These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balancing Minmatar, 3 suggestions

Author
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
#1 - 2015-01-26 14:19:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Onnen Mentar
1. Reduce hull HP from all minmatar ships and add the lost HP to armor and shields.

This change is similar to the mass changes for amarr. It makes the penalty of fitting nanofibers smaller and provides better base HP for armor and shield tanks. Also fits nicely with minmatar 'lore' Blink


2. Projectiles = damage selection+falloff+no cap at the cost of lower base damage+long reload+mediocre tracking

I have explained this suggestion in more detail in an arlier post.
Quote:
- No more optimal range bonuses for projectiles.
- T1 minmatar ammo is reduced to two tiers from three: close-to-medium range no-falloff bonus high damage ammo and medium-to-long high falloff bonus with reduced damage ammo. Note: the falloff bonus needs to be quite big to offset the base dps loss.
- T2 minmatar ammo becomes "dumb" ammo: it has a selection of damage types and marginally higher base damage than T1. It becomes the ideal choice when you're facing an opponent with a very even resist profile or cannot predict the resist profile (or are too lazy to switch ammo..).


3. Make missiles the minmatar secondary weapon system.

Theoretically this is already the case, but Minmatar ships tend to end up with guns+missiles+drones. A bigger focus on just guns and missiles has a number of advantages: new players have less skills to train to fly minmatar, minmatar can do proper hit and run without having to worry about leaving drones, less server load, racial flavour, ...

How? Give a dual bonus to both missiles and guns (// scythe fleet). Make it balanced by not giving away launcher hardpoints. For example the stabber would have 0 drones and instead a 10% bonus to missile damage BUT with only two launcher hardpoints. Sure, now fitting a neut becomes a trade-off, but shouldn't it be?
Another example: the bellicose. At the moment it has big dronebay, its dronebay is so big in fact, that fitting drone damage amps gets you at least as much dps as fitting ballistic controls and they do that at lower fitting costs. Why not just up the base damage bonus? There has to be a better way than to just add drones to everything.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2015-01-26 15:10:45 UTC
Without tracking ammo, how are unbonused hulls supposed to actually hit frigates?

Why do arty ships need the optimal range nerf?

Why would anyone actually WANT split weapons? CCP have gone to all the trouble of removing them, because they aren't a good idea, why would we want them put back in at the cost of our dronebays?
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#3 - 2015-01-26 15:27:08 UTC
As one who pilots Minmatar ships almost exclusively, OP's entire post is terrible to the point where I suspect he does not even know what a Minmatar ship looks like, let alone fly any of them.

I don't know where to begin.
Orange Something
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2015-01-26 16:45:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Orange Something
OK, where to begin....

Onnen Mentar wrote:
1. Reduce hull HP from all minmatar ships and add the lost HP to armor and shields.

This change is similar to the mass changes for amarr. It makes the penalty of fitting nanofibers smaller and provides better base HP for armor and shield tanks. Also fits nicely with minmatar 'lore' Blink

Minnie ships already have the lowest base raw hull HP of all races in the game. Which makes sense, lore-wise for the same reason you listed. Lowering hull HP even more would be silly.



Quote:
- No more optimal range bonuses for projectiles.
- T1 minmatar ammo is reduced to two tiers from three: close-to-medium range no-falloff bonus high damage ammo and medium-to-long high falloff bonus with reduced damage ammo. Note: the falloff bonus needs to be quite big to offset the base dps loss.

So your plan here is to completely eliminate a range designation for proj turret users, while also replacing the optimal bonus on long range ammo with a falloff bonus? If that's right, I have two things to say:

1. Mid range ammo has it's place and should not be removed
2. Optimal > Falloff. If your plan was to nerf minnie ships and not buff them like you said, this would be a good plan

Quote:
- T2 minmatar ammo becomes "dumb" ammo: it has a selection of damage types and marginally higher base damage than T1. It becomes the ideal choice when you're facing an opponent with a very even resist profile or cannot predict the resist profile (or are too lazy to switch ammo..).

So your plan here is to replace barrage/hail and quake/tremor with omni damage bullets? What was wrong with the pre-existing ammo types?

Quote:
3. Make missiles the minmatar secondary weapon system.

Why would you ever ask for a split weapon system? Yes I agree, minmatar ships sometimes use missiles, but split weapon systems are bad. The whole Proj/Missiles things the minmatar have going is like the caldari preference of Missiles over hybrids, they usually have missile boats, but every once in a while a hybrid one pops up. They don't have a hybrid and missile
boats for a reason.

