These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tore Vest
#361 - 2011-10-31 22:48:49 UTC
Not enough.
Not eaven half way there...
I fly minmatar after patch.... i guess

No troll.
VonKolroth
Anarchist's Anonymous
#362 - 2011-10-31 22:49:13 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Re the ammos:
To paraphrase from here...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14433

Rails should fill in the performance gaps leaving alpha and dps to the other weapon systems but doubling down on what is left...

Quote:
Ammo:
Railgun base damage increased by 10%

Spike base damage increased by 25%

Tech 2 Ammo now receives short range variants that alter the behaviour of the turrets (beyond additional dps, or range) either compensating for short falls or improving strengths of the turrets in very different ways.
- Quake - 25% increase to Artillery alpha, 5% Less damage than RF EMP and 33% less range and fall off.
- Gleam - Increases damage - 15% more damage than Navy Multifreqency and 33% less tracking and 33% less optimal range.
- Javelin - Increases tracking by 50% - 5% Less damage than CN Antimatter and 50% increased capacitor usage.

Hybrid Ammo receives reorganisation into 4 parts:
Antimatter remains unchanged
Iron base damage increased by 20%

Plutonium - (Same as current plutonium except: ), 20% Kinetic, 80% Thermal damage
Uranium - -(Same as current plutonium except: ), 80% Kinetic, 20% Thermal damage

Thorium - (Same as current thorium except: ) 0% increase to optimal, 20% increase to tracking, 80% Kinetic, 20% Thermal
Lead - (Same as current thorium except: ) 0% increase to optimal, 20% increase to tracking, 20% Kinetic, 80% Thermal damage

Iridium - (Same as current thorium except: ) 0% increase to optimal, 20% increase to falloff, 80% Kinetic, 20% Thermal
Tungsten - (Same as current thorium except: ) 0% increase to optimal, 20% increase to falloff, 20% Kinetic, 80% Thermal damage

Railguns now do more damage, and much more damage at longer ranges. True to the RP nature of what most of us consider railguns to be like, ultra high muzzle velocity means, damage attenuates much less at long to ultra long range.

This picture should help explain the changes: http://www.theskyunion.com/railguns.jpg


I have always had a hard time suspending my belief that railguns shouldn't be the volley kings of turrents on the sole principle of how a rail gun works...

Sent from my Gallente Erabus Titan on -FA- SRP
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#363 - 2011-10-31 22:52:11 UTC
Tore Vest wrote:
Not enough.
Not eaven half way there...
I fly minmatar after patch.... i guess

You aren't already?

Late to the party is better than not showing up, I guess Blink
Eiyla Rindour
Truth Behind Omega
#364 - 2011-10-31 22:53:51 UTC
Digital Gaidin wrote:
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 make blasters useful, but not OP. +1
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#365 - 2011-10-31 22:56:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Digital Gaidin
Tanya Powers wrote:
You can't fix blasters if you're not able to pick the only available choices, and those are hard:

- Give them enough range to be usefull in close/med range combat

- Give them nuclear warheads dps and keep the crap distance

- Increase significantly speed with AB or MWD bonus (one of them not both oc)

- Give them bonus to web and scram range or strgth for web only

Now you have to pick 2 of the above like it or not.

1, 3, and 4 would all have downsides that affect other aspects of EVE. The nuclear option is the best option, and if anything else is needed its maybe some extra EHP goodness built directly into the hull (all those ugly layers of armor should be good for something, right?), so their PvP survivability increases whether they have their active tank equipped or not.
Tore Vest
#366 - 2011-10-31 22:57:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tore Vest
Digital Gaidin wrote:
Tore Vest wrote:
Not enough.
Not eaven half way there...
I fly minmatar after patch.... i guess

You aren't already?

Late to the party is better than not showing up, I guess Blink


I fly minmatar pretty well ..... ty Cool

No troll.
Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#367 - 2011-10-31 23:00:26 UTC
Instant or drastically faster reload times for hybrids could be a decent "fix" too.
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#368 - 2011-10-31 23:03:35 UTC
Raimo wrote:
Instant or drastically faster reload times for hybrids could be a decent "fix" too.

And an indirect nerf to Amarr, as that is one of their few advantages.
Kumq uat
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#369 - 2011-10-31 23:05:30 UTC
Eiyla Rindour wrote:
Digital Gaidin wrote:
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 make blasters useful, but not OP. +1


+1. This is what blasters should be.
lloyd bank
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#370 - 2011-10-31 23:17:49 UTC  |  Edited by: lloyd bank
MeBiatch wrote:
here are the fixes for hybrids:

blasters:

concept shotguns (short range arties...)

