These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Hybrid weapon and Tech II ammo balancing

First post First post
Author
Sigras
Conglomo
#321 - 2011-10-31 20:59:32 UTC
One of my friends and I came up with what I think is an interesting solution based on the RP of what a blaster and rail gun are supposed to be

Right now we have projectiles which have versatile ammo uses and lasers and hybrids which trade damage for range.

Our idea is to change hybrid ammo so that it trades range for cap usage but keeps the damage the same.

So the damage on all large ammo caldari navy L ammo (for instance) would be 23 thermal 32.2 kinetic, but antimatter would have -50% optimal and no cap cost increase, and Iron would have +70% optimal and +120% cap usage

This would mean that gallente ships are still the close range choice and Amarr are still the kings of damage projection, but gallente ships can get out to the range of conflag lasers, they just cost around 2x as much cap to do it.

The RP reason for this is that blasters are basically a ball of plasma generated by the round being fired, and it costs more cap to heat the ammo and keep the plasma hot over that long a distance.

For Rails, the extra cap is used to fire the projectile faster off the rail achieving a better time on target and thus more range but the shell is lighter resulting in the same damage.

Thoughts?
PhantomTrojan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2011-10-31 21:01:48 UTC
Alex Harumichi wrote:
KFenn wrote:

Stop trying to make blasters like autocannons. They're -NOT- autocannons.

Autocannons = Assault Rifles. Blasters = Shotguns. Huge damage at zero range.


Agree on this. Problem is, when talking about medium and large blasters:

1) The ships need to be fast and nimble enough to be able to apply that zero range damage effectively. They aren't.

2) The damage that blasters do when in their optimal needs to be large enough to compensate for their tiny operational envelope. It isn't.

ACs are strictly better than blasters in almost all situations (talking about actual pvp here, not laboratory conditions), even more so considering the hulls that use them are also significantly faster than blaster hulls. This buff, unfortunately, does not change that equation (especially since it also contains a huge AC buff, which I see no reason for).

agreed

Blaster barely have more damage than autocannon y they have way less range than anything else. Blasters needs something around 40% damage boots to compensate for their crappy range and tracking at that range.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#323 - 2011-10-31 21:07:48 UTC
Quote:
** Exceptions: Light Electron Blasters, Light Ion Blasters, 125mm Railguns, 75mm Railguns (they already have very low Powergrid requirements.)


Light Electron Blaster II: PG 4
Light Ion Blaster II: PG 7
200mm Autocannon II: PG 4
150mm Autocannon II: PG 2
125mm Autocannon II: PG 1

Really? Best 200mm autocannon has (half,same) PG of (Ions,Electrons) and (Ions,Electrons) have very low PG requirements?



Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
#324 - 2011-10-31 21:13:13 UTC
I approve of this improvement.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.

ArmyOfMe
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#325 - 2011-10-31 21:16:29 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Quote:
** Exceptions: Light Electron Blasters, Light Ion Blasters, 125mm Railguns, 75mm Railguns (they already have very low Powergrid requirements.)


Light Electron Blaster II: PG 4
Light Ion Blaster II: PG 7
200mm Autocannon II: PG 4
150mm Autocannon II: PG 2
125mm Autocannon II: PG 1

Really? Best 200mm autocannon has (half,same) PG of (Ions,Electrons) and (Ions,Electrons) have very low PG requirements?




Shhh, its because blasters do so much more damage then ac's Lol

Oh wait......

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.

Perdition64
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2011-10-31 21:21:02 UTC
I think I managed to replicate the fit Raimo was talking about,

I stuck 2 nano's in the lows of the hurricane though.

What we end up with, CCP Tallest is this comparison:

965 dps vs 810 dps + 2 medium neuts
8-9km effective range vs 13-14km
1,112m/s vs 1400+ (with 2 nanos and MWD on I get 1552 m/s)
Cap usage vs 0 cap usage
Oh, and very very similar tank.

Now, honestly CCP Tallest, 1v1, which one would you use.

I think it is clear that a mere +20% tracking and a reduction in cap usage will not resolve the issues blasters have at the moment. The buff needs to go deeper . An increase to DPS on top, 10-20% would make blasters competetive. These comparisons are 1v1 at close range, very idealistic conditions for the blasters, yet they're still losing. What does this say.
Garbad theWeak
#327 - 2011-10-31 21:21:40 UTC
So I plugged in the changes into pyfa and compared a hellcat vs. a new and improved blaster thron. Both have standards you would expect -- heavy cap booster, mwd, and web + scram.

Megathron:
1245 DPS (928 excluding ogres)
105k EHP
2x as good tracking as the abby (~.06)
a heavy neut
almost cap stable, with the booster can run mwd + neut for several minutes
~40% faster with MWD on

Abby:
918 DPS (760 excludign drones)
177k EHP, also has much better resist profile (better reps)
can fire to 45k using scorch
not at all cap stable

So the mega is faster, does substantially more dps, tracks better, is cap stable, and can neut out to 25k. The abby has far, far more EHP and range but has cap issues. In a fleet, you can reasonably expect a damnation improving resists, further magnifying the EHP gap. You can also expect reps from a gaurdian, who has energy to waste, reducing or eliminating the cap problems of the abby.

