These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Ships & Modules

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12 do you think they'll be balanced?

Caldari State
#21 - 2011-10-15 09:46:03 UTC
For mediums it's mostly the fitting. It'd be nice to fit neutrons and and mwd onto some of the gallente and caldari cruisers. Damage could use a slight buff.

Range is a bit different. If they buff blasters too much you'd end up seeing 1000dps neutron/tracking enhancer gank boats with 25-30km range.

Tracking would help a little bit too, although sometimes I think people just orbit 500 by default instead of using keep at range to maximise damage, then wonder why their guns can't track.

The large hybrids obviously need a damage buff if nothing else.

So I guess I'm saying that they should boost one or two aspects of blasters and see how it plays out. Here's hoping ccp doesn't go overboard and make blasters the only weapon in solo/small gang pvp.

Tanya Powers
#22 - 2011-10-15 11:47:05 UTC
Smabs wrote:
Range is a bit different. If they buff blasters too much you'd end up seeing 1000dps neutron/tracking enhancer gank boats with 25-30km range.

You mean the same mods making Scorch Pulse shoot over 60km at full dmg and Auto canons over 90?

Well 25/30km would still be the closest range of all close range weapons wouldn't??
Caldari State
#23 - 2011-10-15 13:17:13 UTC
I mean for medium guns.

For instance a neutron diemos with 2 TE does 3+15 with cnam or 7.3+19 with null, and does ~770 or so dps. Of course the ship is kinda rubbish right now but you can see how a big boost to range, damage and fitting would start making gallente blaster boats too strong.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#24 - 2011-10-15 13:44:43 UTC
I believe that with the addition of 25m3 more drone bay (not bandwidth) on top of a modest increases to fitting potential, ship speed/agility and turret dps (no more than 5%) many of the dedicated blaster platforms would become more than competitive. A reduction to the sig radius of some of the dedicated sub bs blaster platforms would be very welcome too. Now as to what they will actually do? No idea.

As for rail guns... I believe that fitting requirements again should and probably will be looked at. I'd hope that overall dps is increased marginally and their dmg/rof ratio is moved closer to that of artillery.
The Network.
#25 - 2011-10-15 15:08:38 UTC
Remover 50% range penalty on anti matter and adjust the rest accordingly.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -

Sebastian N Cain
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-10-15 18:56:07 UTC
Well, i guess hybrids will become even more useless, because the "balancing" will completely miss the point.
Such as giving rails even more range at the expense of damage and tracking. And blasters... i´m confident there is a way to make them even more crappy than now and ccp will find it.

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.

#27 - 2011-10-15 19:16:14 UTC
If one of the blasters problems is not being able to apply the high dps they have, maylbe the new fast webber drones may provide a solution for rebalancing gallente, e.g. Giving deimos, thorax, brutix and the likes more drone cargo so they have a set of webber drones to catkch their prey, and athen switch to dps/ecm drones

Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2011-10-15 21:36:59 UTC
they should be fixed like this
Wylee Coyote
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2011-10-15 22:51:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Wylee Coyote
I would lower the cpu requirements for all hybrids a bit, otherwise I would not change them.

What I would change is hybrid ammo. Get rid of the capacitor need reduction and replace it with tracking bonus of at least equal (opposite) value. For example; Anti-matter charge would now be -50% range as it's always been, but it now also has +30% tracking (equal opposite of iron charges). Next would be Plutonium with it's -37.5% range but now with +27% tracking. Etc.
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2011-10-15 23:43:20 UTC
quigibow wrote:
they should be fixed like this

while those are good ideas, I'm still partial to the face-melting nuclear loaded shotgun concept, and they should have much, much more damage, bit more tracking and less range.

face-melting dps. that's what blasters should be.

and no, atm they don't do said visage deconstruction damage. they just do a bit more than the next best thing.


[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

#31 - 2011-10-15 23:56:14 UTC
Tallianna Avenkarde wrote:
Herman Klaus wrote:
Someone suggested making Minny less agile but keeping their high speed and making blaster boats more agile (quicker) and buffing blaster tracking. I liked this.

TBH though this topic has been done to death a few posts below.

I actually believe exactly the opposite.

To me Minnie are like rally cars, fast agile little killers that flitter around at kiting range.
Gallente should be top fuel dragsters. Fast in a straight line, but easily danced around.


That way the gallente pilot has the speed to close range if the enemy is dumb enough to fly away in a straight line, but is able to be kited easily because theyd lack the agility to keep pace with an opponent who was turning and weaving. It would be a George Foreman vs ali fight

Change armor rigs to be an agility nerf too
#32 - 2011-10-15 23:57:54 UTC
One of my friends and I came up with what I think is an interesting solution based on the RP of what a blaster and rail gun are supposed to be

Right now we have projectiles which have versatile ammo uses and lasers and hybrids which trade damage for range.

Our idea is to change hybrid ammo so that it trades range for cap usage but keeps the damage the same.

