These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Hybrid Turrets

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1281 - 2011-12-02 12:09:32 UTC
The thing is:

- range of heavy missiles is way too good (cut it down to 40 km)
- TEs provide way too big falloff bonus (15% seems reasonable)
- passive shield tank mods should slow you down just like passive armour ones

After getting the stuff above sorted out, we may start looking at speed values and/or consider giving blasterboats something unique, like web resistance bonus (surely not 100% one - total immunity is proven as stupid at supercaps).

But it's crucial to follow the order. Trying to 'fix' gallente straight ahead is counter-productive.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Hamox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1282 - 2011-12-02 12:20:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hamox
Fon Revedhort wrote:
The thing is:

- range of heavy missiles is way too good (cut it down to 40 km)
- TEs provide way too big falloff bonus (15% seems reasonable)
- passive shield tank mods should slow you down just like passive armour ones

After getting the stuff above sorted out, we may start looking at speed values and/or consider giving blasterboats something unique, like web resistance bonus (surely not 100% one - total immunity is proven as stupid at supercaps).

But it's crucial to follow the order. Trying to 'fix' gallente straight ahead is counter-productive.


I agree with this and I mentioned it earlier that the Hybrid fix is just the first step on a long journey to improve EVE and take it "to the next level".
Unfortunately I'm not experienced enough to understand all the mechanics and how they work together and how they depend on each other. Also EVE Players are very creative, so if you change one aspect to fix something players will find a way to use this change in a creative way that you never have expected.
Charles Edisson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1283 - 2011-12-02 13:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Charles Edisson
I'm going to suggest something a little radical here.

Tracking on ALL short range weapons need looking at. Each tier of weapon should have the same tracking ability at a certain range related to their optimal and falloff.
At 1 x Optimal pluss 1x falloff each weapon platform should have the same tracking ability.

Currently Minmitar/Amarr can shoot at Gallante from outside the Gallante pilots range. BUT with current tracking the Gallante pilot can not get under the guns of a Minmitar shipand to an extent Ammar too. I'm not infavour of increasing the Galle maximum efective range but I do think that a hole needs to be created in the effective ranges of the other races. All should have an upside and a down side. Mini really should not have an effective range from 3Km all the way out to 40Km with BS weapons. AC need to be changed so that under say 6 or 7Km they have real trouble hitting anything.

You could then remove the Tracking bonus from Galle boats and replace it with something different but with what I'm not sure.

Result, at long (short range) distance Galle still get owned but not as much as Mini would be loosing some tracking in this scenario otherwise Galle BS would hit frigs at close range too well. At short (short range) distances they own the others. due to taking little damage from Amarr/Mini BS due to tracking issues.
Charles Edisson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1284 - 2011-12-02 13:18:25 UTC
I've got another out of the box solution for Rails. How about rails doing constant damage at all ranges. Instead of ammo changing the amount of damage a rail inflicts it could act like a script and alter the energy requirement for rails. This would make rails the best ship in short duration sniping engagements but if the cap increase is ballanced correctly could/should make Galle even worse on their cap than Amarr are at long ranges.

This would make a totaly different game mechanic and new style of combat to anything we currently have. numbers can be altered to make Galle best at some range but poor at others.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#1285 - 2011-12-02 16:41:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Nagarythe Tinurandir
Julius Foederatus wrote:
... You don't even have to fit a speed mod of any kind on a cane to make it easily able to kite just about every other BC out there, though people often slap one on there just for ***** and giggles. All of this without sacrificing any gank or tank. ...


yeear, for sure. care to share that fitting with us? i would also like to have a look at the fail fits getting kited by a cane without a prob mod.
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1286 - 2011-12-02 17:20:08 UTC
From my perspective, there are three problems which need to be understood in order to fix this mess, ALL of them have everything to do with establishing a DESIRE to fly hybrid boats in PVP. Right now, there is virtually zero.