1. Increase base damage by 50%
2. Decrease rate of fire by 30%
3. Increase falloff by 15%
4. increase tracking by 37.5%

railguns: Concept long range auto cannons

1. Increase base damage by 15%
2. Increase rate of fire by 15%
3. decrease activation cost by 40%
4. increase tracking by 37.5%

ammo:

Simular boost that projectile ammo got

concept choice between what damage type you want to do between thermal and Kinetic (i.e. antimater does 80% thermal damage 20% kin damage, uranium does 80% kin damage and 20% thermal damage)

also include a tracking bonus built into the ammo

Caldari boost:
remove the optimal range bonus for hybrid turrets and replace with a rate of fire bonus

gallente boost:
remove the falloff bonus and tracking bonus and replace with a speed pulpusion moduel mass reduction per level

change the internal rep bonus to include a bonus incomming remote rep

General fix:
change the speed reduction affect on armor rigs and replace with an agility reduction
change reload time from 10 seconds to 5 seconds


THISAttentionPiratePiratePirate well for rails if they dont fix probbing

Pattern Clarc wrote:
Re the ammos:
To paraphrase from here...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14433

Rails should fill in the performance gaps leaving alpha and dps to the other weapon systems but doubling down on what is left...

Quote:
Ammo:
Railgun base damage increased by 10%

Spike base damage increased by 25%

Tech 2 Ammo now receives short range variants that alter the behaviour of the turrets (beyond additional dps, or range) either compensating for short falls or improving strengths of the turrets in very different ways.
- Quake - 25% increase to Artillery alpha, 5% Less damage than RF EMP and 33% less range and fall off.
- Gleam - Increases damage - 15% more damage than Navy Multifreqency and 33% less tracking and 33% less optimal range.
- Javelin - Increases tracking by 50% - 5% Less damage than CN Antimatter and 50% increased capacitor usage.

Hybrid Ammo receives reorganisation into 4 parts:
Antimatter remains unchanged
Iron base damage increased by 20%

Plutonium - (Same as current plutonium except: ), 20% Kinetic, 80% Thermal damage
Uranium - -(Same as current plutonium except: ), 80% Kinetic, 20% Thermal damage

Thorium - (Same as current thorium except: ) 0% increase to optimal, 20% increase to tracking, 80% Kinetic, 20% Thermal
Lead - (Same as current thorium except: ) 0% increase to optimal, 20% increase to tracking, 20% Kinetic, 80% Thermal damage

Iridium - (Same as current thorium except: ) 0% increase to optimal, 20% increase to falloff, 80% Kinetic, 20% Thermal
Tungsten - (Same as current thorium except: ) 0% increase to optimal, 20% increase to falloff, 20% Kinetic, 80% Thermal damage

Railguns now do more damage, and much more damage at longer ranges. True to the RP nature of what most of us consider railguns to be like, ultra high muzzle velocity means, damage attenuates much less at long to ultra long range.

This picture should help explain the changes: http://www.theskyunion.com/railguns.jpg


this for rails if they do fix probbing...
Steve4c
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#371 - 2011-10-31 23:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve4c
Just face it, this is yet another stealth nerf.

+10 to speed indeed, -5 to agility - whoopdeedoo.

how does this address hyrbid blasters>?

Optimal range + falloff is the issue

powergid could be argued due to not being able to fit a full compliment of wepons especially in pvp terms with 1 large active rep.

Hyrbid wepons will still have no validity with the proposed changes.


I have made one post to this thread, players who use hybrid blaster platforms have waited far too long for a rebalance, since the super nerf of drones back in Eve's early days.

If CCP wants to listen to its players, now is the time.

I find it ludicrous how one faction has been ruled out of the game.

You know as well we all do, if you can't improvise with the means you have, you will look to obtain the means to do so another way.

e.g go on the character bazaar and just buy ship that can hit out a range where the dps is required, in this case another faction but Gallente.

if only the changes by the OP get implented theres little to no chance the optimal range & fall off will be addressed at a later date.

Address the issue - keep to the subject we are dealing with Hybrids (do not work around it) Hyrbids lack oprimal & fall off, resolve this.

if you can not hit something you are doing no dps.

no ship can fly faster than a projectile/missle/laser - so speed boost is nothing.

how can gallente hybrid blasters be competitive at such small optimal ranges?


The other underlying issue is calibration, we would have the ability to gain dps if we did not have rely on boosting optimal range in the way hybrid blasters do. Even when boosting the ships max optimal it is far too ineffective for trying to push this stat as comprimises elsewhere can not be made.

This is my second post on this thread, i hope it does not get overlooked.
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#372 - 2011-10-31 23:19:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Digital Gaidin
Kumq uat wrote:
Eiyla Rindour wrote:
Digital Gaidin wrote:
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 make blasters useful, but not OP. +1


+1. This is what blasters should be.

