These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

Going past ship-tierricide, or; The issue of the unused weapons.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2013-05-30 04:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Deena Amaj
Agreed with OP.

I wish there would actually be key distinctions between the actual weapon types rather than just "bigger, lower tracking, more dmg" (regardless how logical that may be ever since).

I was hoping that we could get some distinct changes in playstyle when adapting these, but this would be too "big of a desire" that would be too complex for most people.

I must agree with Felsusguy about "no moar alpha". Imo, tier3 Battlecruisers and other sorts of facemelt alpha just makes the game dull and bringing things out of balance. While a different subject, I'd rather suggest working more on a DPS system that also applies a well-thought permanent damage system rather than just being able to tank forever.

I only hope that such tiericide on weapons would focus more on playstyle, and not enlarging total epeen damage on the killmail.

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
Doddy
Excidium.
#42 - 2013-05-30 10:14:50 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.




See this would have completely the opposite effect to what you want. If all have the same sort of fitting then it almost never makes sense to fit lower dps. Tracking and range can be got round easily and alpha is only useful when masively different and even then only at specific fleet sizes. Dps, tank and mobility are what matter in eve. dps rarely effects mobility so really it is a trade off of dps vs tank.

Alpha is useless unless its massive, at which point your autocannon is just a short range artillery (whats the point?).

Why woud weapons of the same type radically different anyway? It makes no sense. Weapon tiericide is needed but al lit needs to do is bring back some of the old dps/tank balance as power creep has given far too many ships the ability to fit top guns and oversize tanks. Buffing the smaller guns dps so it is worth using them to fit extra tank in certain situations is what is required. At the same time some of the larger guns (specifically long range) are too far the other way and fitting them leaves you with no tank whatsoever making them far too risky to use.
Zephyr Amilupar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2013-05-31 20:23:14 UTC
I started this thread to discuss not my implementation of weapon changes, but any and all ideas. I, and others, may have forgotten that.

@ Doddy
I can see the points you make, and I do agree with them. Simply differentiating via DPS/Alpha isn't enough.

We've got range/dps already seperated...

Should the higher tier weapons have their tracking revisited, and significantly reduced? To encourage the use of lower tier weapons, and to make people think more about what their targets are going to be.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#44 - 2013-05-31 20:39:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Ines Tegator
Regarding lasers, there seems to be a good spread already. Except for Small Lasers, there's only 2 guns in the pulse category anyway- and as far as the GSPL goes, it's actually my favorite frigate sized laser. The tracking is great for other frigs that think lasers means they can get under your guns, so the applied DPS usually far exceeds the larger turrets.

The smallest tier of beams is definately borked though (quad light beam lasers, dual heavy beam lasers)- they have inferior tracking, damage, AND range to pulse lasers. They may as well not exist. Actually, they could be completely removed and no harm would be done. If they were to be fixed, they need their range doubled at minimum. Even then, a pulse with scorch will be better in most cases.

Can't comment on other gun types, I don't use them enough.

Overhaul Dscan!
Previous page123