As someone who flies mostly minnie and caldari, I do agree that minmatar needs a little love. But it doesn't need to be forced into split weapon systems, or have some pre-existing ammo types removed, or really any of what you suggested. What they need is a tiny defensive tweak, and buff to projectile turrets.
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
#5 - 2015-01-26 18:59:09 UTC
Danika and Orange Something, you both make good and quite similar points. I hope this reply goes some way towards answering your concerns.

To make it absolutely clear: I am not suggesting buffering or nerfing at this point. I am looking for ways to make minmatar more unique.

Do I believe minmatar need some love? Well, some minmatar ships yes (the rifter for instance), but others are in a good place. To bring it right back to one of the comments you both shared: whether "optimal > falloff" is true depends entirely on the strength of the combined bonuses (ship + gun + mods + ammo + skills) and how far away your target is. Keep in mind there would no longer be a need to switch ammo, so a muninn could be doing ok damage at 90km, then turn on the mwd and move in 25km to suddenly be hitting for considerably more.

Danika Princip wrote:
Without tracking ammo, how are unbonused hulls supposed to actually hit frigates?

By using other means to increase tracking. This may mean webbing, target painting, but arguably most of all, using minmatar speed cleverly so it increases your chances of hitting. Of course some ships will now really struggle against smaller targets, but I sure hope CCP give them other stats that compensate for this. Making t2 ammo tracking ammo could also work, but maybe some minmatar ships just need the tracking weakness because they'd be way too good otherwise? P

Danika Princip wrote:
Why would anyone actually WANT split weapons? CCP have gone to all the trouble of removing them, because they aren't a good idea, why would we want them put back in at the cost of our dronebays?

CCP missed the boat on split weapons for minmatar entirely. Now we're stuck with 3 weapon systems instead of two. My suggestion of removing drones removes one weapon system! Of course, to maintain balance the ships need a buff to compensate for the loss of drones. This could come in the form of slightly higher hull damage bonuses to the main weapon system or by giving bonuses to both weapons types. Just look at the fleet scythe for a split weapon ship done right. Not to mention that for standard minmatar skirmishing doctrines drones are the absolute worst weapon system. You want to be moving around quickly and have the flexibility to warp and not have to leave drones behind.

Orange Something wrote:
So your plan here is to replace barrage/hail and quake/tremor with omni damage bullets? What was wrong with the pre-existing ammo types?

It was an effort to make T2 ammo different from the T1 ammo changes I suggested (4x high damage+no falloff bonus, 4x lower damage + big falloff bonus). I didn't want the ammo to be a high-damage copy of one of the existing ones. With the changes to T1, it would seem dull to make T2 ammo just a higher dps "fusion". I quite liked the old split-damage emp, so that is what inspired the new T2 ammo. Anyway, the main point I wanted to make was about moving away from optimal/tracking bonuses for minmatar T1 ammo to falloff bonuses. In fact, maybe the new T2 ammo should give tracking bonuses?

Orange Something wrote:
Minnie ships already have the lowest base raw hull HP of all races in the game.

I think there is room to nerf the hull even further in favour of boosting the others. Especially faction ships would benefit. I would like to see the choice plate + dcu vs plate + EAN be 50/50 or preferably 45/55, right now it's in favour of the DCU.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#6 - 2015-01-26 20:16:41 UTC
Minmatar are not "stuck" with three weapon systems. There are plenty of ships which make use of only one weapon system or only two weapon systems. Ships that make appropriate use of all three weapon systems are very few and very far between.

With Minmatar, you can pick which of the weapon systems you want to use and there will be multiple ships which fit that criteria. This is a perk of flying Minmatar, not a downside of it.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#7 - 2015-01-26 20:32:14 UTC
How about this:


Split Minmatar T1 Ammo into 3 categories.

Tracking Ammo:
Titanium Sabot & Depleted Uranium. Stays as is.

AC Ammo:
PP, EMP, Fusion. -75% Optimal, + 50% Falloff. Damage-Values stay the same.

Arty Ammo:
The 'rest': Nuclear (Explosive), Proton (EM), Carbonized Lead (Therm)
-75% Falloff, +50% Optimal.
Same Basedamage as EMP, Fusion and PP.


---->

Better application of Autocannons (imo, kinda needed)
Actual use for the 'sniper' ammo



---

Maybe similar approaches towards other race's ammo.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#8 - 2015-01-26 20:40:11 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
As one who pilots Minmatar ships almost exclusively, OP's entire post is terrible to the point where I suspect he does not even know what a Minmatar ship looks like, let alone fly any of them.

I don't know where to begin.


