These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Proposal for 'multi-barrelled' turrets (example given)

Author
Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#1 - 2015-03-04 10:23:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
This is a proposal to re-balance the larger ‘multi barrelled’ versions of next class down weapons, e.g. dual Cruiser weapons on Battleships, or dual/quad Frigate weapons on Cruisers. It is based upon the addition to the game of Rapid Heavy Launchers, but with specific iterations to take into account the differences between missiles/turrets.

Firstly, though centred on the specific example of Dual 250mm Railguns, this is not intended as a single solution for a single weapons system. While I’m a Battleship hybrid man through and through, this methodology can (and should) be ported across the three turrets types.

First key/must read point:

Quote:
Dual 250mm Railguns do less DPS than 250mm Railguns.


Let me just re-state that for the doubters:

The Battleship ‘dual barrel’ equivalent does less DPS than Cruiser version, with no tangible benefits to compensate for this…

(Proof in spreadsheet below)

With this in mind, moving onto the detail of the proposal….

Key attributes (fixed)

1. Give the ‘dual’ versions the same ammo size as base, i.e. medium railgun ammunition for Battleship Dual 250mm’s

2. Give the ‘dual’ versions the same signature resolution as the base weapon

3. Maintain the same optimal/falloff range, as per the base weapon

Key attributes (to develop by iteration)

1. Increase the base damage modifier of the ‘dual’ versions to match the base weapon

2. Increase the tracking of the ‘dual’ versions, but less than 100% that of base weapon

3. Increase the RoF of the ‘dual’ versions, to, at maximum, +100% over that of base weapon (i.e. 2x)

4. Decrease the clip size of the ‘dual weapons’, maximum size being less than that of the base weapon

5. Increase the reload time of the ‘Dual weapons’, minimum of 400% of base weapon (i.e. 4x)

In order to aid visualisation I’ve knocked together a spreadsheet which allows you to iterate up/down the changes above. Coloured/grey cells cannot be changed, only white cells. Cells highlighted in green are the ones affected by the above iterations.


(version 3 - updated with more information:- http://www.filefactory.com/file/2mb9r1chbrdt/DT_-%20Proposal_v3a.xlsx )

(image):

(version 3 - with more information:- http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1508/DT_-_Proposal_v3a.png )


My initial iteration, which I propose is a good starting point for a Dual 250mm Railgun is:

- 80% tracking of the medium railgun
- 130% rate of fire compared to the medium railgun
- 100% i.e. same damage modifier as the medium railgun
- 700% increase in reload time compared to the medium railgun (i.e. to 35 seconds)
- 60% the ammo capacity of the medium railgun (i.e. 24 rounds)

ArrowThis gives a peak DPS comparable to a Cruise Launcher, less than a Rapid Heavy Launcher and above that of a 425mm railgun. Overall a 37% increase.

ArrowIn terms of the sustained DPS, it doesn’t change the pecking order in the large railgun family, overall only a 4% increase, which won’t upset the apple cart IMO.

ArrowAccuracy wise; this improves the situation from having worse performance vs Cruiser-sized targets compared to a 425mm at respective optimals, but still being capped below the performance of the medium weapon (80%).

In short, this proposal:

- greatly increases the accuracy against targets at respective optimal range
- Improves ‘peak’ DPS (without excessively increasing sustained vs class equivalents)
- Iterates upon the Rapid Heavy vs Heavy launcher model for missiles
- Provides an interesting option for Battleship doctrines, rather than a crappy ‘lower tier’ weapon system, without blowing Battleship weapon balance out of the water
- Can be ported across to all the dual/quad versions of smaller class weapons

Please feel free to use the spreadsheet to play around with values, or even try on something other than Dual 250mm’s (if someone wishes this, I’ll upload an unlocked version). One aspiration of mine would be to see the return (but done properly) of “Dual Heavy Ion Blasters” as they were formally known, currently called “Electron Blaster Cannons”… (hello 2004)


TL:DR - Look at the spreadsheet, play with numbers.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#2 - 2015-03-04 11:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Chipping in a bit more of an aside than anything else (but just to preempt someone commenting); even with the proposed changes in the Dev blog to medium railguns, a 250mm would still have higher base DPS a Dual 250mm...

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Komodo Askold
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#3 - 2015-03-04 12:36:44 UTC
Looks reasonable. I've always wondered why those "multibarreled" turrets were not more based on the individual turrets that composed them.
Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#4 - 2015-03-04 17:56:08 UTC
I think, historically, as in back at the start, it might have been more difficult to balance (when you look at base damage modifiers/base ammo damage between medium and large weapons - you could very quickly end up overpowering them).

