Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Decided to contribute instead of just critique ....


Proxyyyy's Changes (slight increases that will increase the close range pvp viabilty of blasters)


T2 Blaster Turret (After All requisite Lvl 5 Skills Applied)
-
Minus 20% - Hybrid Turret Activation

15% increase - Optimal
30% increase - Falloff
10% Increase - Tracking

Minus 15% - Signature Resolution

12.5% increase - Damage Modifier
Minus 11% - Duration

Gallente Cruisers/Destroyers/Frigates (T2) (Base, Blanket Increase)
-
Minus 10% - CPU

15% Increase - PowerGrid

25% increase - Structure

Base inertia or mass should be modified in some way as to increase agility of all gallente ships. Making gallente ships the most agile (faster align time and turn rate etc) bla bla bal.

Stasis Webifier 2
-
I also think stasis webifier 2 Optimal, should Increase from 10,000m - 12,500. Keeping 30% increase in range, when overloading. This is a broad boost to armor ships effectiveness, when engaging ships with higher velocity (solo). Increasing the margin for error for a Cynabal for example.

Heat/Thermodynamics = tracking increase for all turrets (just makes sense)
-
Another idea I had was a change or addendum to the current heat mechanics. Over Heated turrets should also have a increase in tracking along with increasing turret rate of fire. Currently that's not the case.

All the metrics (killboards, fittings etc) show that active tanking is pointless in the modern game, sure it might be ok in 1v1, but that's an ever diminishing part of eve. For a better explanation:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=127437#post127437

Noob corp alt...
Makes a claim...
Unwilling even to consider listening to arguments against.
Is unable to support his own claim it with any reasoning beyond "I still do it and I know people who do."
Dismisses argument.

Given survivability and suitability for gangs is probably the biggest issue (imo) with Gallente. If it were all about the DPS, everyone would be flying Serpentis ships instead of what they do fly (high ehp/resist sponges) with damage projection. Whatever you do (probably v small highsec warfare vs people who don't know any better) won't change much, however the changes I've made address the opportunity cost of active tanking by increasing it's viability in other spheres.

This noob corp alt is skilled in the art of losing spaceships. Also, my last post was in no way ment to sway you one way or another. Was to agree to disagree etc. The importance of your argument only goes so far on the forums. What matters to me is the people I pvp with against or are bros in-game. Most that solo pvp.

Most don't see it your way. I use active armor tanking over active shield tanking. Mainly because it provides the benefits of shield tanking without having to use crystals. Meaning I'm able to solo in 0.0 without having to worry about losing expensive implants when I explode.

Most shield tanked ships are terrible without a crystal set (bar claymore). Often needing crystals to compete with active armor. My only issues with active armor tanking is lack of instant repairing. You have to wait till the end of the duration etc.

I only use active shield tanking for extreme cases and pretty much only on the battleship level.

I don't use active tanked ships for a 1 v 1's lol. In fact it's for the exact opposite. Anyways, I already knew this was a waste of time since you don't know what you're on about. Active tanking is not something I use in fleet engagements either (or at least not often).

Mainly for solo pvp, which is what I do and what Gallente ships excel @. Anyways, done with the subject of active tanking (shield or amour). Tracking is also not an issue. Provided you're tracking a ship of the same class or above.

Optimal and falloff of blasters need to be looked @ and a way to make it easier for pilots to catch ships with higher velocity. That is where a increase in stasis webifier 2 range will come in or a large increase in falloff and optimal....


-proxyyyy

I'm afraid that some of your suggested blaster changes might infringe on the ACs roleof high tracking and long range damage projection. I'd rather fly with a gimped weaponsystem than having CCP water them down untill we can't tell the difference between the races.
I would personally just prefer small damage and tracking increases in conjunction with a change to blasterboats abiliy to actually get within blaster-range. I strongly believe that the highest DPS weaponsystem should be heavily limited in its effective range... they might even need a nerf to optimal or falloff.

I do however agree on that active tanking have its place in Eve and and I believe that people who claim otherwise might have a limited scope of the type of PvP they engage in – for all intents and purposes, active tanking becomes less and less viable the larger the size of the battle is – and we shouldn't forget that most peoples eperience with PvP is in gang.s That's probably why we get some people with PvP experience proclaiming the death of active tanking (because in their world of blobbing - it is true) while others with more diverse experience claim otherwise.

That said - the viability of active tanked armor ships are very situational and fragile in comparison to plating the ship and might need to be looked at if we want more than just a minority within the PvP community to consider it viable.