So which would you rather have: ~30% more dps at close range or up to 5x as much range and 2x as much ehp? I think the hellcat clearly wins.
SilverTrav
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#328 - 2011-10-31 21:23:25 UTC
Zerkuron wrote:


I don`t use Missiles or rockets so I can`t say anythig about this. I didn`t take E-War into account, but I think ECM is good as it is, but the other E-WAR should use a look at. Especially Dampener need an overhaul. (Maybe a fall-off or opti reduction instead of longer tergeting time, which only assist ecm but is in no way a standalone effect for use)

P


This doesn't seem like the right forum thread for an EWAR post... but in case you didn't know, dampeners have scripts which DO reduce the range at which you can effectively attack at by decreasing the max targeting range with one type of script, or reduce scan resolution (lock time) with the other type of script. With no scripts they affect both. Who cares if your falloff is 60+ km if you can only target 3km (stupid serpentis missions.....) and if it takes you 40 seconds to lock something then they have that much more time to be dishing out damage to you before you can return fire (provided you aren't using weaponry that doesn't require a target lock of course) so I don't agree that they don't work as a stand-alone effect.

TL/DR

What does EWAR have to do with hybrid boost?

I don't care if I fall, so long as someone picks up my guns and keeps shooting.

SilverTrav
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#329 - 2011-10-31 21:23:39 UTC
Zerkuron wrote:


I don`t use Missiles or rockets so I can`t say anythig about this. I didn`t take E-War into account, but I think ECM is good as it is, but the other E-WAR should use a look at. Especially Dampener need an overhaul. (Maybe a fall-off or opti reduction instead of longer tergeting time, which only assist ecm but is in no way a standalone effect for use)

P


This doesn't seem like the right forum thread for an EWAR post... but in case you didn't know, dampeners have scripts which DO reduce the range at which you can effectively attack at by decreasing the max targeting range with one type of script, or reduce scan resolution (lock time) with the other type of script. With no scripts they affect both. Who cares if your falloff is 60+ km if you can only target 3km (stupid serpentis missions.....) and if it takes you 40 seconds to lock something then they have that much more time to be dishing out damage to you before you can return fire (provided you aren't using weaponry that doesn't require a target lock of course) so I don't agree that they don't work as a stand-alone effect.

TL/DR

What does EWAR have to do with hybrid boost?

I don't care if I fall, so long as someone picks up my guns and keeps shooting.

Perdition64
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2011-10-31 21:25:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Perdition64
Garbad theWeak wrote:


So which would you rather have: ~30% more dps at close range or up to 5x as much range and 2x as much ehp? I think the hellcat clearly wins.


Many comparisons CCP, all showing the changes to be somewhat lacklustre. Your move. :)

Would be nice to get CCP Tallest's ideas following feedback, pretty soon.
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#331 - 2011-10-31 21:31:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Digital Gaidin
A few insights and ideas regarding Hybrids, solutions on how they could be fixed, and further elaboration on some of the notions provided in earlier pages.

1) Sniper Mechanics (Probing) and Railguns

It is relatively pointless to have a weapon system based around 150km+ range using today's mechanics. As it is, you can warp directly to any target that is at least 50km from you by having a warp-to anchor at least 150km in line with your opponent. Whether that is a covert ops that entered system, warped away, dropped probes, then warped to 100 on the hostiles sitting off gate, or simply a bookmark in the general direction of your opponents, long range pilots are screwed if the close range hostiles are well prepared. If longer away than 150k, a warp to zero warp-in is easily done and adios long range fleet.

I assume these mechanics are intentional by CCP, and until they are changed there's not much hope for Railguns beyond killmail whoring with a non-zero damage entry on a killmail, or trying to pick off ships at ultra long range while aligned to warp (non-fleet, as any fleet will tank the damage and repair).

2. Blasters and their Niche

Autocannons provide an immense amount of DPS, most notably with their ability to switch ammo types to what can punch a hole through hostile's tanks the best and hit out even past Pulse ranges. Even if blasters had a 10% advantage over projectiles, they don't have the ability to adapt to the situation and remain inferior.

How I would fix blasters: Give medium/large blasers about a 30%+ boost to damage, an optimal under web range, virtually no falloff, and ungodly tracking. A battleship should hit a cruiser afterburning with a single web under 10k at max traversal (maybe not for full). A cruiser the same with a frigate. A frigate, while MWDing, should be able to in a tight orbit hit full force against larger ships with small blasters, and/or remain effective against other frigates in a knife fight. Keep Gallente ships slow and fat (no change), and allow blasters to provide a zone of death around the fleet. Any hostile that enters that zone should effectively bend over and kiss its ass goodbye. That's a niche that is missing from EVE, and would fit nicely with teh blaster paradigm. Slow, Fat, and up close the deadliest motherf*cker you've ever seen.

This would allow them to keep their armor bonuses as well, as active tanks would be beneficial for solo/small gang warfare. It wouldn't fix their viability in larger fleet warfare however, but below might be a start.