1) hybrids turrets themselves have no passive benefit:

  • if I use projectiles, I get cap free use, choose damage type, and alpha
  • if I use lasers, I get dominant optimal range and instant ammo swap/reload
  • if I use hybrids, I get NOTHING

2) hybrid ships lack an effective, passive, defense mechanic:

  • minmatar ships provide dominant speed; despite the nano nerf, nano is still a viable defense at all scales of pvp
  • amarr ships provide the BEST EHP in the game; it's not even close
  • if I use hybrids, I get NOTHING

3) because hybrid platforms lack the above, pilots cannot dictate terms of an engagement:

  • minmatar pilots will use speed to determine fighting distance; if the fight goes awry, running is viable due to ship speed
  • amarr pilots get max dps pontential due to no reload timers; lasers match "optimal" distance throughout all points of the fight. This is further magified by EHP: the longer you are around to shoot, the more dps you will do.
  • hybrids can do NOTHING to dictate terms of an engagement

The result:

  • Hybrid pilots suffer the most drawbacks just for choosing hybrids, just in their turrets. This is probably the single-biggest reason why pilots don't bother to use hybrid turrets.
  • Pilots realize hybrid ships, mostly Gallente, do not have the means to increase survivability as much as other ships. I would include Caldari but the drake is a brightly-shining beacon which contradicts this. If the Tengu didn't cost so much, it would be just as bright.

In a game where "balance" is claimed to be present and valued, hybrids should be godlike. They cost cap, have reload timers, have such USELESS range in blasters, have such a poor choice in ammo variety, have a fixed-damage type, and are on ships that can neither close the gap nor sustain a heavy-beating. I mean there must be a reason I would CHOOSE to incur all of these deficincies, right? I must have some kind of doomsday-like ability because I have nothing else going for me, right? What is it!?!?!

CCP, you have to fix #1 and #2 or you will never achieve the balance you claim you are trying to realize. The easiest ways to do this would be to:

  • make Gallente ships the fastest
  • completely swap projectile turrets and hybrid turrets across the board, essentially allowing Gallente ships to use projectiles under the "hybrid name" and putting the burden of the most penalized-yet-most-damaging hybrid turrets on the fastest ships (let's face it: currently, this makes a hell of a lot of sense)
  • increase ranges and base damages of hybrids so they are dominant in BOTH catagories, as they are turrets which already incur the most penalties

My take on all of this is supported by eve-kill stats, my own personal experience, and the value of ships/turrets/ammo on the market when compared to the other options. I suspect the stats will be a little skewed due to the Crucible release. For instance, this week, there are two hybrid vessels in the top 20 ship killers, Proteus and Lachesis, but it was ZERO hybrid ships two weeks ago. Either way, 10% is not exactly an impressive value. I have no doubts it will drop in a few weeks anyway.
Charles Edisson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1287 - 2011-12-02 19:00:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Charles Edisson
Charles Edisson wrote:
I'm going to suggest something a little radical here.

Tracking on ALL short range weapons need looking at. Each tier of weapon should have the same tracking ability at a certain range related to their optimal and falloff.
At 1 x Optimal pluss 1x falloff each weapon platform should have the same tracking ability.

Currently Minmitar/Amarr can shoot at Gallante from outside the Gallante pilots range. BUT with current tracking the Gallante pilot can not get under the guns of a Minmitar shipand to an extent Ammar too. I'm not infavour of increasing the Galle maximum efective range but I do think that a hole needs to be created in the effective ranges of the other races. All should have an upside and a down side. Mini really should not have an effective range from 3Km all the way out to 40Km with BS weapons. AC need to be changed so that under say 6 or 7Km they have real trouble hitting anything.

You could then remove the Tracking bonus from Galle boats and replace it with something different but with what I'm not sure.

Result, at long (short range) distance Galle still get owned but not as much as Mini would be loosing some tracking in this scenario otherwise Galle BS would hit frigs at close range too well. At short (short range) distances they own the others. due to taking little damage from Amarr/Mini BS due to tracking issues.


