These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Going past ship-tierricide, or; The issue of the unused weapons.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zephyr Amilupar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2013-05-27 19:51:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Zephyr Amilupar
Felsusguy wrote:
Zephyr Amilupar wrote:
should be re-purposed to, respectively, DPS, middle-ground, alpha.

Dear god, no. That's not even tiericide. Alpha guns will only be used for quick ganks, middle-ground would be effectively useless in both ganking and long-term engagements, and DPS would be king on anything that can tank decently.


What would you suggest then?

The problem I have with making specific turrets for tracking, damage, range, is that that is already partially covered by the Beam/Pulse, Rail/Blaster, Arty/AC difference.

There are only so many things that you can vary within those categories while maintain the existing separation of range/tracking tradeoffs.

Mainly...


  • RoF
  • Damage Modifier
  • Ammo Capacity
  • How many charges of ammo are used
  • Signature Resolution
  • Capacitor Usage
  • Powergrid/CPU
  • Reload time


It could be interesting to trade ammo consumption and reload time for some other benefit...
Or cap usage and/or RoF, IE shoot me and goodbye all your cap...
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2013-05-27 21:30:36 UTC
So, it seems many think that the top two sizes are balanced, fitting and cap vs range and Damage...

So, I suggest taking the smallest size, and making it analogous to the Rapid light missile launcher.

Normally, going Small-> medium, or medium -> large results in a 33% increase in DPS (although alpha doubles).

In the case of the light missile launcher (small size) to rapid light missile launcher (medium size), the increase is only 25%.
Aside from ROF, ammo capacity, and fitting, the weapon stats are the same.

Lets make that dual 250mm railgun actually have the stats of a 250mm railgun -> except with a 25% increased rate of fire.
Same for dual heavy beam lasers, and so on.

The smallest weapon in a size catagory would actually have the same stats as the largest in the previous size catagory(excluding fitting), but with a 25% increase to rate of fire (note, this would result in guns that are counted as medium sized for bonus purposes, but would use small size ammo, the same for large size bonuses)

The tradeoffs would be just like Heavy missile vs Rapid light missile launchers:
Less DPS, less range, *much* better ability to hit smaller targets.

I'm not sure what to do about the smallest of the small weapons
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#23 - 2013-05-27 21:57:08 UTC
Dumb question: do you ever fit meta 4 or lower guns if you have skills for t2?

I mean, fitting medium 180mm on my ruppies or canes before they were tiercided happened due to lack of CPU/PG for suitable tank with 220s or 425s but I never even considered going down to meta 4. DC, hardener, extender, cap booster, prop, tackle - sure, if it is the only way to maximize usage of that last slot I go meta but guns? Never.

I know that meta guns are needed because of newbies and people getting into new weapon system to try it out before they get skills but once you there would you ever scale down or just keep smallest fittable t2 and meta tank and the rest.

What I'm trying to say is maybe we could make list of guns/lazorz/launchers little more compact? Just a thought, probably stupid one but v0v.

Invalid signature format
Jen Ann Tonique
Doomheim
#24 - 2013-05-27 22:06:28 UTC
Verity Sovereign wrote:
So, it seems many think that the top two sizes are balanced, fitting and cap vs range and Damage...

So, I suggest taking the smallest size, and making it analogous to the Rapid light missile launcher.

Normally, going Small-> medium, or medium -> large results in a 33% increase in DPS (although alpha doubles).

In the case of the light missile launcher (small size) to rapid light missile launcher (medium size), the increase is only 25%.
Aside from ROF, ammo capacity, and fitting, the weapon stats are the same.

Lets make that dual 250mm railgun actually have the stats of a 250mm railgun -> except with a 25% increased rate of fire.
Same for dual heavy beam lasers, and so on.

The smallest weapon in a size catagory would actually have the same stats as the largest in the previous size catagory(excluding fitting), but with a 25% increase to rate of fire (note, this would result in guns that are counted as medium sized for bonus purposes, but would use small size ammo, the same for large size bonuses)

The tradeoffs would be just like Heavy missile vs Rapid light missile launchers:
Less DPS, less range, *much* better ability to hit smaller targets.

I'm not sure what to do about the smallest of the small weapons



I like this idea. Would give them a purpose at least.