3. Fixing Gallente ships: Drone viability in PvP

If you did (2) above, the only thing missing would be the pvp viability of larger drones. Small/Medium/ECM drones have good viability in combat, but Heavy's should actually be expected to outrun Battleships (and even Battlecruisers) within the drone control range of ships. Boost Heavy's to about the speed of Mediums, Mediums slightly faster, and keep lights where they are at. Increase the effectiveness of utility drones so that they aren't useless. Add light/medium webbing drones so that Gallente ships could, in theory, catch targets that are outside their own web range. Yes, this would also be a double edged sword, as web drones would ALSO act as an achilles heal of Gallente ships for kiting purposes... see #2. Further, why the hell doesn't the Myrmidon have a 100m bandwidth and the Hyperion/Proteus have (or the ability to have) 125m bandwidth?

Allow heavier drones to play a larger role in Nullsec warfare with fleets rolling across grid, and nuance some of the smaller drone bays of Gallente ships slightly larger, and suddenly having a complement of Gallente ships around could be rather beneficial.

4. Balancing Hybrids

One of EVE's greatest attributes is that it has vast differences between common uses of game mechanics, compared to other MMO's which in many instances simply change the graphics and/or buttons for DPS classes and call them different. Hybrids need their niche, and while Railguns have always had theirs (max range, even though game mechanics make it useless in practice), blasters have lost theirs. Give them a new one (see #2 above for an idea), and not just a "bleh" second rate damage system that can't outdamage Projectiles in practice, nor get their weapons in optimal ranges. If you just boost the speed of Gallente ships as a crutch for a broken weapon system, you aren't really fixing the problem, and gallente ships will either remain pointless or pass a tipping point where they invalidate one or more other races comparable ship types.
Jane Idoka
gratia aeternum bellum
#332 - 2011-10-31 21:36:42 UTC
Obsidian Hawk wrote:
I approve of this improvement.


i do not
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#333 - 2011-10-31 21:41:11 UTC
Garbad theWeak wrote:
So I plugged in the changes into pyfa and compared a hellcat vs. a new and improved blaster thron. Both have standards you would expect -- heavy cap booster, mwd, and web + scram.

Megathron:
1245 DPS (928 excluding ogres)
105k EHP
2x as good tracking as the abby (~.06)
a heavy neut
almost cap stable, with the booster can run mwd + neut for several minutes
~40% faster with MWD on

Abby:
918 DPS (760 excludign drones)
177k EHP, also has much better resist profile (better reps)
can fire to 45k using scorch
not at all cap stable

So the mega is faster, does substantially more dps, tracks better, is cap stable, and can neut out to 25k. The abby has far, far more EHP and range but has cap issues. In a fleet, you can reasonably expect a damnation improving resists, further magnifying the EHP gap. You can also expect reps from a gaurdian, who has energy to waste, reducing or eliminating the cap problems of the abby.

So which would you rather have: ~30% more dps at close range or up to 5x as much range and 2x as much ehp? I think the hellcat clearly wins.

This is a very odd comparison. Why would you compare a solo, cap-stable, mega to a cap-UNstable abby, with support ships?
Cerlin
#334 - 2011-10-31 21:42:51 UTC
I feel that these changes will be a good start to changing the balance of hybrids for the better.

And as someone who has a majority of his weapon training in hybrids I say thank you. I look forward to seeing how these changes work in the field (Gets back to his gallente cross training.)
zulrock
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#335 - 2011-10-31 21:48:21 UTC  |  Edited by: zulrock
What do you think of as a different way of balancing Hybrids to nerf ACs take away EMP and Phased Plasma ammo types and make projectiles strictly explosive/kinetic damage. The amarr are only em thermal and galent are only thermal kinetic, why should minmitar which the projectiles already don't use cap like the other turret types being able to switch damage types seems like too much.

oh and too give the ACs a buff now seems stupid even if hail really isnt any better than rep fleet EMP which most people use.


Do you guys ever do any really world PvP or just on test servers.
Haulin Aussie
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#336 - 2011-10-31 21:55:09 UTC
Large hybrid ammo is also way too many m3 compared to others. could this be looked at too please?
ben babiroussa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#337 - 2011-10-31 21:57:24 UTC
me like!
Jamil Torres
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2011-10-31 21:58:55 UTC
At least mini is still a win button : )
Also im a gall and havent flown a gall ship in years other than the enyo. This will not change that.
Useful Alt
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#339 - 2011-10-31 21:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Useful Alt
what is missing is more range for blaster

go in a battleship with blaster only do not move and try to shot down an orbiting npc battleship at 21-23km which happen in mission


have fun.
xAbsocold
BOAE INC
#340 - 2011-10-31 22:02:22 UTC  |  Edited by: xAbsocold
Most Gallente ships get +10 to speed, including some already zippy ships, but the Myrmidon doesn't even get a +5?!

Poor Myrmidon, repeatedly hit with the nerf bat, ignored by the buff fairy.

I've got $10 that says after this change goes live that the Hybrid buff not going far enough plus the Myrmidon not getting a speed boost means that this poor Gallente ship will still be equipped with Minmatar guns. And will still suck :(