Just looked at the numbers on this. Using this principle even after the buff we get that Galle ships still have the worst tracking at their effective maximum range. even after the buff. Yes Galle have the worst tracking, go figure. At this range Minmitar ships still have 16% better tracking at their Optimal+1x falloff range. Amarr are even worse with almost 21% better tracking.

So my point is that tracking on all short range weapons needs adjusting. I dont know if Galle should be made faster or the others slower but it needs correcting as currently on blaster boats with a tracking bonus the first two levels of bonus only just bring them in line with AC. I'd be in favour of reducing the others tracking this will make kiting a more skillful practice.

If you want to make the argument that blaster ships do get a tracking bonus well then a lot of Minmitar ships get falloff bonuses using these new numbers assuming a galle tracking bonus of 7.5% and a mini falloff bonus of 10% per level the numbers change to mini having 20% better tracking at this range.

TRACKING NEEDS FIXED
Nikollai Tesla
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#1288 - 2011-12-02 19:26:45 UTC
Saw this on the dev blog today, wanted to cross post it since its official Data from CCP looking through their database, not from a kill board. The statistics are quite interesting:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=postmessage&t=40902&f=247&q=453895

CCP Diagoras wrote:

Final blows, weapon type, 2011 only, PVP only:

Group:
Projectile Weapon 1,455,484
Energy Weapon 392,605
Hybrid Weapon 250,858
Combat Drone 221,329
Heavy Missile 203,896

Type:
425mm AutoCannon II 388,602
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 207,378
200mm AutoCannon II 163,613
150mm Light AutoCannon II 144,349
720mm Howitzer Artillery II 136,879

By ship type scoring the final blow:
Hurricane 378,864
Drake 272,204
Sabre 124,472
Dramiel 118,128
Vagabond 117,136
Cynabal 113,905
Abaddon 80,659
Tengu 79,493
Harbinger 71,286
Rifter 67,721
Charles Edisson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1289 - 2011-12-02 19:31:55 UTC
Nikollai Tesla wrote:
Saw this on the dev blog today, wanted to cross post it since its official Data from CCP looking through their database, not from a kill board. The statistics are quite interesting:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=postmessage&t=40902&f=247&q=453895

CCP Diagoras wrote:

Final blows, weapon type, 2011 only, PVP only:

Group:
Projectile Weapon 1,455,484
Energy Weapon 392,605
Hybrid Weapon 250,858
Combat Drone 221,329
Heavy Missile 203,896

Type:
425mm AutoCannon II 388,602
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 207,378
200mm AutoCannon II 163,613
150mm Light AutoCannon II 144,349
720mm Howitzer Artillery II 136,879

By ship type scoring the final blow:
Hurricane 378,864
Drake 272,204
Sabre 124,472
Dramiel 118,128
Vagabond 117,136
Cynabal 113,905
Abaddon 80,659
Tengu 79,493
Harbinger 71,286
Rifter 67,721



Just comfirms what everyone already knows. AC are almost as good at projecting their damage as Lasers are on a stationery ship add in the speed/agility of Mini ships and they are in aleague of their own.
thoth rothschild
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1290 - 2011-12-02 20:07:30 UTC  |  Edited by: thoth rothschild
that's exactly the type of stats we expected and the results we predicted.


So, let's talk about fixing hybrids :)
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1291 - 2011-12-02 20:17:17 UTC
Nikollai Tesla wrote:
Saw this on the dev blog today, wanted to cross post it since its official Data from CCP looking through their database, not from a kill board. The statistics are quite interesting:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=postmessage&t=40902&f=247&q=453895


I'm not sure why CCP data is any less unbiased than a third party killboard. In fact, the conspiracy-theorist in me is tempted to say eve-kill is a better representation of the situation that anything CCP provides because we know it's all user-submitted data. This would be opposed to anything CCP might manipulate.

But I digress, the data still shows overwhelming favoritism in projectiles and Minmatar, followed by a distant second place with lasers and Amarr.

