These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hamox
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1321 - 2011-12-04 23:22:16 UTC
To mare wrote:
fking forum eated my post

atm blaster weapon era fine on TQ the main problem is the ships that use them, they are slow and they struggle to get in range especially when fitted with plates and trimark, many of you suggested to remove the speed penalty from armor rigs but that would also boost amarr and some minmatar ships and they dont need a boost.
so my idea is to boost reiforced bulkheads, give the a +45% to ship hull hp remove all the speed/agi penalty from them and just give them a locking RANGE penalty like 7,5% per module because the engeneer have to remove some electronics for extra hull hp (this also prevents megabaits with 7 bulkheads) drop the cpu requirements to 25/30 cpu per module.

what we get in this way?
all the hull tanking ships keep their original speed agility with a decent buffer tank a mega fitted with 1DC+4 bulkheads would have a speed of 1000ms (1500ms in OH) with a 130k EHP tank, 2 slot left for MFS and all the rigs slot free for hybrid rigs 1dmg rig +2 tracking rigs are easy to fit now with reduced fittings for hybrid weapons, of course repairs will be harder and costy but you will save about 40mils on rigs so its a fair tradeoff i think.
in this way you can also keep gal ship fully capable to fit a armor tank if the situation need it like RR fleets but you will have a solid buffer tank for solo/small gang situations.

and if we wanna complete the job it wouldnt be a bad idea to change the 7,5% to armor rep in a + 5% hull hp


And how do you want to bring active tankers back to live? Equip Armor and have the same old problems again or equip Hull repairs? But then you need to change the mods or some bonuses becouse at the moment Hull Repairers work very slowly.
To mare
Advanced Technology
#1322 - 2011-12-04 23:32:10 UTC  |  Edited by: To mare
active armor tanker will still be able still to tank the way they do now

active tanking is no more viable not because the modules/ships are bad but because everyone prefer to blob than give a fair fight when they might lose the ships.

if you want to bring back active tanking you have to change something in the gameplay to give more reward to solo (or very small gang) before changing modules/ships
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#1323 - 2011-12-05 02:22:27 UTC
To mare wrote:
if you want to bring back active tanking you have to change something in the gameplay to give more reward to solo (or very small gang) before changing modules/ships


Impossible for other purpose than gate camping, station games, PVE and the very occasional fight vs a turd or sleepy guy engaging you with a pve fit or just because it's a noob.

Has far has the game evolves, has far has the number of players evolve, the numbers game will be worst than it is right now.

Before you try to do something for active tanking you need to consider this:

-benefits of using it vs buffer: actually none unless PVE

-drawbacks: extreme cap hungry, repair amount/cycle ridiculous in an environment where the numbers game IS the way to go

You have the heaviest cap hungry repair system making your ship cap stability extremely worst than buffer -unless pve- knowing at any moment, from one second to another there where you were 1vs1 you're now 1vs at least 3 but you can expect at least double but it's too late, you're already neuted you can't repair any more, your guns can't shoot and an enormous part of your tank EHP is just gone with your empty cap.

Shield buffer is the better way to go now, because self regen, because you keep the agility and the speed, because you keep a ton crap of cap for better guns, because you can now eventually fit neuts and now you can full load your low slots of dmg mods and because shield logistics are way better than armor logistics.

I've stopped trying armor stuff once I've realised there's nothing I can do to make it better and a valid choice vs shield stuff, just like use hybrids vs projectiles, some day you need to stop trying the impossible and start having fun.
To mare
Advanced Technology
#1324 - 2011-12-05 02:45:22 UTC
i agree with most of the things you say but my point was still to revam hull tanking to give a alternative form of buffer tank that use low slot and add no agility/speed penality to gallente blaster ships wich is what they actually need more.
if you want to revamp active tanking you have my full support but thats not the place
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#1325 - 2011-12-05 15:00:12 UTC
Well, it's been a few days now and the latest snapshot stands like this;

