These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Weapon Batteries

Author
Samantha Tel'Vellor
Continuum Interstellar Fleet Operations
#1 - 2011-10-06 00:01:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Samantha Tel'Vellor
This is an idea I had a long time ago, and I don't think it'd be too complicated to implement either. It's pretty simple to explain too.

A weapon battery is a collection of weapons all fitted together. How this would work in game is with a set of modules, as follows:

Small Light Battery: A Cruiser sized weapon which incorporates 4 Frigate sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

Large Light Battery: A Battleship sized weapon which incorporates 16 Frigate sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

Small Heavy Battery: A Battleship sized weapon which incorporates 4 Cruiser sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

Large Heavy Battery: A Capital sized weapon which incorporates 16 Cruiser sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

Capital Battery: A Capital sized weapon which incorporates 4 Battleship sized weapons into one hardpoint slot.

These weapons would function pretty much exactly like multiple smaller weapons, but have 4/16 times the ammo capacity and 4/16 times the rate of fire.

Now, part of this idea also includes a minor modification to destroyers, and perhaps battlecruisers as well.

Basically you reduce the overall high slots and hard points of the ships, and give them a powergrid reduction for equipping the appropriate batteries. As an example, you could have a Thrasher with 5 high slots, 2 turret hard points, and 2 launcher hard points. Then with a powergrid reduction for fitting Small Light Projectile Batteries it could then have the same 8 Projectile Turrets, and still have a few hard points left over.

You could even have special battery models for these ships, so the turrets all line up, instead of fitting in a traditional circular turret point on the ship model.

So that's the gist of it, not too complex, works with existing game mechanics, and provides a way to fit larger ships with 'point defense weapons' to fight off drones and smaller ships without sacrificing significant overall firepower.

What do you think?

As an alternate naming scheme, the batteries could have the 'size' represent what style ship they're designed for: in example - Medium Light Battery (4x Small), Large Light Battery (16x Small), Large Heavy Battery (4x Med), Capital Light Battery (16x Med), Capital Heavy Battery (4x Large).
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
#2 - 2011-10-06 00:22:22 UTC
I support this idea, as it runs with the basic scheme of modern-day naval weaponry. And the concept of point-defense weaponry for utilization is sound reasoning.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||

Pidgeon Saissore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2011-10-06 00:22:48 UTC
A good idea but your numbers of lighter weapons fitted are way too high per slot. This would allow large ships to engage targets much smaller then their intended purpose, thus making it easily overpowered. If a ship were to be altered like this it would have to be weaker then it would be with its full sized turrets or people would fit capitals with hundreds of small turrets making the small ships useless.
Samantha Tel'Vellor
Continuum Interstellar Fleet Operations
#4 - 2011-10-06 00:36:30 UTC
Well, 4 seems a good number, because 2 seems to be not quite enough, though certainly the 'numbers' could be adjusted so even if the 'battery includes 4' turrets your dps isn't quite the same as 4 turrets would be on a smaller ship. Also keep in mind, most battleships and capital ships would have no ship bonuses to batteries, only destroyers and possibly battlecruisers would, so you're still sacrificing power to get these.

8 hardpoints, all 8 with the weaker but higher count batteries, would net you effectively 128 tiny weapons, which I admit does sound like alot, but there are other ways to moderate it as well, such as making the powergrid/cpu requirements on batteries more stringent than regular weapons of the same size, thus limiting the number you can actually equip on most ships.

I went with 4/16 because they were easy factors of 8, which seems to be the standard number for most destroyers/battlecruisers at present.

The exact number isn't as important as the end result, however, which is to provide point defense weaponry, without sacrificing too many high slots. I could see something similar on Marauders, replacing their current bonus with the ability to equip capital batteries instead.