Nikollai Tesla wrote:
CCP Diagoras wrote:

Final blows, weapon type, 2011 only, PVP only:

Group:
Projectile Weapon 1,455,484
Energy Weapon 392,605
Hybrid Weapon 250,858
Combat Drone 221,329
Heavy Missile 203,896

Type:
425mm AutoCannon II 388,602
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 207,378
200mm AutoCannon II 163,613
150mm Light AutoCannon II 144,349
720mm Howitzer Artillery II 136,879

By ship type scoring the final blow:
Hurricane 378,864
Drake 272,204
Sabre 124,472
Dramiel 118,128
Vagabond 117,136
Cynabal 113,905
Abaddon 80,659
Tengu 79,493
Harbinger 71,286
Rifter 67,721


I'm only seeing two things which I would call "interesting data:"

  • the Drake, which isn't much of a surprise since it's the most bang-for-your-buck and most tank-for-your-buck available. Still, it's nice to see a break from the usual 80% Minmatar 20% Amarr pattern.
  • Hybrid weapons coming in at #3 is kind of misleading since it only makes up less than 10% of the top 5 (9.94%). I'd also bet MOST of that is from highsec frigate fights and station camping.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#1292 - 2011-12-02 20:57:07 UTC
Magosian wrote:
Nikollai Tesla wrote:
Saw this on the dev blog today, wanted to cross post it since its official Data from CCP looking through their database, not from a kill board. The statistics are quite interesting:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=postmessage&t=40902&f=247&q=453895


I'm not sure why CCP data is any less unbiased than a third party killboard. In fact, the conspiracy-theorist in me is tempted to say eve-kill is a better representation of the situation that anything CCP provides because we know it's all user-submitted data. This would be opposed to anything CCP might manipulate.

But I digress, the data still shows overwhelming favoritism in projectiles and Minmatar, followed by a distant second place with lasers and Amarr.

Nikollai Tesla wrote:
CCP Diagoras wrote:

Final blows, weapon type, 2011 only, PVP only:

Group:
Projectile Weapon 1,455,484
Energy Weapon 392,605
Hybrid Weapon 250,858
Combat Drone 221,329
Heavy Missile 203,896

Type:
425mm AutoCannon II 388,602
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 207,378
200mm AutoCannon II 163,613
150mm Light AutoCannon II 144,349
720mm Howitzer Artillery II 136,879

By ship type scoring the final blow:
Hurricane 378,864
Drake 272,204
Sabre 124,472
Dramiel 118,128
Vagabond 117,136
Cynabal 113,905
Abaddon 80,659
Tengu 79,493
Harbinger 71,286
Rifter 67,721


I'm only seeing two things which I would call "interesting data:"

  • the Drake, which isn't much of a surprise since it's the most bang-for-your-buck and most tank-for-your-buck available. Still, it's nice to see a break from the usual 80% Minmatar 20% Amarr pattern.
  • Hybrid weapons coming in at #3 is kind of misleading since it only makes up less than 10% of the top 5 (9.94%). I'd also bet MOST of that is from highsec frigate fights and station camping.


The data is silghtly skewed as the period it covers also covers a time when hybrids were more successful. The Eve-Kill stats are more relevant as they address the ships and weapons as they are currently ingame.
"The information in this blog is limited to kills that have taken place since the new kill report system was introduced in the Trinity expansion on December 5th, 2007, up until very early in the morning of November 29th, 2011."
Nikollai Tesla
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#1293 - 2011-12-02 22:30:01 UTC
Nikuno wrote:


CCP Diagoras wrote:

Final blows, weapon type, 2011 only, PVP only:

Group:
Projectile Weapon 1,455,484
Energy Weapon 392,605
Hybrid Weapon 250,858
Combat Drone 221,329
Heavy Missile 203,896





The data is silghtly skewed as the period it covers also covers a time when hybrids were more successful. The Eve-Kill stats are more relevant as they address the ships and weapons as they are currently ingame.
"The information in this blog is limited to kills that have taken place since the new kill report system was introduced in the Trinity expansion on December 5th, 2007, up until very early in the morning of November 29th, 2011."


