These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Overheating tackle: A disparity in base values, bonuses and combat effectiveness.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Friar Vigfus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2013-01-07 23:18:09 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Anyway, I've long noticed what you're pointing out. Don't forget the new Tier 3s, propagation of range bonuses, and rebalanced/buffed ships that dramatically increase the amount of damage flying all over the battlefield. I mostly agree. I'd go a bit further and say a few things:
- Gang links (but not gang bonuses or mindlinks, IMO) should be massively nerfed almost across the board. 50% bonuses are absurd in a game where months of training yields a mere 2%.
- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.
- Mobility should not have base effectiveness improved.
- Passive tanking should not have base effectiveness improved.

-Liang


14.6mil in Leadership but i wholeheartedly agree.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#42 - 2013-01-07 23:26:21 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.


I'll leave the rest for tomorrow (kinda late here), but I think this is a bit of a bad idea, Liang. Blaster brawlers depend on getting in your face to do anything - if you extend the Scram range, you severely weaken their ability to get up close and personal, thereby effectively neutralizing their dps - this is obviously less true for autocannons (good falloff) and pulse lasers (scorch).


Kiting ships right now are reliant on small fast tacklers to hold targets while they kill them. Why shouldn't brawlers have to deal with this too?

I'm sorry but brawling is childs play. Module management is the bread and butter of eve. Trying some manual piloting when you more at 2k-3k/s.

You have double-Triple the DPS of a kiter when flying close range ships as well as better potential for cap-warfare. Kiting setups STILL get so much hate, and generally it's from people who never fly solo and never fly complex setups. It's from bears who PVP with thier corp/alliance at weekends or guys who like to sit on stations with logistics and cloaked falcon alts with 500 safespots in each system.

It kills solo PVP harder than ANY other factor. Almost all engagement happen on gates/stations, meaning de-agressing a lower DPS ship and jumping is a viable option. If you get caught on a planet it your own fault - just like a logn range ship dies if he gets a scram landed on him.

I'm gonna link you a video of a guy who flies kiting ships (pre TE buff) and a brawling taranis (pre web nerf, which is the same as scram/web these days.). Tell me again who brawlers cant hold targets when a taranis moving at 4k catches an 18km/s pimped, linked, snaked, faction crow.

http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=772628

These strategies are always going to be viable, but now they aren't even necesary cause close range ships are hitting out to full point range anyway. It's eve-for-idiots.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#43 - 2013-01-07 23:28:28 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:

Ok. do a graph for when you kill his drones but you stil get to shoot your missiles. Also when you are comparing two pretty much identical layout ships then you have to factor racial differences into it as well.

In this secenario I agree the stabber is very likely to be taken down by the thorax. This is where player skill comes into it as you have a 24km point range which gives you a 2km window to hold un OH'd point and be at an advantage. also remember though with periodic OH'ing you extend that to 28km giving you a much larger window of advantage.

None of this support the original argument of increased point ranges. Just that your window is less than in a similar setup ship.

These are also only for 1v1's in a gang situation the desire for extended point range is probably not even required...that is what tackle is for.



Ok when i kill his drones im in half armor, cause he is still DPS'ing me while i kill drones. And since i dont have a scram or web, pulsing my MWD is the only way to kill them. This give him plenty of opportunity to warp out or just slingshot and kill me. If he sits 50km away and lets his drones die then engages me, he's and idiot.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#44 - 2013-01-07 23:40:45 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
he's and idiot.


There are more of these than any other player out there!

You still have a range advantage on the thorax. It is just that your margin for error is much less with your range advantage being used up in the last 2km of your point range. This is were selective OH'ing or faction/boosted webs will give you a clear advantage. If the standard point range is increased to say 28-30km as suggested then you are immediatly at a greater advantage vs the thorax.

Between the two ships posted I think there is a fair trade off. kite v kite it balances out. The only reason I can see to increase point range would be if brawlers instantly wipe the floor with kiters when they are at range.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#45 - 2013-01-07 23:54:03 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
Maeltstome wrote:
he's and idiot.


There are more of these than any other player out there!

You still have a range advantage on the thorax. It is just that your margin for error is much less with your range advantage being used up in the last 2km of your point range. This is were selective OH'ing or faction/boosted webs will give you a clear advantage. If the standard point range is increased to say 28-30km as suggested then you are immediatly at a greater advantage vs the thorax.