As a follow-up and to re-iterate someone elses idea posted a few pages back... the idea of introducing cap stability into the ammunition would make for an interesting twist to the ammunition type. You could make the ammo have range brackets the same as Projectiles (-60%, 0%, +60%) and have ammo that ranges in cap usage and damage. Similar to Amarr being able to control range and quickly swap between crystals, Gallente could use the highest damage ammunition that lets them remain cap stable (further improving their viability for active tanks), and switch to the highest damage ammunition for their desired range bracket when cap stability goes to hell and its time to deliver the pain. Variation in ammunition would also support varied levels of preferred cap stability when using MWD's and whatnot, further making capacitor usage a key decision factor in Gallente fighting tactics.

For Null ammunition, you could get creative and have it add a decent falloff bonus to the blasters (assuming the above idea is implemented and they have virtually none to speak of), giving a unique twist to the long range blaster ammunition.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#373 - 2011-10-31 23:21:52 UTC
ArmyOfMe wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:

Spoken like someone who's got no experience flying a hybrid platform.

I suppose so. I've only been flying Gallente gunboats for 3.5 years, with 18 million SP in guns. I apologize for being presumptuous.

Well ive flown blasterboats for over 8 years, and have allmost twice your sp in gunnery, so that argument kinda failsBlink

Who was arguing? I was apologizing for my noob standing. :)
Imawuss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#374 - 2011-10-31 23:22:22 UTC
Kumq uat wrote:
Eiyla Rindour wrote:
Digital Gaidin wrote:
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 make blasters useful, but not OP. +1


+1. This is what blasters should be.


Um no -100.

This would make Blasters even more useless.
Why? because now all you need to do is stay at 15km and Gallente dies every time. Kiting is already an issue so you want to make it worse? Sure you will be better off in the 10% of situations you start off in optimal, but now you will be completly owned in the 90% you do not. Not to mention now you have 0 purpose in any fleet except for gate camps and even then still outshinned by AC's because the chance they come in next to you is less then them coming at the other side of the gate. By the time you burn to them they are already melting.

DPS in range is not the issue its the lack of range or being able to apply the DPS that was the issue. Increasing dps and shortening range makes Gallente even more niche, a very small one. They would be relegated to high sec station games and useless in all other situations if you made that change.
Wu Phat
InsufficientFunds LLC.
#375 - 2011-10-31 23:23:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Wu Phat
Let’s work in a + 15 % tracking buff for antimatter. Void should get the same tracking buff as Javelin has and have the falloff penalty taken off. I wonder how Null would be with a 75% buff to falloff with no optimal range buff or penalty but with a larger tracking penalty.

Blasters focused fleets require more tackle boats than actually baster boats. So if your worried about kitting ships then your composing your fleet wrong. I know CCP is not looking at revamping ships but let’s look at the Rapier & Arazu. Like maybe mixing up the slot lay out, so it's 4.5.5, and not 4.6.4. I say this because people already option the force recons as armor support ships and the combat recons as the better shield tanker. Would this switch pull them in to line with the Amarr recons which have armor & shield tanking recon? While I am talking about it, why not swap the bonus on the Pilgrim, giving it the range to the neut & nos without the amount bonus, but a penalty to capacitor regeneration.
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#376 - 2011-10-31 23:28:41 UTC
Imawuss wrote:
Um no -100.

This would make Blasters even more useless.
Why? because now all you need to do is stay at 15km and Gallente dies every time. Kiting is already an issue so you want to make it worse? Sure you will be better off in the 10% of situations you start off in optimal, but now you will be completly owned in the 90% you do not. Not to mention now you have 0 purpose in any fleet except for gate camps and even then still outshinned by AC's because the chance they come in next to you is less then them coming at the other side of the gate. By the time you burn to them they are already melting.

DPS in range is not the issue its the lack of range or being able to apply the DPS that was the issue. Increasing dps and shortening range makes Gallente even more niche, a very small one. They would be relegated to high sec station games and useless in all other situations if you made that change.

So you want long range blasters? Would you like that at Scorch range or EMP range?

What I described would actually fit what blasters are SUPPOSED to be, as well as provide a niche that an intelligent pilot could exploit. Amarr ships are great if you can control range, but they aren't the fastest so you need a smart pilot. Caldari ships are great if you can MAINTAIN range (and somehow figure out how to keep the guy on grid), but have crap for DPS and are useless up close. Minmatar have amazing kiting ability with their speed and falloff giving amazing flexibility with range and damage type while on grid.