Reading comprehension fail, a follow up poster specifically asked for only 2011 stats. CCP Diagoras posted 2011 stats, i''ve bolded the relevent sections and added links to both posts, #109 and #12

Was the request:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=453841#post453841

reply with only 2011 data
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=453895#post453895
Sigras
Conglomo
#1294 - 2011-12-02 23:32:28 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Hamox wrote:
As long as the short range guy is slower he will NEVER have a chance to win the fight.


i dislike the "never" in your statement.
once the kiter has the brawler in his preffered engagement range, i expect the brawler to have a hard time in cathcing the kiter.
but the other way around if the kiter is in the preffered engagement range of the brawler, the kiter will die an agonizing death.
a brawling brutix is by no means a valid counter for a kiting set up. and that should stay that way.

i have no difficulties grawsping your opinion, i just dont think every setup should be a valid choice against every setup in every situation. in a proper gang face melting brawler are invalueable. with the new changes blaster provide that face melting ability. (though void still could use some love)
but i recognize that there should be a hybridplatform thich is able to chase down slippery kiter dudes. variety&stuff = spirit of eve.
the heavy inderdictors should fill that role since its their job to catch things. i guess noone thinks that balancing of hybrids and their platfroms is done.

but fixing hybrids is not homogenizing the set up possibilities, thus every set up can achive the same, it`s about giving hybrids a benefit, making them attractive to pilots. my idea, though not fleshed out and in need of some more work, would provide a benefit, fitting in the intended role of hybrids.

ok lest revise his statement then, unless the long range guy is either REALLY unlucky, REALLY stupid or undocks into the short range guy (kinda goes along with really stupid), he will never win.

Is there a single realistic scenario outside of having him undock into you where a blaster ship will do more damage than an autocannon ship? Other than having a warp in at < 5 which almost never happens autocannons will do more damage.

Even in certain warp in situations, matari ships are more agile and therefore will align faster and get there faster and still do more damage!
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#1295 - 2011-12-03 12:09:28 UTC
Magosian wrote:

CCP, you have to fix #1 and #2 or you will never achieve the balance you claim you are trying to realize. The easiest ways to do this would be to:

  • make Gallente ships the fastest
  • completely swap projectile turrets and hybrid turrets across the board, essentially allowing Gallente ships to use projectiles under the "hybrid name" and putting the burden of the most penalized-yet-most-damaging hybrid turrets on the fastest ships (let's face it: currently, this makes a hell of a lot of sense)
  • increase ranges and base damages of hybrids so they are dominant in BOTH catagories, as they are turrets which already incur the most penalties

i believe you only want to apply one point out of your three? because combining the frist two would be the same mess as we are facing atm. and the third point ... well... i guess i missunderstood you there.
but i could live with swapped blaster - projectile stats, i guess. im kind of intregued and its worth a try on sisi at least. although i think rails do need a completly different solution.
still, just increasing range of blasters is the worst thing one can do.

Sigras wrote:

ok lest revise his statement then, unless the long range guy is either REALLY unlucky, REALLY stupid or undocks into the short range guy (kinda goes along with really stupid), he will never win.

Is there a single realistic scenario outside of having him undock into you where a blaster ship will do more damage than an autocannon ship? Other than having a warp in at < 5 which almost never happens autocannons will do more damage.

Even in certain warp in situations, matari ships are more agile and therefore will align faster and get there faster and still do more damage!


i guess no argument from me is going to convice you anyway, so we can end this here and i will bow to the worked up masses. although i still believe you guys have a tendency for exaggeration.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#1296 - 2011-12-03 14:16:36 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
i guess no argument from me is going to convice you anyway, so we can end this here and i will bow to the worked up masses. although i still believe you guys have a tendency for exaggeration.


Exaggeration of what?