Ultimately though, I think you may be right, perhaps 2/4 would be better numbers than 4/16. Destroyers could still field the equivelent of 8 turrets, using only 4 hard points (and have a high slot or two left over for other things) and that'd make the max number of effective small weapons you could put on a battleship at 32, a much more manageable number, don't you think?
Sir Substance
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2011-10-06 00:43:24 UTC
Pidgeon Saissore wrote:
A good idea but your numbers of lighter weapons fitted are way too high per slot. This would allow large ships to engage targets much smaller then their intended purpose, thus making it easily overpowered. If a ship were to be altered like this it would have to be weaker then it would be with its full sized turrets or people would fit capitals with hundreds of small turrets making the small ships useless.


But if the ranges on the weapons are the same, it would not be as effective at engaging ships its own size, if it was capable at all. Seems fair to me.

The beatings will continue until posting improves. -Magnus Cortex

Official Eve Online changelist: Togglable PvP. - Jordanna Bauer

Samantha Tel'Vellor
Continuum Interstellar Fleet Operations
#6 - 2011-10-06 01:14:44 UTC
Okay, been running the numbers a bit here. And while 128 turrets does sound like alot, we're also still talking equivalent firepower to 16 destroyers, minus the weapon bonuses the destroyers would have.

Now, yes that'd trash frigates, but then that's the whole point. That wouldn't do alot to battleships, and most battleships cost alot more than 16 times what a destroyer costs, and the weapon battery would likely cost more than 16 times what an equivalent frigate weapon would cost.

So it'd need some balancing, and that's a job for the test servers, and dev teams, but I think the concept is sound, even with the 4/16 numbers.
Yume Mei
Khanid Dynamics
#7 - 2011-10-06 05:41:28 UTC
Balancing based on monetary cost is absurd. I think if modern day naval forces had drones they would not be concerned with point defenses. Improve drones.
Samantha Tel'Vellor
Continuum Interstellar Fleet Operations
#8 - 2011-10-06 07:21:35 UTC
Yet CCP does such balancing all the time. What balances a T2 module versus a T1 module except for cost/rarity? Besides, it's hardly like I'm advocating balancing something purely by cost, it's just one of many factors which would go into things.

Would the firepower of 16 frigate sized guns be worth giving up the firepower of a battleship sized weapon? Do you have enough powergrid to fit 6 of them on, or will you have to sacrifice a tanking module to get that last battery, or perhaps go with the less pwer intensive battleship size artillery cannon instead?

The concept itself, is not imbalanced, or overpowered. It would require fine tuning and balancing just like any other concept which might be implemented in the game. But that fine tuning is not what we're here to discuss. We don't have the resources, or the ability to do that fine tuning, CCP does, and so what we're determining here is the viability of the core idea, and whether people would use it, desire it, and whether it could improve the Eve gaming experience. If so, then CCP will surely fine tune it before implementing the overall concept. That's what they do.

What modern naval forces do and do not have (and yes they've been using drones for years now) is irrelevant to the discussion of an idea to improve Eve.

The question still stands, do you like the idea of having a battery style weapon, which gives you the firepower equivalent of 2 or more weapons designed for a smaller ship, without sacrificing multiple high slots to fit it on your larger ship?

If you have thoughts concerning the minutae of such an idea, the coding and individual details which would go into it, I'm afraid I won't be able to answer you definitively, as I lack intimate knowledge of the game required to make such judgements. And somehow, I suspect most of you do too.
Yume Mei
Khanid Dynamics
#9 - 2011-10-06 09:49:02 UTC
Ok so you missed the drones already act as point defense argument completely, so I guess improve smartbombs. (defender missiles are next)
Samantha Tel'Vellor
Continuum Interstellar Fleet Operations
#10 - 2011-10-06 10:04:26 UTC
I didn't miss it, I just don't think it counters my idea in any real way. Drones can defend against drones and frigates, true, but what if you want logistics drones. Or what if you're a caldari ship with crappy drone bays? This isn't about solving the issue of defending against smaller ships (assuming that's even an issue) this is about providing additional options for doing so, additional build possibilities, and streamlining ships like destroyers. It's also about doing for other ships what Marauders (and other ship types) already do, providing optimal firepower while still having high slots for other purposes.