Jen Ann Tonique does not approve of this product and/or service. Any comments contained herin are to be taken not seriously and no person/s shall hold Jen Ann Tonique responsible for any damage real and/or imagined due to use or misuse of above comment. By reading this statement you agree to the above terms.
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-05-27 22:51:16 UTC
Smaller guns get used regularly by a ton of people on a ton of ships, even when the fitting is there for the larger guns.

Generally the reason is tracking, and obsviously fitting.

150mm ACs, and all other 'lower tier' frig guns get used all the time on frig sized ships.
220s are pretty standard on cruisers, many cane pilots use them over 425s.

Electrons get used all the time on drone boats for fitting reasons.
Ions get used a lot.

FMP get used a ton on cruisers.

Quad lights? well, ok... they don't get used, but neither do any other beam lasers so lets call this a separate issue ;)

Frankly I don't see any point touching the weapon systems.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Jen Ann Tonique
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-05-28 04:55:21 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:


Quad lights? well, ok... they don't get used, but neither do any other beam lasers so lets call this a separate issue ;)

Frankly I don't see any point touching the weapon systems.



So it's okay to rebalance ships because so many were going unused but it's not okay to rebalance weapons for the same reason?


Jen Ann Tonique does not approve of this product and/or service. Any comments contained herin are to be taken not seriously and no person/s shall hold Jen Ann Tonique responsible for any damage real and/or imagined due to use or misuse of above comment. By reading this statement you agree to the above terms.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2013-05-28 09:08:04 UTC
Zephyr Amilupar wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Felsusguy wrote:


Additionally, all the turret subclasses should use the same amount of powergrid, CPU and capacitor.




Let's use medium autocannon as our example here, because it's all I can be bothered to remember right now. You have dual 180s, 220s and 425s. Would you nerf the **** out of the dual 180s and 220s by giving them the same fitting as the 425s, buff 220s and 425s by using dual 180 fitting, or buff the popular 425 and nerf the underused dual 180 by choosing the middle ground?

And what about all those fits that cannot use more than the dual 180s or the 220s, would you have them all become useless, or would you buff the hell out of them?


Meta-level should be re-purposed to modify PG/dmg/tracking/cap tradeoffs at the same time as different tiers of weapons, like 180, 220, and 425, should be re-purposed to, respectively, DPS, middle-ground, alpha.

Certainly there should be some major adjustments between them all. Perhaps the DPS class used less PG, but more CPU/cap, or runs out of ammo quickly... perhaps the Alpha class uses more PG but less CPU, and a whole ton of ammo or capacitor each shot. It would be interesting to actually plan on having enough cap to fire all your turrets in an alpha barrage.



So, for example, my SFI running dual 180 IIs, or my vaga with it's 220 IIs, neither of which have the fitting left to blot on bigger guns, would both lose access to t2 ammunition and thus massively diminish their utility, right?
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#28 - 2013-05-28 16:33:57 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Dumb question: do you ever fit meta 4 or lower guns if you have skills for t2?



Actually, yes! Like cheap t1 stuff is oftenly used with meta equipment. Scorpions may profit from saving a bit powergrid by using meta IV launchers over T2. A lot of people I know use exclusively metaguns on 'less-than-10-mil'-hulls.
Zephyr Amilupar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2013-05-28 19:39:45 UTC
I concede to the points that have been made that turrets aren't in as dire of a situation as I've made them sound.

That does not change that fact that many of the are effectively unused, and economically worthless, with, perhaps, the exception of electron blasters.

It seems a waste of game content to let the unused versions lay fallow where some sort of rebalanced or re-purposing of the unused items could result in increased usage, increased usefulness, and increased economic worth.

Plus, I bet some cool things could be done with weapon systems that are little used as any massive changes would not have too significant of impacts.
Nomistrav
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-05-28 20:41:25 UTC
I occasionally use the lower caliber weapons when I'm trying to fit a ship that's intended for smaller targets. Nothing better than surprising the hell out of a another player with faster weapon tracking than they were prepared for.

On the other hand though, the lack of damage output is a little discouraging.

I wouldn't mind if they closed the damage output disparity and kept the tracking differences, or even increased range on them.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama
Verity Sovereign
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2013-05-29 12:07:11 UTC
That last reason is why I'd like hull bonuses to be independent of size...

Ie, give the Megathron a 5%/level reduced cycle time for all hybrids, not just large hybrids...