That if you're not at undocks, gate camping with the best web ships around (Minmatar), station undocks the ability for blaster ships to ever win some fight is one bet on the enemy stupidity, underskilled/experienced noobs, is close to 0?

No one says blasters can't succeed, but everyone is pointing how and when they do, that's the problem why blaster ships are terribad. You don't need them for any purpose because everything else in the game will do the same with much more flexibility witch means: better.

I don't know how this is difficult to understand or admit.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#1297 - 2011-12-03 15:53:56 UTC
Indeed. Even if Gallente hybrid ships had the highest velocity, 5 medium slots, 4 low slots and shield a resistance bonus and a Damage bonus (nano-Ferox). As long as those ships had to engage close range (blaster range). The high velocity is negated. Is no benefit unless the ship is engaging a single vessel of same class or lower.

Amarr and Minmatar ships will still be able to apply alot of damage before being tackled. With similar defence. The damage output of a hybrid ship would have to be immense, but lets say this happened. Great! You're able to engage one other ship of the same class or lower. Now lets leave this vacuum!

In the current environment you have to deal with at-least 2 - 6 vessels. Which means skirmishing is often the best way to engage ships. Not to mention frigates that can warp disrupt a ship @ range and kill any drones sent to deal with them. Clearly most ships in-game are now able to project damage @ range. Meaning only another ship that's able to the same can have any hope of engaging ships able to project damage. While if a close range ship was put in the same situation. It would have to go close to 2 - 6 vessels to apply damage. Where all that velocity means nothing and would have to deal a immense amount of damage to destroy 2 - 6 ships and make it out of there intact. While your shield-Drake can shoot @ 2 shield-Hurricane's long before they come into range (70k to soften one or both up) or just leave if the ship cannot handle the situation. Not to mention a Drake can overheat to prolong being caught. BUT! It can apply damage! Something the close range ship cannot do with committing.

Range not only gives benefits in one versus one engagement, but it's greater advantage is skirmishing in a game with a ever growing player base, which means more and large fleets.

Blaster ships work best versus pilots who are close and even then. Generally only 1 other ship of the same class or lower. OR! Multi-ple ships below a hybrid ships class.

AND! The ships are still not optimal for fleets of any size really. Amarr and Minmatar will still be superior in fleet engagements. Meaning you will never see a Gallente ship in the top most used ships in game.

Most of you are beating a very dead horse and this has become the biggest waste of time. The issue has been identified a very long time ago. CCP wasted changes on a 20% tracking increase on turrets that track essentially the same as projectiles which everyone seems to think has no tracking issues at all. What CCP should have done was this.

Open a thread. Ask pilots to vote whether or not they want blasters to get a increase in range. So, they dominate close and mid range. Now that Minmatar Dominate mid range and are good long range. With Amarr dominating long range and good mid to lower.

OR! Keep blasters short range ONLY and give them there speed.

One of those things will make Gallente ships more useful and the other will keep Gallente ship essentially the same. Not as used as Amarr or Minmatar. Then the player base has no one else to blame if they vote and the issue remains the same. CCP can just say. DEAL WITH IT!
Julius Foederatus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1298 - 2011-12-03 18:45:45 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Julius Foederatus wrote:
As far as CCP goes, they need to either wake up to this reality and end their love affair with minmatar, or they will never accomplish their stated goal of balancing hybrids and hybrid ships.

And as far as killing kiting setups, no ****, that's the whole point. Kiting is way too easy in this game, especially if you're Minmatar.

Seems like you, too, are taking about 1 vs 1 theory. If it's N vs X, then kiting is the most challenging and interesting aspect of the whole EVE gameplay. It really IS the aspect differentiating pr0's from b00n rabble.

That's like saying that PvP in EVE is all about locking someone, pressing guns and hitting orbit button - n00bs often tell us that on forums, but they hardly ever achieve anything with that kind of attitude.