There are times when I'd be willing to sacrifice a battleship weapon for some anti-frigate weapons (emphasis on the plural), and I feel fairly confident that others would feel the same. Drones are handy, but there are still times I'd rather have some turrets or missiles to fight off frigate fleets in my missions, but I just can't see taking such a hit to my battleship firepower to make it worthwhile, with the current model. But if I could gain the firepower of multiple small turrets on one high slot, it'd be worth it to me.

Sometimes drones just aren't enough, or sometimes I just want to augment my drones with additional light firepower. Is this wrong? Drones can do EWAR, does that mean there's no need for EWAR modules? Same principle here, just because drones CAN do it doesn't mean modules shouldn't too.

Does that make sense?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#11 - 2011-10-06 17:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
I really don't like your suggestion.

Typically speaking, when you climb the ship-class ladder, you gain tank, dps, and range, but you lose the ability to engage more agile ships (you lose speed, tracking, etc). This keeps EvE in a good state of balance. It encourages the use of tactics like orbitting under an enemy's guns and kiting to engage dangerous targets.

Currently, if 5 noobs in frigates catch a 5 yr vet ratting in an apoc, they kill the apoc's drones and perhaps lose a few frigates, but then the remaining kill the apoc. With your suggestion, the apoc drops one Large gun and gets a HUGE amount of firepower to wtf pwn the frigates.... I don't think that's right, nor good for the game. If the apoc wants to fit up to kill a bunch of frigates, it needs to sacrifice a shitload more than one large gun spot....

*edit* I posted before completing this section:

There are three tiers of weapons for each class. Each tier has different amounts of the range/dps vs tracking balance, and those are there for balance. You asked what we think about gun batteries, but the lowest tier is typically just that.... Hell, they're often named dual "next smaller class" guns. What your really proposing is a way for BC's and BS's to engage frigates, and your proposal is absurdly out of balance... 1 guns equating to 16 (5 ships) small guns? HELL NO!! I think its fine the way it is now, if you want your BS to engage frigates or cruisers, you have to severely nerf its ability to engage in BS vs BS and the like.
Callic Veratar
#12 - 2011-10-06 17:15:43 UTC
Samantha Tel'Vellor wrote:
Okay, been running the numbers a bit here. And while 128 turrets does sound like alot, we're also still talking equivalent firepower to 16 destroyers, minus the weapon bonuses the destroyers would have.

Now, yes that'd trash frigates, but then that's the whole point. That wouldn't do alot to battleships, and most battleships cost alot more than 16 times what a destroyer costs, and the weapon battery would likely cost more than 16 times what an equivalent frigate weapon would cost.

So it'd need some balancing, and that's a job for the test servers, and dev teams, but I think the concept is sound, even with the 4/16 numbers.


If 1 small gun does 30dps, 128 turrets will do 3840dps. I like the idea, but the scale is waaaaaaay off. It would be meant to let a battleship engage a frigate on the frigate's level, but that sheer amount of damage (especially with the small weapon's RoF) would obliterate anything and everything.
Samantha Tel'Vellor
Continuum Interstellar Fleet Operations
#13 - 2011-10-06 23:35:44 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Typically speaking, when you climb the ship-class ladder, you gain tank, dps, and range, but you lose the ability to engage more agile ships (you lose speed, tracking, etc). This keeps EvE in a good state of balance. It encourages the use of tactics like orbitting under an enemy's guns and kiting to engage dangerous targets.

Currently, if 5 noobs in frigates catch a 5 yr vet ratting in an apoc, they kill the apoc's drones and perhaps lose a few frigates, but then the remaining kill the apoc.

Exactly my point. An Apoc Pilot has so much invested in time and ISK into his ship, it's not balanced that 5 noobs should be able to gank him.

I agree, to an extent, but I also think this current model lacks something. Point defense weapons are an important part of not only modern military, but also most sci fi universes out there. Currently it doesn't work well in Eve primarily because of the maximum high slots count. Which of course, is where this idea suggestion comes in.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
With your suggestion, the apoc drops one Large gun and gets a HUGE amount of firepower to wtf pwn the frigates.... I don't think that's right, nor good for the game. If the apoc wants to fit up to kill a bunch of frigates, it needs to sacrifice a shitload more than one large gun spot....