Between the two ships posted I think there is a fair trade off. kite v kite it balances out. The only reason I can see to increase point range would be if brawlers instantly wipe the floor with kiters when they are at range.


Are you on crack? Maybe taking some bad acid?

For a start, people being an idiot is NOT A REASON TO HAVE AN UNBALANCED GAME.

The range advantage DOESNT EXIST. You have never in your life piloted a ship like the stabber if you think holding 22km+ is possible. Btw he STILL out damages you at 22km. With drones it's game over.

Watch the video i linked, watch how the ranges change in a fast VS fast fight (thorax IS a fast ship). Good look if you think you can hold 2 KM distance like you state. You have proven, in that single point, you have no idea what you are talking about.

And btw i've flown the 'ranis for years as well as long range ceptors like the crow. I'm not sitting on 1 side of the fence here. I'ma guy who has perfect gallente and minatar skills and right now i see no point in flying minmatar cruisers when, due to *DISRUPTOR RANGE*, the gallente ones are better in every way

Am i going to stop flying a faction point cynabal? No. But thats the point (pun intended), 30km disruptor range makes that ship viable. If it has a 24km point it's close to worthless when compared, ISK for ISK agaisnt a plethora of other ships of varying prices.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#46 - 2013-01-08 00:13:40 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:


Are you on crack? Maybe taking some bad acid?

For a start, people being an idiot is NOT A REASON TO HAVE AN UNBALANCED GAME.

The range advantage DOESNT EXIST. You have never in your life piloted a ship like the stabber if you think holding 22km+ is possible. Btw he STILL out damages you at 22km. With drones it's game over.

Watch the video i linked, watch how the ranges change in a fast VS fast fight (thorax IS a fast ship). Good look if you think you can hold 2 KM distance like you state. You have proven, in that single point, you have no idea what you are talking about.

And btw i've flown the 'ranis for years as well as long range ceptors like the crow. I'm not sitting on 1 side of the fence here. I'ma guy who has perfect gallente and minatar skills and right now i see no point in flying minmatar cruisers when, due to *DISRUPTOR RANGE*, the gallente ones are better in every way

Am i going to stop flying a faction point cynabal? No. But thats the point (pun intended), 30km disruptor range makes that ship viable. If it has a 24km point it's close to worthless when compared, ISK for ISK agaisnt a plethora of other ships of varying prices.



What you are describing is a variation due to racial differences NOT an issue with point range. Get your arguments defined properly before you accuse people of being drug addicts.

I to fly the stabber and it is quickly becoming on of my favourite ship tbh. I often hold range on brawlers and have also done so on kite cruisers. I have died to kite cruisers in my stabbers by making piloting errors. I never claimed it was easy or that it was reliable. Range changes in fast ships are what make it a game of skill more than stat points. I never claimed the thorax is a slow ship. In fact I'm currently fitting up a couple on the recomendation from a corp mate that it flys like a stabber. You are reading too much into my arguments.

However you have not given an reason for points to have extented ranges that hold up to any logical rational counter argument.

Cynabal with faction point is not an argument to increase all point range. It is an expensive pirate cruiser with an expensive fit....of course it is going to be powerfull you can't make the stabber as effective as a cyna without pouring isk into it. This is NOT an argument for increased point range.

Once again you are trying to give reason to increase point range on a flawed argument. When you can formulate some rational reason for increased point range I'll respond.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#47 - 2013-01-08 00:20:14 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
What you are describing is a variation due to racial differences NOT an issue with point range. Get your arguments defined properly before you accuse people of being drug addicts.

I to fly the stabber and it is quickly becoming on of my favourite ship tbh. I often hold range on brawlers and have also done so on kite cruisers. I have died to kite cruisers in my stabbers by making piloting errors. I never claimed it was easy or that it was reliable. Range changes in fast ships are what make it a game of skill more than stat points. I never claimed the thorax is a slow ship. In fact I'm currently fitting up a couple on the recomendation from a corp mate that it flys like a stabber. You are reading too much into my arguments.

However you have not given an reason for points to have extented ranges that hold up to any logical rational counter argument.