So the damage on all large ammo caldari navy L ammo (for instance) would be 23 thermal 32.2 kinetic, but antimatter would have -50% optimal and no cap cost increase, and Iron would have +70% optimal and +120% cap usage

This would mean that gallente ships are still the close range choice and Amarr are still the kings of damage projection, but gallente ships can get out to the range of conflag lasers, they just cost around 2x as much cap to do it.

The RP reason for this is that blasters are basically a ball of plasma generated by the round being fired, and it costs more cap to heat the ammo and keep the plasma hot over that long a distance.

For Rails, the extra cap is used to fire the projectile faster off the rail achieving a better time on target and thus more range but the shell is lighter resulting in the same damage.

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#33 - 2011-10-16 02:42:52 UTC
i believe they get updated sounds so that they sound more dangerous.

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

Londor Rogers
Public Menace
#34 - 2011-10-16 03:16:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Londor Rogers
Hmm agility would be nice if they also added say a hull based bonus on the blaster boats that gave a bonus to afterburners. Same speeds as the ships fly now just with afterburner instead of microwarpdrive.

This would reduce capacitor need of the ships. It would make it easier to get into range and increase the GTFO chances. They would need to increase tracking as well because the ships would be orbiting at a higher speed.
Jacob Stov
#35 - 2011-10-16 17:47:34 UTC
I have no idea what CCP will do, but I know what I would like to see.

No change to the guns itself.

Instead an ammo overhaul. Divide hybrid ammo in two groups. One with 10% blaster damage bonus and 80% thermal, 20% kin damage split.

The other group grants 10% damage bonus to rails, and deals 80%kin + 20% therm damage.

Now remove all range modifiers, and add tracking bonus instead.

Antimatter: 10% bonus to blaster damage 39 therm damage, 9 kin damage
Plutonium: 10% bonus to railgun damage 39 kin damage. 9 therm damage

Uranium: 10% bonus to blaster damage, 10% tracking bonus 33 therm damage, 7 kin damage
Thorium: 10% bonus to railgun damage, 10% tracking bonus 33 kin damage, 7 therm damage

and so on. Numbers of course open for discussion. Removes the optimal penalty from the higher damage ammo as well as the activition costs modifier.

Range with antimatter for large blasters:

Electron: 6 + 7,5
Ion: 7,5 + 10
Neutron: 9 + 13

So everything within web range, where blasters should rock. Rails will benefit, too. The slight damage bonus as well as the option do deal at least a bit damage at close range helps them a bit.

Damage type selection (at the cost of losing the 10% bonus) is a little bonus for PvE.

To round things up the fitting of every Gallente and Caldari ship should be looked at.

For Gallente ships I'd like to see larger cargobays to hold more cap boosters and an agility boost.

Caldari ships should get better cap recharge, by reducing the recharge time.
Pod Liberation Authority
#36 - 2011-10-17 19:32:57 UTC
I tend to think that part of what makes hybrids not working well, are not only ship bonuses (or the lack of those) and ammo types, but also TEs and TCs.

As an answer to the over-whining about lasers before the Dominion patch, the fall-off lovers received an insane boost...esp minmatar, where boosted in every possible way...

Ammo types where boosted for proj...nice

Falloff was tiered so that D180s would not do as much as 425s, but everything was rebalanced so that again ACs would be insanely easy to fit and make-work.

TEs and scripts for TCs got chanded to favor fall-off way more than optimal (counter intuitive, i know).

Though the latter would favor hybrids in comparison to lasers for some long-range fits, the range diff between the performance gains by fitting TEs to AC boats is simply a joke in comparison to using them for short range laser or hybrid weapon platforms.

TEs act as a huge falloff range booster, and tracking booster. For ACs that means being both an effective dmg mod as well as a range and tracking mod, greatly negating the "ACs are penalized by fighting in falloff" arguments.

Pulses can cope with that, having similar total Dps (tho most of the times laser-boats need to add fatter drones to come up with similar dps, even on paper) sucky dmg selectivity but at least great optimal.

Blasters that are short ranged in both optimal and falloff, cannot receive those benefits (aka TEs effectively boosting the applied DPS), as range benefits are small(er) even with Null, and the dmg reduction formula for falloff follows a way steeper curve.

IMHO, there is no way to boost blasters with range etc increases without producing an AC clone with worse dmg selectivity, requirement for cap use etc. As much as I hate getting my beloved canes nerfed, in order to preserve diversity in this game, ACs need to be nerfed SOMEHOW, before attempting to boost anything else to their level. As it is now, ships like the nano-cane can both browl and out-dps as well as kite their counterpants, with the same fitting. Reliably and repeatedly.
Changing how TEs bonus ACs or how they stuck would at least remove a portion of that versatility: high dps @ close ranges, amplified by dmg selectivity for ACs, or kiting with okz dps - not both.

Having 1500 dps Brutixes or frig like tracking Megas (with 2500 dps) shooting at laser ranges is not an answer.

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- Bertrand Russell

Tanya Powers
#37 - 2011-10-17 19:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Grimpak wrote:
...and no, atm they don't do said visage deconstruction damage. they just do a bit more than the next best thing.

Let's say it clearly for those who didn't understood it yet: it's 10% more dmg in OPTIMAL CONDITIONS wich happens almost never.
Previous page12