Great post. The unbalances really need to be brought to CCP attention, they needed nerfed slightly at the start but were nerfed far too much, now almost unplayable in modern eve warefare situations.

http://killboard.sregginwaffe.com/?a=kill_related&kll_id=413

In before BC aren't used in high sec, but no one cares, because when people are complaining about the PvP reliance of a ship they are using them in low sec or null sec. Please research something before you post and make yourself look like a fool. I understand you may have been trying to make a point but it was wrong. So scratch your remark the T1 BC's are overshadowed by their T2 brothers because the fact is a good fleet only needs 1 or 2 Command Ships (In case you didn't know what a T2 BC was called). Hiding in the back of a fleet and pushing bonuses is something you don't need in mass quantities. If you need to see any other fleet comps just go browse through some corp or alliance KB that lives in null sec and you will see what people are using.

scimis/maelstroms > lachesis/scorpion > huginn/(heavy) dictors > (insta) arty canes/drakes with tp > inties/frigs

I see no command ships being requested here and this is for the majority of the CFC fleets. Cost effectiveness is the determining factor in whether a ship is used in eve not how well it can do the job. Obviously you have a disconnect on how rational people think that at the marginal cost, this is also a basic concept. Especially coming from a corporation that tends to loose T3's alot so your idea of cheap and effective are very skewed.

Also Gallente can tank very well, as already brought up they are just impotent in the form dealing damage because hybrid weapons suck in almost all situations being their one shortcoming.

Also there was an announcement for balancing of hybrid weapons so time to stop speculating changes and pray the CCP does this right, and stop daydreaming that this is going to be 2007 all over again. Gallente need to fit into fleet compisitions not be solo PvP gods causing every one to fly Gallente because they are not the most OP race in the game. More likely than not hybrid weapons will get a buff but a buff short of being useful and you will have to wait another 6 months for CCP to alter them again.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2428

TL;DR

Trashing scrub for implying that BC's are underpowered and overshadowed and less used than their T2 counterpart. Also the quote from eve kill the top 2 are BC's.

There is a buff coming to Hybrid weapons that should fix the majority of Gallente issues so this shouldn't be a major sticking point. And armor tanking is not broken, nor is active tanking so there shouldn't be a complaint there either.

OP seems to have put a lot of effort into this, which is good. So I will endeavor not to troll. However, I don't understand why these changes are being suggested other than the rather nonspecific goal of "upgrade and modernize". Could you provide a point-by-point analysis of the problems and proposed solutions? Example: why increase drone bays/bandwidth? What will this accomplish?

My viewpoint:
Blasters: Have short optimal and falloff, thus requiring the ship to get in close. Best tracking in the game because close range turrets must have great tracking or they'll never hit. Autocannons can hit farther out due to long falloff, and have good tracking as well. Pulse lasers have long optimal and short falloff, and not such great tracking.

So if you want to increase the effectiveness of blasters, they need a boost that will result in more damage being applied at longer range. This can be accomplished by increasing just about any stat. Increase tracking and they will hit more frequently at closer ranges, which is not quite what we want. Increase optimal or falloff and they will hit more frequently at longer ranges, which is better. Increase RoF and they will hit more frequently at all ranges but use more ammo and cap. Increase damage multipliers and they will hit harder when they hit. Nice for longer range, but runs the risk of being OP at close range.

I kind of like the idea of an all-or-nothing weapon system that either misses or r4pes face. There really isn't anything else in game like that. I think it also fits the Gallente mindset.

Another change that can be made is to buff the ships that are meant to carry blasters so that they can be more effective. Perhaps these blaster boats should be more mobile than their drone-carrying bretheren.

Rails: Longest range in game. Crappy damage and tracking. Sniping means nothing if you don't do damage. Either increase RoF or damage.

Buffing RoF, as above, means more ammo and cap consumed, but also better dps. Its a decent tradeoff. I thing this would fit into the overall sceme of weapons just fine. We don't want to duplicate artillery with high alpha and low RoF.

OP suggested global changes to probing, warp distances, and maximum locking range to mitigate the problem of combat probing snipers and warping on top of them. Changes that have such far-reaching impact should not be used to correct game balance or tactical disadvantages.

The only one of these I would support is a change to the minimum distance to warp. This would give all long-range ships that distance buffer they really need while still being within effective range.

The tactic of probing snipers is a valid one and should not be mitigated by global probing changes. BS have large drone bays for a reason. Use them. Rolling safes/firing points. Split your groups. Adjust tactics.

Snipers are also typically glass cannons. Perhaps dedicated sniping ships should also be more mobile. Purpose driven design, CCP. Not this looks cool lets try it.

I would support not losing control of drones when warping on grid. That would be nice.

Just let my medium blasters **** frigs that come too close. Frigs can already point me at 20km with near immunity (blasters suck at max point range), and they can outrun my drones forever (and pop them one by one too). Frigs should therefore die if they get too close.