One approaches it, expecting Large neutrons/Ions, and instead finds medium Neutrons... and get shredded at close range.

Medium neutrons would be out DPS'd by large neutrons by a large margin (33%), and could be kited by large neutrons - hence it would still be balanced.


Note, when I mentioned the 25% higher ROF earlier, I'm talking real ROF, not CCP weapon cycle time, the inverse of ROF
In my usage, a 25% higher rate of fire equates to 25% more DPS, which is of course lower than the 33% more DPS you normally get by going from small-> Medium, or medium -> large (I don't remember if it hold true for large-> extra large)


In other words, if the smaller version (light missile launcher, 150mm rail) fires every 1 second, the larger version (rapid light missile launcher, dual 150 mm rail) fires every 0.8 seconds.

1.0 / 0.8 = 1.25
even though CCP would call this a 20% ROF bonus..

Just to show the math

*Standard launcher cycle time (T1m0):
15
*Rapid light missile launcher cycle time (T1m0):
12
15/12= 1.25 -> 25% more missiles fired in the same amount of time, missiles do the same damage,

25% more DPS



** 150mm rail T1m0 (the largest of the small rails)
Damage modifier: 2.75
AM charge damage: 7/5
Cycle time: 4.25
** 250mm rail T1m0 (the largest of the medium rails)
Damage modifier: 2.75
AM charge damage: 14/10
Cycle time: 6.38
(not on eve atm, these may be the pre-hybrid buff numbers, but the ratios stayed the same)

Damage modifiers cancel out
Ammo damage is 2x for the mediums -> 2x alpha
The small has 6.38/4.25 = 3/2 = 1.5 = 50% higher ROF ,
The medium turret has 2/3 the ROF of the small, but does 2x the damage per shot
2 * 2/3 = 4/3 = 1.3333 as much DPS ->


33.33% more DPS
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#32 - 2013-05-29 16:30:17 UTC
Well, hard question indeed.
Entirely situation is not so bad - lower tier level means more possibilities to fit something else. Also posibility to fit smaller ship with bigger guns.
But there are two problems:
1. Large weapons. Hardly you can fit even BC with acceptable number of large tier1 turrets or lauchers. Two exeptions - bombers and ABCs. With bombers everything is OK, meantime ABCs needs nerf. Possible solution here to reduce their cpu\pg ammount to force ABC pilots to use low tier large weapons, or rework their skill bonus to make only tier1 large guns fittable
2. Idiotic situation when same (or very close) caliber (i mean not ony caliber itself, but entire combination of characteristics) of guns exists in small and medium or medium and large sizes. As mentioned before because of rof, tracking and better fiting demands smallest weapons sometimes better.

I suggest to rework large size first, because problem of unused weapons in this size is bigger imo.
Tier1 large guns goes to ABCs, meantime 2 and 3 have different range\rof\damage and so on characteristics with same pg\cpu\cap demands to make usable both of weapons. But not in modern model when tahions have better range, damage modifier (i can not remember about rof, sorry :)), dps with larger fiting and capasitor demands then mega beams
And ofcorse p.2 must be resolved. Probably it's good idea to remove size of weapons from skill's damage bonuses.
Allow to the Abbadon to be fitted with medium beams with working damage bonus Smile
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#33 - 2013-05-29 16:40:13 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Aglais wrote:
Yes. This.

Not only do you always only ever fit the biggest possible guns, for the most damage, but there also isn't any reason for you to use any of the meta weapons over T2, at all- T2 is just better, in every way, rather than a 'specialist platform' (like is apparently the thing with ships). It'd be much more interesting if there were real palpable reasons to use the 'meta 3' gun over 'meta 4', or even stick with meta 0 (heaven forbid, considering that meta 0 is worthless for literally everything that isn't building the T2 version of the module). It could open up whole new venues for fits for a variety of ships that could just in general get a lot more versatile at the T1 level, which isn't bad.


+1

Faction and officer guns need help badly. All metas higher than 5 (Tech 2) should be treated as T2 in ammo usage and specialization skill bonus.


I could see faction guns continue to be restricted to T1/faction ammo because they could be modified versions of their T1 counterparts, while officer guns being able to use T2 ammo as well being modified T2 guns.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Zephyr Amilupar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2013-05-29 21:19:43 UTC
One thing of definite note that has been mentioned by another poster is the idea that weapon bonuses on all ships should apply to their weapon size, and lower.