To be fair I'm not sure anyone knows what a minmatar ship *really* looks like under all the rust...
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2015-01-26 21:12:22 UTC
How can you say you are not suggesting nerfing anything, then two paragraph later say that ships will now struggle to hit frigs, but that they need to.

What is a reduction in the ability of a ship to apply damage if it is not a nerf?


As for split weapons, every SFI fit I have ever seen focuses on one or the other. If I go 2/3, then I am not going to be using all of my weapons at the correct ranges, nor am I going to have enough low slots to actually fit damage/tracking mods for everything. I would use one or the other, with the spare high for a neut or something. Given this, why would we want the buffs the removal of split weapon systems gave us to be reversed?

Arty favours optimal bonuses. ACs like falloff bonuses. Removing one or the other of these bonuses completely from either ammo or hulls would also be considered a nerf to that weapon system. Projectiles aren't exactly popular anyway, so why make them worse?
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
#10 - 2015-01-26 23:04:10 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
How about this
AC Ammo, Arty Ammo


It's an interesting idea, but certainly requires a rebalance of artillery optimal/falloff values then, because arty have massive falloff. At least do not give other races the same bonuses, because my whole point was to try and make Minmatar more unique. Smile


Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#11 - 2015-01-26 23:30:04 UTC
1. Hull is part of armour tanking. It can be your buffer between rep cycles on active armour tank. Dip into structure and hope those reppers kick in real soon. You are hurting armour tank here basically in prolonged fight scenarios.

2. What did arty do to you? It already has slower recycles and in my experience are analogous to shooting craps at a casino. When the dice are hot its nice as shots connect. When the dice are cold....man...those misses roll in hard and fast. I have found those dice for minmatar go hot to cold real easy.

3. many races have split weapons with no bonuses to the secondary (or tertiary) system. My usual example...Rokh. it has missile hardpoints...no bonuses for them. The drone rant....ccp gives drones to everyone. For the larger ships these tend to be your attempt at anti-frigate work. Success in this area varies ofc...buts its there. Pick the ship you want for the bonuses here basically. Want turrets, run turret boat. Want missiles, pick a missile one.
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
#12 - 2015-01-26 23:37:44 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Minmatar are not "stuck" with three weapon systems. There are plenty of ships which make use of only one weapon system or only two weapon systems. Ships that make appropriate use of all three weapon systems are very few and very far between.

With Minmatar, you can pick which of the weapon systems you want to use and there will be multiple ships which fit that criteria. This is a perk of flying Minmatar, not a downside of it.


Yes, I think we agree in principle, just draw a different conclusion. There are in fact no Minmatar droneboats and most ships now are geared towards guns or missiles. In that sense Minmatar have a clear choice: guns or missiles. What annoys me is that we get a third weapon system forced upon us to make Minmatar ships do acceptable dps. This seems like a missed opportunity to me and is why I suggested removing drones and compensating for it by getting the dps from missiles or the main weapon system (whichever that may be). It would also open up opportunities for real minmatar droneboats... but then T2? Similar to the Amarr with their Khanid lineup maybe.

The funny part is that I always expected Minmatar to have drones as the secondary weapon system, since Minmatar had so many ships with big-ish dronebays and Amarr got Khanid at some point. Slowly but surely the Amarr got more and more 'drony' because CCP felt that their slow bricks needed some ranged dps. Anyway, a quick google search shows I am not the first to notice this odd switch: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1840283

I feel that many game design choices show a lack of racial focus or consistency. This is a part of the NPE which has remained hidden and as an "immersioneer" it leaves me wondering why Minmatar engineers keep wasting their time with technologies that do not support the minmatar fleet doctrines.
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
#13 - 2015-01-26 23:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Onnen Mentar
Zan Shiro wrote:
1. Hull is part of armour tanking.

Yes, all tanks are part of your tank. But more base shields or armor provide a bigger boost to your main tank EHP. The wolf can be a nice example of this. By not fitting a dcu you can create a better resist profile for active tanking. You do however lose EHP that way. If the wolf had more armor and less hull, this would not have to be the case. Imagine you do not want to brawl with the wolf, but want to kite.. Well, fit nanos, plug the most obvious armor resist and maybe fit a small ancillary rep.

Zan Shiro wrote:
2. What did arty do to you? ... I have found those dice for minmatar go hot to cold real easy.

Again, falloff based arty could be just as strong as optimal based arty. Just depends on the amount of falloff or optimal you get. More falloff also means the quick hot to cold progression you experience should be far more gradual.

Zan Shiro wrote:
3. many races...

Yes, you noticed the same I have noticed. I just want minmatar to be different from the other races.