1 Drake 27661
2 Hurricane 16528
3 Abaddon 15827
4 Tengu 10749
5 Armageddon 7621
6 Tornado 4664
7 Tempest 4215
8 Scimitar 4193
9 Cynabal 3833
10 Sabre 3668
11 Thrasher 3280
12 Huginn 2922
13 Rifter 2712
14 Vagabond 2606
15 Rapier 2539
16 Loki 2463
17 Capsule 2383
18 Lachesis 2329
19 Proteus 2033
20 Falcon 2016


1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 12499
2 425mm AutoCannon II 4795
3 Mega Pulse Laser II 4591
4 200mm AutoCannon II 2907
5 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 2634
6 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 2293
7 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 2150
8 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 2092
9 800mm Repeating Artillery II 1922
10 150mm Light AutoCannon II 1921
11 Heavy Pulse Laser II 1487
12 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 1064
13 Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I 937
14 Light Neutron Blaster II 859
15 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I 795
16 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 693
17 'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher 678
18 280mm Howitzer Artillery II 618
19 Light Ion Blaster II 605
20 Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 594

The resurgence of hybrid use is non-existent, and this should be on the back of the wave of euphoria over the buff. Note that the Tornado tier3 BC is already as popular and successful as the entire hybrid ship range from both caldari and gallente combined ! How long does CCP intend to wait to identify how successful or otherwise the hybrid changes have been?
thoth rothschild
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1326 - 2011-12-05 15:22:49 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
Well, it's been a few days now and the latest snapshot stands like this;

How long does CCP intend to wait to identify how successful or otherwise the hybrid changes have been?




We are no longer sticky :) That should answer this question
Mag's
Azn Empire
#1327 - 2011-12-05 15:39:59 UTC
The changes to blasters were not enough, there is still little point using them over lasers or projectiles. It's as simple as that.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1328 - 2011-12-05 19:30:36 UTC
Typical really. We'll see in the coming weeks if all of this was just an old case of CCP fitting a damage control.

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1329 - 2011-12-05 23:47:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarak1 Kenpach1
Mekhana wrote:
Typical really. We'll see in the coming weeks if all of this was just an old case of CCP fitting a damage control.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1330 - 2011-12-06 11:05:52 UTC
Oh well.

Never mind.

Back to using Winmatar, Drakes, and Pulse frikkin' lazors

UghUghUghUghUgh
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#1331 - 2011-12-06 12:11:16 UTC
Uhh. Is this all for Gallente Ships, Rails and Blasters ? Must be joking !!!
Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1332 - 2011-12-06 12:12:26 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
As you may have noticed, I have been afk for the last week or so.
What we have now is a start. After Crucible come out, I will definitely be doing further balancing.
Here are some of the things relating to hybrid ships that we will be looking further into in the coming weeks/months:
.


So Tallest, have you made any progress so far?

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1333 - 2011-12-06 15:59:23 UTC
Solinuas wrote:
It seems the most preferred and said methods after reading all 66 pages are as follows

1) Gal needs to be the fastest race
2) blasters need enough DPS to make up for the net 0 of burning into range
3) blasters need an inherent advantage over other turrets that is not just superior DPS


Exactly.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who understands the demands of this thread.

More importantly, it's Crucible's lack of any of these three which explains why this thread continues to grow.

And no, I don't think hybrids need ALL of this stuff, but depending on the changes made, it might need to pull from some of it (multiple).
Zachis
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1334 - 2011-12-06 18:19:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zachis
Let's ask ourselves why they removed the web bonus on the Talos? Did it make the ship too effective as a blaster platform? What's the problem with Gallente having an effective blaster platform?

Bonused webs are one way to achieve effective control over combat range. Bonused webs also amount to the same thing as a straight speed boost; namely get in range and stay there. So, why not give web bonuses to blaster boats? Blaster boats should be the pinnacle of tacklers, they need the ability to effectively do what they were designed to do.

