or it's something that the Amarr can't, alongside the Gallente and Caldari. Which one do you pick?
Quote:
Here is your counter if you never opened Amarr ships info: almost every Amarr ship have crappy bonus called "Reduction in laser capacitor need" while other races can have double damage bonus i.e. RoF% and Damage%.
…and that doesn't answer the question: if you're going to gain the increased damage application ability that comes with selectable damage types, what are you willing to give up in return? The instant reload? The near infinite ammo? The minute cargo requirement for the ammo types that are not infinite? The wider variety of range selection you get compared to multi-type weapon systems?

Rhinanna wrote:
1. > less affected by Tracking Disruptor - Affected exactly the same actually
If you want to be really picky about it, chances are that projectiles are more affected by TDs in a realistic scenario than lasers.

The laser ship will have the enemy within optimal ± a bit of buffer to account for movement, and when hit by a TD, he loses tracking, optimal and falloff. With a bit of luck, that loss of optimal will be covered by the range buffer he ensured for himself and thus he only has to worry about the lost tracking.

The projectile ship in the same situation will be fighting in falloff, and when hit by a TD, he too will lose tracking, optimal and falloff. Unfortunately for him, this means that his falloff now starts sooner, which already means he's deeper into falloff than before, but then there's the reduction of falloff itself, which pushes him even further into falloff and thus costs a hellofalot of DPS. On top of this is the same loss of tracking that the laser boat has to worry about…
Fix My Lasers
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2011-12-01 21:18:50 UTC
Rhinanna wrote:
Quote:
Couple that with the incredible speed of light. Hence, lasers should have incredible tracking I think.


Its entirely likely there is a 'finishing aiming' to 'fire' delay while the laser charges and releases, the laser likely wouldn't be able to track during that period since the slightest vibration would upset the laser focus, effectively reducing the tracking.
This is also assuming the focusing array isn't bulky/weighty in itself and or senesitive to vibration or a thousand other factors that would cause it's tracking to be lower.

Quote:
The question is why ACs compared to Lasers use less powergrid, less CPU, have almost the same DPS (5% difference), do not use cap when you shoot, have higher Tracking, less affected by Tracking Disruptor, have the highest Alpha if you use arti and finally have selectable damage type.


1. > less affected by Tracking Disruptor - Affected exactly the same actually
2. > Optimal is the most important stat you've left out. Lets see 2km vs 20km. 10 times larger. At any range beyond 2km Minmatar damage is VASTLY reduced. BTW tracking loss in fall-off is exactly the same as tracking loss in optimal. In fact, basically Amarr always fight in optimal, minmatar normally fight well into fall-off, we have no choice doing under HALF the damage.
Is this a clue to you why we NEED to be able to hit the enemy vunverablities yet? Takes a long time to kill an enemy ships with an effective 150 dps (vaga at point range) been applied before resists.... even with hitting the weak spot.
3. > Notice how our only long range ammo with ACs IS restricted to exp/kin, only our T1 ammo has kin/em on it.

Now seriously, if you want to give minmatar a long enough optimal to fight with their full dps or nerf the amarr optimal or stop crying please. Lasers are still as good if not better than projectiles.


Mmmm, this explains a lot why even Amarr pilots fit ACs instead on lasers!
I guess it also explains why 90% of PvP pilots fly Hurricane and Drake!
Thanks!

Bring back Blaze and Lux crystals! http://eve.battleclinic.com/item/i12812-Blaze-L-details.html http://eve.battleclinic.com/item/i12832-Lux-L-details.html
Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2011-12-02 02:47:55 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Rhinanna wrote:
Lasers are still as good if not better than projectiles.

The punisher, maller, prophecy and devoter pilots who fit autocannons instead of lasers despite having a laser bonused hull would disagree with you.


Lasers have a high base damage / high damage application range. To make them unattractive on other hulls, they have a huge cap consumption that is countered on their native platforms by the cap use bonus and base cap levels.

Similarly, projectiles had a lower base damage / low damage application range, and their native hulls bump that up with double or triple damage bonuses. This was lifted a bit with the ammo change that gave -50% range projectile ammo the full damage amount of other weapons' -50% range high damage ammo.

There are other restrictions, notably powergrid / base cap, that were put in place to ensure that Minmatar - which had the traditional speed advantage - could not fit lasers in a sensible way.


Sadly, it leaves amarr pilots with the option to get the increased base cap of a ship designed to support lasers and combine it with capless projectiles. Which incidentally use less powergrid allowing the fit of an - for its class - oversized tank.

It is this conscious combination of unintended side-effects that make projectiles attractive on laser hulls, not the projectile weapon itself. The builtin drawback of projectiles is not high enough anymore and can be offset. The projectile buff that was needed on projectile platforms did not buff the drawbacks on other hulls accordingly.

And the solution is quite simple. Bump up the damage bonuses of hulls designed to fit projectiles from 5 to 10 or even 15 percent per level and decrease projectile base damage accordingly so that the DPS of projectiles on projectile hulls stay the same, but making them alot more unattractive on hulls designed for cap consuming weapons.
Sciencegeek deathdealer
Echelon Research
Goonswarm Federation
#97 - 2011-12-02 03:36:18 UTC
There are plenty of illogical things in eve, just because it is illogical is not a good reason.

I for one am constantly frustrated by this MASSIVE disadvantage.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2011-12-02 03:52:32 UTC
Lasers should do magical damage.
Doggy Dogwoofwoof
New Eden Corporation 98713347
Brotherhood of Spacers
#99 - 2011-12-02 04:41:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Doggy Dogwoofwoof
*facedesk* You do realize your arguing with a troll. NO ONE IS THIS DUMB. Not even CCP hilmar is this dumb.
And Fix my lazers, just stop, your insulting your fellow trolls.
Myrdraeus Keaunt
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2011-12-02 22:02:53 UTC
Acac Sunflyier wrote:
Majuan Shuo wrote:
Lasers are super heated (thermal) beams of light (electromagnetic) and therefor do thermal and em

kinetic implies mass - lasers have no real mass to speak of

explosive implies a chemical reaction - again not something lasers do



Actually. Light is energy. According to Einstein's theory, energy can do kinetic damage because E=mc2


Yeah, but c^2 is a really ******* big number. E/c^2 is really small for really big E. Thus the amount of kinetic energy produced would be negligible...otherwise we'd all be squished by the sun's rays.