There are three tiers of weapons for each class. Each tier has different amounts of the range/dps vs tracking balance, and those are there for balance. You asked what we think about gun batteries, but the lowest tier is typically just that.... Hell, they're often named dual "next smaller class" guns.

The intention was to balance it so that sacrificing one large gun nets you less overall damage, but still more than you'd get if you just fit a normal frigate sized weapon. To make the payoff worthwhile, while still not overpowered. Quite frankly, at the present model, it's not worth sacrificing even 1 gun. But if you could get even a+50% firepower cruiser gun, or +100% firepower frigate gun, it might be worthwhile.

Again, the exact numbers are not what I'm here to discuss.

Actually, there's only three tiers for close range turrets. Long range cannons usually have only 2, while missiles have only one per category. Besides, naming them 'dual' or 'quad' of the next smaller class still does not make them function at all like the smaller class weapons. They still use larger ammo, and the smaller class weapons of the same name still have higher accuracy etc.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
What your really proposing is a way for BC's and BS's to engage frigates, and your proposal is absurdly out of balance, 1 guns equating to 16 (5 ships) small guns?

Actually, what I'm proposing is to make the tradeoff more worthwhile.

Not as imbalanced as the current tradeoff for sacrificing a large gun and replacing it with a small one.

And why not? Is a T1 battleship not worth more than 16 T1 frigates? As I've said before, repeatedly, the exact numbers are not what we're here to discuss.

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
I think its fine the way it is now, if you want your BS to engage frigates or cruisers, you have to severely nerf its ability to engage in BS vs BS and the like.

And why should you have to take such a heavy blow, just to have a little defense against ships you SHOULD be able to defend against? Battleships are best at fighting other battleships, fine, but that doesn't mean they should be easily ganked by a group of pilots with a fraction of the experience. This wouldn't upset the overall balance of the game, just provide an additional option for players who want to protect their investments or take on NPC fleets in missions, etc.

Destroyers would still be the primary anti-frigate platforms. They'd afterall have more comparable speed, not to mention tracking and damage bonuses to gun batteries. Battleships would still be vulnerable to frigates, but they'd have a more viable option for combating them, though interceptors would still probably outrun non-augmented gun batteries (and battleships would not have ship bonuses to said batteries).

Callic Veratar wrote:
If 1 small gun does 30dps, 128 turrets will do 3840dps. I like the idea, but the scale is waaaaaaay off. It would be meant to let a battleship engage a frigate on the frigate's level, but that sheer amount of damage (especially with the small weapon's RoF) would obliterate anything and everything.


Well again, I'm not talking straight multipliers, merely a conceptual/graphical number. The primary thing the x16 number would effect is rate of fire, and thus rate of ammo consumption. Tone down the actual damage multiplier and you could find yourself consuming 16 times the small ammunition in exchange for only 3 times the damage. Or something to that effect. Either way though, you'd have more damage than you would with a regular weapon, making the tradoff from a large weapon more balanced and managable, and more attractive to certain kinds of players.


Moving back to the original idea though, this concept would primarily apply to destroyers, BCs, and possibly Marauders. If you took away the Marauders +100% damage bonus, and simply gave them a reduction to large battery PG requirements, then you could gain the same damage potential with the same extra high slots they have now.

Similarly destroyers could gain the same damage potential they have now, and still have a few high slots left over. Same with BCs, if you wanted to give them a similar bonus.

I'll leave it at that for now.
Yume Mei
Khanid Dynamics
#14 - 2011-10-07 01:55:47 UTC
Samantha Tel'Vellor wrote:
And why should you have to take such a heavy blow, just to have a little defense against ships you SHOULD be able to defend against? Battleships are best at fighting other battleships, fine, but that doesn't mean they should be easily ganked by a group of pilots with a fraction of the experience.