The issue with the old 90% webs wasn't that they were effective on a few ships, the issue was EVERY ship could fit them.
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1335 - 2011-12-06 22:43:22 UTC
I agree with you on that one Zachis about the 90webs were too much for every ship in game.

Thats why i'm averse to the idea of the rigs changing. I think either style of bonus for gals would be a great change. 90% webs or a armor rig bonus that removes the penalty from said rig.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1336 - 2011-12-07 07:37:12 UTC
The problem wasnt that 90% webs made the talos effective, but that the 90% web made the talos effective against small ships; small ships are supposed to be the counter to the new battlecruisers due to their use of large (poor tracking) guns, but with a 90% web, the talos could engage ships of all sizes

That being said, im not so sure that 90% webs are the answer because, when your slower than your opponents, you could have a 100% web and it still wouldnt matter because you would never get in range to use it.
thoth rothschild
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1337 - 2011-12-07 10:36:05 UTC  |  Edited by: thoth rothschild
I think web strength won't help me with the range issue :p
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1338 - 2011-12-07 10:49:28 UTC
Sigras wrote:
The problem wasnt that 90% webs made the talos effective, but that the 90% web made the talos effective against small ships; small ships are supposed to be the counter to the new battlecruisers due to their use of large (poor tracking) guns, but with a 90% web, the talos could engage ships of all sizes

That being said, im not so sure that 90% webs are the answer because, when your slower than your opponents, you could have a 100% web and it still wouldnt matter because you would never get in range to use it.

then why the tornado is faster than the cruisers ??
Viribus
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#1339 - 2011-12-07 12:21:56 UTC
A sensible fix would be a massive increase to the agility of gallente ships. Not 5% for every hull, closer to 35%. Angel Cartel-tier.

Making blasterboats extremely maneuverable would allow them to more easily get tackle on faster ships within short range, as well as apply their dps earlier.

watch me be a scurb and get owned
Autonomous Monster
Paradox Interstellar
#1340 - 2011-12-07 13:52:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Autonomous Monster
Viribus wrote:
A sensible fix would be a massive increase to the agility of gallente ships. Not 5% for every hull, closer to 35%. Angel Cartel-tier.

Making blasterboats extremely maneuverable would allow them to more easily get tackle on faster ships within short range, as well as apply their dps earlier.


We need speed more than agility, to charge into range. Both would be best, granted, but we need to give the Minnies something Blink

Messing about with battleships in a spreadsheet. What do people think of:

• Dominix - 109 m/s, 97.1 kT x0.1254 (16.88s) -> 110 m/s, 96 kT x0.1265 (16.84s)
• Megathron* - 115 m/s, 98.4 kT x0.1216 (16.59s) -> 120 m/s, 98 kT x0.1205 (16.37s)
• Hyperion* - 115 m/s, 100.2 kT x0.1178 (16.36s) -> 130 m/s, 94 kT x0.127 (16.55s)
• Typhoon - 130 m/s, 103.6 kT x0.116 (16.66s) -> 115 m/s, 105 kT x0.11 (16.01s)
• Tempest - 120 m/s, 103.3 kT x0.12 (17.18s) -> 110 m/s, 104.5 kT x0.1115 (16.15s)
• Maelstrom - 94 m/s (What?), 103.6 kT x136 (19.53s) -> 94 m/s, 104.5 kT x0.113 (16.37s)

?

*Trying differentiate these two. Mega has tracking bonus and Hyp tank, so I thought Mega = nimble, Hyp = bullrush.

EDIT: On second thought, this doesn't give the Mins enough of an agility advantage.

• Dominix -> 110 m/s, 96 kT x0.128 (17.03s)
• Megathron -> 120 m/s, 98 kT x0.1215 (16.51s)
• Hyperion -> 130 m/s, 94 kT x0.13 (16.94s)
• Typhoon -> 115 m/s, 105 kT x0.109 (15.87s)
• Tempest -> 110 m/s, 104.5 kT x0.11 (15.94s)
• Maelstrom -> 94 m/s, 104.5 kT x0.112 (16.23s)