Cynabal with faction point is not an argument to increase all point range. It is an expensive pirate cruiser with an expensive fit....of course it is going to be powerfull you can't make the stabber as effective as a cyna without pouring isk into it. This is NOT an argument for increased point range.

Once again you are trying to give reason to increase point range on a flawed argument. When you can formulate some rational reason for increased point range I'll respond.



I've given lots of logical arguments. You're choosing 1 thing in each post and counter-arguing with non-logic and claiming it's your job.

And im not accusing you of being on drugs for any other reason than you seem unable to read and understand things and logically approach reasonable arguments with reasonable responses. If it's just a mental issue, you have my apologies.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#48 - 2013-01-08 00:31:47 UTC
The only reason you have given to extend point range is my stabber got blown up by someone in a ship that can kill me in my prefered engagement range.

None of the posts after that have provided any pro's or con's for an increased point range or any logical reason for changing the point range at all. Laing's post are the closest to a logical reason for changes and he doesn't go into details for me to change my mind on this.

What would happen for small gang/larger fleet combat in base point range was increased?

What would happen to brawlers in base point range was increased? Brawling you say is childs play yet there aren't many post saying nerf brawling they are OP are they? an increase in point range has the potential to totaly kill off brawling or not affect it in the slightest. I feel brawling is more about the setup than the actual fight. As if you fit well and setup he fight to fight on your terms well.....you havea good chance of success......ooo that sounds a lot like kiting...wow!

Where in all of your posts do you give a clear defined reason to increase the range of long points? No where. Stop trying to berate me about my counter arguments when you haven't proposed anything sensible in the first place. Resorting to claims of drug use or mental issues just shows that you haven't thought out what you are trying to put across and don't have anyhting productive to add to the argument.

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Dzajic
#49 - 2013-01-08 02:22:44 UTC
We have finally reached "blaster are op, buff nanos/kiters" stage. If anyone said it two years ago...
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#50 - 2013-01-08 02:35:10 UTC
Taoist Dragon wrote:
The only reason you have given to extend point range is my stabber got blown up by someone in a ship that can kill me in my prefered engagement range.


No, the reason as clearly stated in the OP, subsiquent replies and by other people is this:

New modules, ship and weapon balancing has resulted in a marked increase in range for all weapons. Rigs and Tracking enhancers (the later being buffed shortly to include missile) both give large bonuses to range. However despite the range of weapon increasing for several years, no increase has been made to the base range of tackle.

Without fitting faction point and/or gang links, range bonused ships cannot take advantage of their bonuses. They are forced to commit inside a range that ALL unbonused ships are able to fight at without any increase in DPS over these ships. These 'close-range' ships, however, have other bonuses that make up for the lack of range which makes them simply *better* options when not flying faction/linked.

Making any sense?
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#51 - 2013-01-08 02:36:09 UTC
Dzajic wrote:
We have finally reached "blaster are op, buff nanos/kiters" stage. If anyone said it two years ago...


And 2 years before that blasters where the kings. And 2 years before that it was lasers.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#52 - 2013-01-08 02:56:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
Quote:
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.


This is very dangerous. You don't want to create a situation where solo PVP or small gangs of small stuff can be permatanked. You had this issue when ASBs were first introduced.

I'm of the opinion that active tanks can never be balanced to be truly effective in PVP without breaking situations with low incoming DPS.


Regarding the propagation of range bonuses: I'm not convinced there are more than there used to be. A few ships got range bonuses with the rebalance, but quite a few also lost them (Caldari gunboats). The hurricane in the OP's example was a shield buffer fit which is generally fit specifically for damage projection at the cost of raw HP. The OP was flying a fast, flimsy cruiser...It seems not just reasonable, but expected that he should die against a battlecruiser fit for damage projection. No.


Quote:
Long story short: Brawling ships can be fit for more speed and projection - but kiting ships are limited by combat range and will never be able to brawl more effectively than a close range ship.



Kiters have the advantage of being able to pick their fights and escape combat more easily than their counterparts. It seems perfectly reasonable that a brawling fit should generally beat a kiting fit, particularly in the situation you described where you were flying a smaller ship class against a battlecruiser that was fit in such a way to specifically counter kiting.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#53 - 2013-01-08 03:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Quote:
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.