Experience is exactly what prevents your battleship from getting killed by inexperienced pilots in frigates. I'm not using the term experience to refer to skillpoints either.
Samantha Tel'Vellor
Continuum Interstellar Fleet Operations
#15 - 2011-10-07 02:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Samantha Tel'Vellor
Yume Mei wrote:
Experience is exactly what prevents your battleship from getting killed by inexperienced pilots in frigates. I'm not using the term experience to refer to skillpoints either.


I'm referring to both. Experienced pilots shouldn't be able to create no SP alts and defeat a battleship any more than noobs should be able to. And Experience doesn't always prevent a battleship from being destroyed by pilots in frigates, as has been pointed out already in this thread.

What exactly is your argument here? I'm having a hard time telling if you're arguing for or against my idea, and for what reasons...
Di Mulle
#16 - 2011-10-07 02:34:29 UTC
Samantha Tel'Vellor wrote:
[
And why should you have to take such a heavy blow, just to have a little defense against ships you SHOULD be able to defend against?


I guess capitalizing that word means you consider this as a God-given law. Then of course you have problems understanding what others try to say you, when they in no way hold that idea as sacred. Game designers didn't either - rather opposite even.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Samantha Tel'Vellor
Continuum Interstellar Fleet Operations
#17 - 2011-10-07 02:40:41 UTC
Di Mulle wrote:
I guess capitalizing that word means you consider this as a God-given law. Then of course you have problems understanding what others try to say you, when they in no way hold that idea as sacred. Game designers didn't either - rather opposite even.


Is there a point to this post? If there's some argument or explanation here, I'm not seeing it, all I see is assumption, accusation and perhaps insult. None of which is particularly convincing or constructive. Cheers.
Yume Mei
Khanid Dynamics
#18 - 2011-10-07 02:53:04 UTC
I believe what we are trying to point out, obvious as it is, battleships are supposed to be vulnerable to small ships. You already have drones, smartbombs could use some work, but they can be effective. The whole notion of a battleship being able to obliterate smaller vessels while only sacrificing a small portion of its offensive ability vs. intended targets would create a huge imbalance. Sure running your lvl 4's or sanctums/havens/hordes/patrols, you really wouldn't care about imbalance. Unfortunately a significant portion of the Eve community enjoys "PVP" activities. Your proposed changes would eliminate the viability of multiple ship classes in said "PVP" environment.
Di Mulle
#19 - 2011-10-07 02:55:47 UTC
Samantha Tel'Vellor wrote:
Di Mulle wrote:
I guess capitalizing that word means you consider this as a God-given law. Then of course you have problems understanding what others try to say you, when they in no way hold that idea as sacred. Game designers didn't either - rather opposite even.


Is there a point to this post? If there's some argument or explanation here, I'm not seeing it, all I see is assumption, accusation and perhaps insult. None of which is particularly convincing or constructive. Cheers.


Would be good if you would be able to give "argument or explanation" for your assumption that you absolutely should have guaranteed defense in a given situation. So far you are taking it as absolutely granted, while the game design in its' very basics is made on the opposite premise, and for quite good reasons.

If you want to see here some more assumption, accusation and perhaps insult, you are welcome, as nothing can stop you really. Cheers.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Goose99
#20 - 2011-10-07 02:58:03 UTC
Yume Mei wrote:
I believe what we are trying to point out, obvious as it is, battleships are supposed to be vulnerable to small ships. You already have drones, smartbombs could use some work, but they can be effective. The whole notion of a battleship being able to obliterate smaller vessels while only sacrificing a small portion of its offensive ability vs. intended targets would create a huge imbalance. Sure running your lvl 4's or sanctums/havens/hordes/patrols, you really wouldn't care about imbalance. Unfortunately a significant portion of the Eve community enjoys "PVP" activities. Your proposed changes would eliminate the viability of multiple ship classes in said "PVP" environment.


The imbalance comes from OP's numbers, not the concept itself. When you trade every 1 large turret for 16 small ones, that's a net increase in dps, not to mention tracking, with only sacrifice being range. Give only 2 small turrets for 1 large, and you'll see how many people willing to make the trade.
12Next page