However, with the new mindset (Fozzie/Rise) to try different approaches to balancing (e.g. reloads on 'rapid' launchers), it could work out and add interesting tweaks to the meta/Battleship doctrines. I used dual 250's as they are a good example of a module in a poor state, where 'tiericide' hasn't yet been developed.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union
SONS of BANE
#5 - 2015-03-04 18:29:12 UTC
i like the idea... but i fear that balancing this would be a very delicate situation.


given your example, would the dual 250mm receive hull-boni for large guns?


Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2015-03-04 18:49:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ravasta Helugo
Here's what I got from this: Large Dual Weapons are useless. Significantly buff tracking and sig radius in exchange for DPS nerf.

+1 Fully support.

EDIT: Instead of DPS nerf though... why not keep DPS roughly the same as it is now, but implement the reload mechanic (or a slightly gentler version of it) from the Rapid Missile Launchers? For the pulse/beam version, just make it use TONS of cap.
Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#7 - 2015-03-04 19:31:22 UTC
Oh no doubt delicate balancing, hence the 'numbers' used above are more a stake in the ground to generate discussion. What I would say is, it has be demonstrated as viable previously (Rapid Heavy Launchers on the Raven) so I don't see a fundamental reason for hull bonuses not to apply, as long as everything is iterated upon properly and mindful of the likely impact.

With the 'example' I gave, you could imagine workable Dual-250mm fits appearing for the Megathron, which would be great at smashing cruiser doctrines in the medium ranges, but would in turn get murdered by ABCs/Battleships with the larger weapons in class (big range advantage, much bigger alpha advantage), or by true close-up brawler setups (sustained DPS advantage).

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2015-03-04 19:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Ravasta Helugo wrote:
Here's what I got from this: Large Dual Weapons are useless. Significantly buff tracking and sig radius in exchange for DPS nerf.

+1 Fully support.

EDIT: Instead of DPS nerf though... why not keep DPS roughly the same as it is now, but implement the reload mechanic (or a slightly gentler version of it) from the Rapid Missile Launchers? For the pulse/beam version, just make it use TONS of cap.

Well, not quite on the final point (your edit is basically what I've proposed);

The peak DPS would be quite a bit higher than currently, due to switching over to the medium weapon base ammo damage/medium weapons base damage modifier, and certainly higher than the 'top tier' weapons in class. However with the reload disadvantage, sustained DPS would be broadly comparable to where it is now (below the 'top tier', which itself still has massive range/Alpha advantages).

Definitely would need careful iteration, but the implementation of Rapid Heavy Launchers shows it can be done, adding interesting options without damaging the balance in-classes and between classes.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Sigras
Conglomo
#9 - 2015-03-04 20:07:10 UTC
There are a few problems with the reload time approach ... namely laser turrets...
Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#10 - 2015-03-04 20:26:42 UTC
Indeed! Big smile

I did start writing a laser specific one (I was thinking about more rapid crystal 'burn-out' and an associated long reload) but haven't fleshed it out any further yet (been away the past two weeks, drafted this before I left).

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#11 - 2015-03-04 20:39:38 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Indeed! Big smile

I did start writing a laser specific one (I was thinking about more rapid crystal 'burn-out' and an associated long reload) but haven't fleshed it out any further yet (been away the past two weeks, drafted this before I left).


Perhaps similar to how AAR's operate? They still shoot and cost cap but at the cost of a big dps nerf once the alotted "shots" have been exhausted.. Call it crystal overheat. Its not a reload, just a cooldown timer until max dps is available again.
Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#12 - 2015-03-04 21:10:05 UTC
I fully support this- I've never really understood why they are the way they are:

+1, and I hope this can get talked about Smile
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#13 - 2015-03-04 21:13:17 UTC
I love this a lot; I proposed something similar awhile back, but didn't put anywhere near as much into figuring out the specific numbers on it. In the end, the idea I had for laser balance is as follows:

-Increase the cycle time for quad light beam laser to 15 seconds, and dual heavy beam laser to 25 (as an example; balancing the cycle time to achieve the desired results without being OP would be the end goal)

-Introduce a sustained damage mechanic to the game where hp steadily takes damage over time instead of bursts, and let all lasers partake of it to varying degrees, but have the 'rapid' undersized variants like above do the longest sustained dps over time (this solves the ammo reload issue).

-While the available time to apply dps is shorter than current rapid lights or ammo with what you proposed, once committed you do continuous amounts of dps, which amount to a full clip of ammo from the 'undersized' weapons, and quite a lot of dps in a short period of time. You just commit to your shots when you make them.