This is very dangerous. You don't want to create a situation where solo PVP or small gangs of small stuff can be permatanked. You had this issue when ASBs were first introduced.

I'm of the opinion that active tanks can never be balanced to be truly effective in PVP without breaking situations with low incoming DPS.


The proposal is that active tanking becomes viable without links. But I guess you must really love your links now, eh?

-Liang

Ed: The irony of you defending links is not lost on me. I guess that means you don't AWOX your link pilots anymore? Lol

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#54 - 2013-01-08 03:09:32 UTC
Quote:
The proposal is that active tanking becomes viable without links. But I guess you must really love your links now, eh?


Ohoho, I see what you did there.


...Even without links, certain active tank fits can already tank very large amounts of DPS, particularly on the ships with boost bonuses. Links are only necessary if you plan to rep enough damage to be good against multiple targets or single very-high DPS targets, but this makes you literally unkillable against moderate to low DPS targets. This already happened with the first ASBs and they had to be nerfed because of that.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#55 - 2013-01-08 03:12:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
What if local reps were easier to fit, so they worked well as auxiliary tank modules, without causing the problem of unkillable hypertanks unless you brought a blob? After all, the reason you see armor reps on frigate hulls is because 6 PG and 6 CPU is a small price. 200 PG, on the other hand, is rather nasty on a cruiser hull.

Quote:
Ed: The irony of you defending links is not lost on me. I guess that means you don't AWOX your link pilots anymore?


I'm hardly defending links. Also Petrus Blackshell is literally the worst EVE player and real life person and deserves to be Awox'd repeatedly.
Taoist Dragon
Okata Syndicate
#56 - 2013-01-08 03:19:40 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
Taoist Dragon wrote:
The only reason you have given to extend point range is my stabber got blown up by someone in a ship that can kill me in my prefered engagement range.


No, the reason as clearly stated in the OP, subsiquent replies and by other people is this:

New modules, ship and weapon balancing has resulted in a marked increase in range for all weapons. Rigs and Tracking enhancers (the later being buffed shortly to include missile) both give large bonuses to range. However despite the range of weapon increasing for several years, no increase has been made to the base range of tackle.

Without fitting faction point and/or gang links, range bonused ships cannot take advantage of their bonuses. They are forced to commit inside a range that ALL unbonused ships are able to fight at without any increase in DPS over these ships. These 'close-range' ships, however, have other bonuses that make up for the lack of range which makes them simply *better* options when not flying faction/linked.

Making any sense?


Now this is better arguments.

With the rebalance SOME ships are now better at damage projection than before yes. And yes rigs and modules give range bonuses (missiles getting these bonuses may or may not happen vOv). With the buffs to range give the brawlers to at least reach out and touch their kiting opponents. The other aspect of damage projection is that EHP has also increased considerable over the years as well so this is a mitigating factor in the equation.

I disagree with the statement that kiting ships have to engage in a range in which ALL unbonussed ships are capable of fighting at. If a brawler is set up to brawl then his range we barely get out to normal kiting range (20-24km) And any damage at that range will be greatly mitigated by said range. They however don't have the ability to keep hold of them and stop them from disengaging.

So how will extended point range make it better (for both brawlers and kiters) than the current situation?

That is the Way, the Tao.

Balance is everything.
Noisrevbus
#57 - 2013-01-08 03:19:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Liang Nuren wrote:
You're illustrating the problem, but not in the way you think you are. Everyone seems to think the Talos gets a range bonus, but it doesn't. the "standard" Talos fits don't even stack up TEs to get range either. So would it help if I'd specified "Hyperion", "Megathron", "Naga", or "Rokh" instead?

Isn't the problem rather a beyond-point reach ontop of a beyond-cruiser speed on a BC hull with BS turrets? Blink

It's not the range that is troublesome but rather the range-speed-accuracy-damage relatives.

It amuses me that we identify the same problems (this includes Maelstome as well), yet the suggestions on how to deal with it are so wildly different. It amuses me because right now you two are bringing up similar issues with regard to damage-projection in an isolated small scale environment, that i've raised before with regard to damage projection (specificly on Tier 3 BC) over all scales and different setups in the past.