Once again, I'm not saying Gallente should or shouldn't become the fastest race (in terms of linear speed), but those implying that your ship should have some unique stopping or catching power just cause you're shortest range guy... are just trolling. That's like me saying I should have most damage because I have least tank Blink Or that my Abso should be ECM immune cause it - unlike NH - lacks fof missiles. Nonsense. It doesn't work that way.


Perhaps I should clarify, I wasn't commenting on the difficulty of the actual tactic of kiting, although it is frankly not as skillful as you're making it out to be. The FC says align somewhere, you keep your speed up, and overheat if you need to, warping out if any nasties get close and hit the primary. It requires a lot less skill than the tactics needed to counter nano gangs. What I was trying to get at is that there are no real disadvantages for a kiting fit on your ship. You have pretty good EHP, the best speed, and decent damage all in one package. The close range ship does not have this benefit of not having to choose between speed, tank, or dps. If someone wants to kite, they need to have to make some kind of significant sacrifice on their ship fit, probably to tank but maybe to dps.

And if it doesn't work that way, how is a ship with the shortest range ever going to apply damage on its own? A webbing range bonus on blaster ships might work, but then again you'll be very susceptible to ECM drones, and why fix a problem like that when you can just do it with base speed? Not to mention giving blaster ships web range bonuses would make kiting impossible in all circumstances. I'm not so against kiting that I want to see it gone forever. All those examples you give are either against very specific foes (ECM ships), which you can fit defenses for on your ship that don't greatly compromise your combat effectiveness. There's no solution that blaster ships can use by themselves to make up for speed gaps. It is hardwired into your ship and there's only so much you can do without making your ship worthless.

And as far as proxxxy's bollocks, no one is trying to make Gallente ships the be all and end all of fleet pvp. That has never been the goal. The goal is to make the game such that we can actually use close range, face-melting blaster ships as they're intended without having to constantly bring along neutral alts or teammates to get you in range. As long as we give close range ships a way to apply their dps that doesn't penalize them so much, we can use tactics to make up for the rest. That's why blaster ships need the best speed, and a much bigger dps boost, so that they can make up for their unique disadvantages in a gang situation.

And finally to the dude asking about cane fits, I don't have EFT in front of me cause I'm on a library computer atm, but if I recall a cane with 3x gyro, 2x TE, DCU or whatever people want to fit in that last slot, will go somewhere around 1.3km/s, which is way more than is necessary to kite any other BC, shield or otherwise. Having that extra nano will give you some extra time to get away and allow you a little more error room with overheats and such, but it's not strictly necessary to keep out of range of other ships.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1299 - 2011-12-03 19:15:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Julius Foederatus wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:

Seems like you, too, are taking about 1 vs 1 theory. If it's N vs X, then kiting is the most challenging and interesting aspect of the whole EVE gameplay. It really IS the aspect differentiating pr0's from b00n rabble.

That's like saying that PvP in EVE is all about locking someone, pressing guns and hitting orbit button - n00bs often tell us that on forums, but they hardly ever achieve anything with that kind of attitude.

Once again, I'm not saying Gallente should or shouldn't become the fastest race (in terms of linear speed), but those implying that your ship should have some unique stopping or catching power just cause you're shortest range guy... are just trolling. That's like me saying I should have most damage because I have least tank Blink Or that my Abso should be ECM immune cause it - unlike NH - lacks fof missiles. Nonsense. It doesn't work that way.


Perhaps I should clarify, I wasn't commenting on the difficulty of the actual tactic of kiting, although it is frankly not as skillful as you're making it out to be. The FC says align somewhere, you keep your speed up, and overheat if you need to, warping out if any nasties get close and hit the primary.

That's a total BS. A FC tells you how to pilot your ship??? LOL?

Kiting is something being done on your own! And no, just keeping a formation within a blob at a certain distance from the other blob is in no way called kiting. At least that's surely not something I for one would call kiting and put here as the most challenging game area.

Julius Foederatus wrote:
It requires a lot less skill than the tactics needed to counter nano gangs.