-This is ideal for laser weapons, since you have a continuous 'beam' laser doing damage over time, with a long reload timer to cool down.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#14 - 2015-03-04 21:18:51 UTC
Also, shouldn't these weapons have the same tracking speed and alpha damage of the ones they double up on below them, but just have a higher RoF? The same is true for rapid missile launchers since all they're really doing is using this same type of ammo below them. They just have to have significantly less ammo in their bay and a higher reload time overall.
Alexis Nightwish
#15 - 2015-03-05 00:53:39 UTC
I'm definitely in support of something like this, so long as the current dual/quad/etc. weapons are not replaced with what you propose. I can think of several fits right of the top of my head that use the smallest weapon for the ship simply because it's not feasible to fit the larger ones (typically heavily tanked fits, or fits for newbros who don't have the skills for the ultra tight fits that largest-in-class weapons typically require).

If the current 'dual' type weapons' stats were ported over into replacement weapons (eg: current dual 150mm rail stats given to a new 175mm rail), and new ones with you're proposed stats were added using the current, multi-barreled names and models, I'd support this 100%.

I can still remember my noobie days and reading the description of the multi-barreled guns which actually said they were two of the smaller sized guns together and thinking "Oh cool! These will be great against frigates in my missions!" then being confused when small ammo didn't go in them, and being disappointed when they didn't perform like I expected. Straight

Regarding lasers, since fast ammo swapping is their jam, maybe make them use an excessive amount of capacitor such that firing continuously for longer than other multi-barreled turrets' can would totally deep throat the ship's capacitor? And/Or giving them prop mod-levels of overheat damage?

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2015-03-05 04:21:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tusker Crazinski
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Indeed! Big smile

I did start writing a laser specific one (I was thinking about more rapid crystal 'burn-out' and an associated long reload) but haven't fleshed it out any further yet (been away the past two weeks, drafted this before I left).



I could see a massive cap usage being an issue, then again I also could see quadruple cap booster abbadons....... still interested.

also I think these Dual weapons should fire 2 charges per volley, as for projectiles. I'd really like to see the bottom tier howitzers just become dual weapons like their railgun counterparts.

so dual 720s, dual 250s and dual errm 150s?

they'd essentially be long range assault autocannons, with really bad tracking. but all things considered 100km tracer spam best tracer spam.
Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#17 - 2015-03-06 20:33:00 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Also, shouldn't these weapons have the same tracking speed and alpha damage of the ones they double up on below them, but just have a higher RoF? The same is true for rapid missile launchers since all they're really doing is using this same type of ammo below them. They just have to have significantly less ammo in their bay and a higher reload time overall.
I've gone for exactly the same alpha (same base ammo, same base damage modifier), but slightly lower tracking - I felt they shouldn't perform quite as well as the medium weapon. From a 'fluff' perspective, bulkier turret, harder to traverse e.t.c e.t.c

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#18 - 2015-03-06 20:36:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
I'm definitely in support of something like this, so long as the current dual/quad/etc. weapons are not replaced with what you propose. I can think of several fits right of the top of my head that use the smallest weapon for the ship simply because it's not feasible to fit the larger ones (typically heavily tanked fits, or fits for newbros who don't have the skills for the ultra tight fits that largest-in-class weapons typically require).

If the current 'dual' type weapons' stats were ported over into replacement weapons (eg: current dual 150mm rail stats given to a new 175mm rail), and new ones with you're proposed stats were added using the current, multi-barreled names and models, I'd support this 100%.

I can still remember my noobie days and reading the description of the multi-barreled guns which actually said they were two of the smaller sized guns together and thinking "Oh cool! These will be great against frigates in my missions!" then being confused when small ammo didn't go in them, and being disappointed when they didn't perform like I expected. Straight

Regarding lasers, since fast ammo swapping is their jam, maybe make them use an excessive amount of capacitor such that firing continuously for longer than other multi-barreled turrets' can would totally deep throat the ship's capacitor? And/Or giving them prop mod-levels of overheat damage?
I'm not certain why you would have an issue with them replacing the current crop?

Fittings are unchanged, Optimal/Falloff range are identical, alpha strike and sustained DPS are ever so marginally improved (5% and 4% respectively), while you get the big increase in peak DPS, at the expense of the reload.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

unidenify
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#19 - 2015-03-06 22:48:12 UTC
when you talk about sustained DPS, you refer to dual turret's current DPS?

other question is will Hull bonus affect dual turret?
Gabriel Karade
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#20 - 2015-03-06 23:05:10 UTC
unidenify wrote:
when you talk about sustained DPS, you refer to dual turret's current DPS?

other question is will Hull bonus affect dual turret?
When I refer to 'Sustained' that is factoring in the reload times, so represents that actual time averaged DPS over an infinite duration. 'Peak' is the DPS until the clip runs out (clip duration is also shown in the spreadsheet I linked).

Just as Rapid Heavy Launchers get the hull bonus applied (e.g. Raven, Scorpion Navy Issue), I would do the same with these.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293

123Next pageLast page