For example, whatever issues we can find with grid-push on SR setups (AC Canes hitting beyond 24km), they are far more pronounced in well-supported LR-setups (ie., in the dynamics of LR-recons against larger recon-supported groups with LR-weapons that grid-push beyond 100km [or LR-recon range] similarily, but at scales or ranges that exclude almost any other option because you can't go further (warp-distance) and you can't arguably go shorter against those odds.

If it annoy you with regard to tracking-bonuses on the Stabber, how do you think it feels for someone with perfect boosting skills, heat, best-faction and maxed Recon skills - with regard to Railos or even TE-SR Nados and other amusements?

BS always had potential range, but they could never maintain speeds to follow you and deny your ability to cycle in-out and remain presence on grid. That's why mobile sniping of old worked. Today even snipers are gridpushed, by cheap snipers in larger gangs with moderate tackle that "extends beyond".

That "boosting is required" is hardly the issue, not even in an isolated lowsec-solo world.

This is why we have lynchpin-littered buffer-projection gangs dominating grids; anywhere from 10-100+ players.

That begs for some questions:

How do you see your proposed changes affect the different scales?

How do you see your proposed changes affect scaled interaction? (smaller vs. larger)

How do you see your proposed changes affect scaling of class?
(ie., medium blasters in an environment with extended tackle, or M-blasters vs. L-blasters etc.).


See, i've been maintaining this for a long time: The old balance wasn't that bad, and most pokes at ship balance in recent times have yielded negative results when majority get around to understanding them. I bet that people will begin yawping about drones/gallente (or Moros and Thanny) being too good sometime during 2013. We never needed TE improvements anymore than we needed DDamps or Damp improvements (or Tier 3 BC for that matter). The TE improvements came in a time when Minmatar already were good, yet popular oppinion and superficial comparison demanded equality for falloff.

It's the constant reminder why you shouldn't design on basis of popularity, because popular is often wrong and stupid.
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#58 - 2013-01-08 03:52:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
Liang Nuren wrote:
Anyway, I've long noticed what you're pointing out. Don't forget the new Tier 3s, propagation of range bonuses, and rebalanced/buffed ships that dramatically increase the amount of damage flying all over the battlefield. I mostly agree. I'd go a bit further and say a few things:
- Gang links (but not gang bonuses or mindlinks, IMO) should be massively nerfed almost across the board. 50% bonuses are absurd in a game where months of training yields a mere 2%.
- Scram and web range should be extended as well, but point range should be extended more.
- Local active tank modules (reps/boosters) should have their effectiveness dramatically boosted.
- Mobility should not have base effectiveness improved.
- Passive tanking should not have base effectiveness improved.

-Liang

I was going to write my own post, then I read this. I agree with all of it as long as the extensions to scram/disruptor/web range are on the order of low single digit kilometers (prior to heat). Additionally, I think that the boost to armor tanks (if any, they've discussed reducing mobility points) should come first, and we should see how that goes before messing with web/point ranges.

Also, I do think that TEs need a bit of a nerf to falloff bonuses.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#59 - 2013-01-08 05:17:20 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
When exactly unlinked tackle became lacking in terms of range?

I, for one, can say exactly when EVE became overtanked. Surely every issue can be traced down to its origin.


When tracking enhancers added 30% falloff to every gun in the game. Did you not read my OP? *sigh* TL;DR replies as usual.

Breaking news: Tracking Enhancers are overpowered!

So you basically insist that a game-breaking module should induce further changes, potentially game breaking as well? That's like asking to increase local tank values because both passive tank and RR logistic tanks are so amazingly OP. Oh, wait - some do suggest.

But how about we fix core issues themselves instead? Otherwise this pseudologic may lead to sheer comedy, where instead of just fixing ASB CCP tries to bring the rest of the EVE in line with that OP crap.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#60 - 2013-01-08 05:38:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Noisrevbus wrote:

Isn't the problem rather a beyond-point reach ontop of a beyond-cruiser speed on a BC hull with BS turrets? Blink


No, the speed of the Tier 3s is not problematic to me and the problem with beyond point range reach applies to a very large number of ships. Again: the problem that I'm trying to solve is links.

Quote:
It's the constant reminder why you shouldn't design on basis of popularity, because popular is often wrong and stupid.


This, however, is Quoted For The Mother ******* Truth.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.