Cruisers should give bonus to both medium and small guns.
Battleships should bonus large, medium, and small, etc.

That could be an interesting change, and I would think, one that would not unbalance things too much.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#35 - 2013-05-29 21:23:15 UTC
I keep thinking that the smaller cruiser sized weapons should be tailored specifically for anti-frigate duty. For example the Dual 150's should be better then the regular 150's. It would allow cruisers to fit more tank, do less dps but hunt frigates effectively. Where as, it would impede their viability against other cruisers that have larger variant of guns.

Regardless of whether you agree with that. Essentially what I'm saying is that every weapon type needs its own niche of sorts.
Zephyr Amilupar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2013-05-29 22:09:11 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
I keep thinking that the smaller cruiser sized weapons should be tailored specifically for anti-frigate duty. For example the Dual 150's should be better then the regular 150's. It would allow cruisers to fit more tank, do less dps but hunt frigates effectively. Where as, it would impede their viability against other cruisers that have larger variant of guns.

Regardless of whether you agree with that. Essentially what I'm saying is that every weapon type needs its own niche of sorts.



I certainly agree for the currently, mostly, unused weapons, with, yes, the exception of electron blasters.

To me, the lack of usage of many of the lowest tier weapons suggests that a re-examination of turrets is in order. For the sake of making them used, economically viable, and to not waste the artistic effort put into the models.

With the massive changes affecting EVE these days, I think the near future would be a perfect time for CCP to take another look at turrets, and many other modules, that need some love. I'm thinking that once the majority of the ship's have been given attention, CCP will move on to equipment. At least, I hope so.
SGT FUNYOUN
Elysian Space Navy - 1st Fleet
#37 - 2013-05-29 22:32:03 UTC
The smaller guns are really designed the way they are, for players who are just starting out within a specific ship class and gun size class... if you can't fit t2's then maybe you can't fit the biggest t1's either... It all falls into your skills levels.
Laura Dexx
Now Look What You've Made Me Do
#38 - 2013-05-29 22:56:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Laura Dexx
I use gatlings on retributions and crusaders, stay away from them. D180's are used on anti frig vagabonds and flabbers, and electrons are for active tank astartes / plated thoraxes. Just because you don't see an immediate use for them, doesn't mean they're useless.

You don't want to trade in range and damage for easier fitting and better tracking? Fine. Just stick to ACR's and stay away from weapon systems you don't find useful.
Zephyr Amilupar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2013-05-30 01:10:53 UTC
Laura Dexx wrote:
I use gatlings on retributions and crusaders, stay away from them. D180's are used on anti frig vagabonds and flabbers, and electrons are for active tank astartes / plated thoraxes. Just because you don't see an immediate use for them, doesn't mean they're useless.

You don't want to trade in range and damage for easier fitting and better tracking? Fine. Just stick to ACR's and stay away from weapon systems you don't find useful.


They are useful, very useful.

By my observation, they are also used far less than the higher tiers of their weapon type.

IE
Tier 1 10%
Tier 2 40%
Tier 3 50%

I'd rather see a more equal distribution.
Shade Millith
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2013-05-30 01:54:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
Zephyr Amilupar wrote:
Thinking about it some more....

Long range and short range turrets could be further subdivided, and de-tiered, by differentiating weapons within those groups into weapons for pure DPS output, and alpha.

For instance....

Electron blasters get the highest DPS output, having a high ROF but low damage modifier.

Neutron blasters get the highest alpha, but lowest DPS output, having a low ROF but high damage modifier.

Ion blasters could occupy a middle-ground.




They already do this, though.


Electron Blasters - Highest ROF, Highest Tracking, Lowest DPS, Best Fitting.

Ion Blasters - Medium ROF, Medium Tracking, Medium DPS, Medium Fitting.

Neutron Blasters - Low ROF, Low Tracking, Highest DPS, Worst Fitting.


And your idea is still going to tier the guns, as closer range weapons are going to vastly prefer higher DPS than Alpha. So this -

Quote:
IE
Tier 1 10%
Tier 2 40%
Tier 3 50%


Is still going to be the norm. Tier 3 is just going to be the highest DPS weapon, and Tier 1 is going to be the higher Alpha weapon.
Previous page123Next page