First of all, nano is dead. Kiting is not the same as nano. Only morons can call a ship doing 1300 m/s a nano one.
I'm not sure what you imply by countering nano (kiting), but flying immobile brick requires next to no skill at all. Been there, done that - check my abaddon movies dating back to 2008.
Julius Foederatus wrote:
What I was trying to get at is that there are no real disadvantages for a kiting fit on your ship. You have pretty good EHP, the best speed, and decent damage all in one package. The close range ship does not have this benefit of not having to choose between speed, tank, or dps. If someone wants to kite, they need to have to make some kind of significant sacrifice on their ship fit, probably to tank but maybe to dps.

Are you kidding? A kiting ship sacrifices a crapload of stuff:

- a stopping ability of close-range brawlers
- DPS
- tank
- often range as well

The exact values depend on setup, but saying "there are no real disadvantages for a kiting fit on your ship" is just another BS. Have you actually flown anything non brick-like?

Julius Foederatus wrote:
And if it doesn't work that way, how is a ship with the shortest range ever going to apply damage on its own?

Yet again, I'm not against making Gallente the fastest race, but the main issue is to allow kiting ships retain some chances against them. If it takes you way too long to get in range, then you must die in a fire and in no way Gallente boats could use some magic web-range bonuses, which will just grant them ability to get in range easily no matter what. Kiting ships don't have any granted ability to kill the opponents they engange, there's a constant struggle - unless, of course, you're one of those 'lock-f1-f8-orbit' guys.

As I already stated above, the very discussion is based on the fact that several game aspects are FUBAR.

- shield rigs and shield extenders don't slow you down. LOL? They should!
- heavy missiles shoot up to 80 km which given their DPS is pretty OP
- TEs grant +30% falloff, which is clearly way too much.

There's just too much range in the game atm. Or it's way too easy to gain it.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#1300 - 2011-12-03 19:18:05 UTC
It's interesting that I have no issues with Gallente ships as they were and are now. I'm not the one crying about how bad blaster ships are. Since I've used them in intense engagements, for the most part, since I started pvp'ing in 2008.

Not to mention having flown them alot with various characters sense late 07.

I remember having fun with Thorax, Moa, Omen, Caracal, Vexor, Mrymidon, Bruitx fleets. 2 - 20 pilots having fun and flying spaceships. Going to 0.0 recently with friends (best ship is friendship) in Thorax's and ecm drones and owning nano-loser-h0m0-f@gs. Flying around in Caracal and sentry Vexor fleets. Flying many ships some find useless compared to battle-cruiser or compared to whatever most believe are worth flying.

I fly and have fun with most ships in-game. Most think blaster ships are broken. I don't! I know for a fact it has to do with the environment currently and where it's going. All close range ships are one dimensional and if they cannot tank alot of damage. They're useless when engaging the every increasing number of most of the losers in this game.

Blasters work primary in the frigate class. Where auto-cannons, pulse lasers, rockets and blaster are pretty homogeneous. To a lesser degree in large blaster too. Mainly, because most battleships are pretty immobile. Engagements are pretty static.

You cry about a issue. It's identified and you resist what you know to be true. Why? Because you don't want to make blasters close to pulse lasers? Something that was done to auto-cannons. Every close range ship including a stabber fleet issue has the same issue as a Brutix. Having to commit limits you. Those ships are not that popular and you don't find fleets of Stabber fleet issues.

How many fleets of HAM-Drakes do any of you see roaming around? Not many from what I see and I roam 100 -130 jumps per day. How many of you often leave the region you base in?

Is a shield-Hurricane with a warp scrambler be very good if it also has no tracking enhancers? I mean, a Hurricane would still be pretty fast, but would be limited to doing damage under warp scrambler range. Look @ the Serpentis cruiser or battleship. Not very good. When compared to a Cynabal, but it's still very fast and does alot of damage.

There are so many examples of ships that are very fast, but limited in range that are not good. Atleast compared with a setup that can increase range. Heavy missile, instead of heavy assault missile.