What do I want with Gallente? I want a ship that when I get a warp in, or the opponent makes a mistake, I can drop a scram and web on him and eat him alive. I would prefer that EVE Online never has a Jack of all Trades ship that can truly own everything (though at times the Vagabond has come pretty damn close), and for that matter I'd like to see Gallente truly excel at one specific area while on grid. I described it as creating a zone of death, and I think that metaphor fits quite nicely for what blasters *could* be if CCP agrees.
Dunmur
Tempered Logic
#377 - 2011-10-31 23:30:17 UTC
No matter how much you buff tracking/damage on blasters it will not fix them. If your enemy is flying faster than you and out of your range you could have 100,000 dps and if you cannot hit him 100,000 x 0 is still 0
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#378 - 2011-10-31 23:38:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Digital Gaidin
Dunmur wrote:
No matter how much you buff tracking/damage on blasters it will not fix them. If your enemy is flying faster than you and out of your range you could have 100,000 dps and if you cannot hit him 100,000 x 0 is still 0

Umm... warp out?

Jump/Dock?

Have your friend fly over and web him?

Overload your web/scram if your warp-in is bad so you don't get into this situation in the first place?

Use your drones to put DPS on him, and your active armor tank to take his hits...

--- oh, this is Nullsec ---

Tell your prober that he screwed up, and while your fleet warps off grid, tell him to get his act together and provide a better warp-in

--- oh, you're being ganked, have a long range point on you, and can't catch him, and aren't near a gate or station because you got your ass pointed while in a belt ratting in low/null sec ---

QQ


I proposed a way for you to kill him when he IS in range.

It's your piloting skills that needs to figure out how to make that happen.
Dunmur
Tempered Logic
#379 - 2011-10-31 23:40:54 UTC
Digital Gaidin wrote:
Imawuss wrote:
Um no -100.

This would make Blasters even more useless.
Why? because now all you need to do is stay at 15km and Gallente dies every time. Kiting is already an issue so you want to make it worse? Sure you will be better off in the 10% of situations you start off in optimal, but now you will be completly owned in the 90% you do not. Not to mention now you have 0 purpose in any fleet except for gate camps and even then still outshinned by AC's because the chance they come in next to you is less then them coming at the other side of the gate. By the time you burn to them they are already melting.

DPS in range is not the issue its the lack of range or being able to apply the DPS that was the issue. Increasing dps and shortening range makes Gallente even more niche, a very small one. They would be relegated to high sec station games and useless in all other situations if you made that change.

So you want long range blasters? Would you like that at Scorch range or EMP range?

What I described would actually fit what blasters are SUPPOSED to be, as well as provide a niche that an intelligent pilot could exploit. Amarr ships are great if you can control range, but they aren't the fastest so you need a smart pilot. Caldari ships are great if you can MAINTAIN range (and somehow figure out how to keep the guy on grid), but have crap for DPS and are useless up close. Minmatar have amazing kiting ability with their speed and falloff giving amazing flexibility with range and damage type while on grid.

What do I want with Gallente? I want a ship that when I get a warp in, or the opponent makes a mistake, I can drop a scram and web on him and eat him alive. I would prefer that EVE Online never has a Jack of all Trades ship that can truly own everything (though at times the Vagabond has come pretty damn close), and for that matter I'd like to see Gallente truly excel at one specific area while on grid. I described it as creating a zone of death, and I think that metaphor fits quite nicely for what blasters *could* be if CCP agrees.


What you just described is a Single situation where gallente are good and that is when you warp to 0 on top of your enemy, but wait at those ranges neuts would suck you dry and even at reduced cap blasters still use cap.

Every other situation is less dependent on YOUR skill as a pilot and requires the opponent to make a mistake which in my opinion makes it useless.
Digital Gaidin
Manetheren Rising
#380 - 2011-10-31 23:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Digital Gaidin
Dunmur wrote:
What you just described is a Single situation where gallente are good and that is when you warp to 0 on top of your enemy, but wait at those ranges neuts would suck you dry and even at reduced cap blasters still use cap.

Every other situation is less dependent on YOUR skill as a pilot and requires the opponent to make a mistake which in my opinion makes it useless.

Do you spend your entire day ganking Curses and Ashimuu's? If someone fits a Neutralizer and you are in a cap-dependent ship, umm... good choice on their part?

Positioning yourself in your weapon system's range is as much dependent on you being smart as your opponent being dumb. In mortal combat, your prowess on the field of battle will be weighed and measured against your opponents. Give me the ship I described, pick any ship you want, start the combat at 1km away from each other, and I will own you. Position ourselves off grid from each other, give us a common objective, and lo and behold we might have a real fight on our hands. If I choose to fly blaster, I am making the assumption that I can and will be able to position myself within range of your ship. That's on me. If you make a mistake, you will just be making my job easier. Twisted

What is going to suck if the original proposed changes go through is that even if I get within range, there's no guarantee that my blaster ship will even own the field against a like-opponent, and/or get the job done before he is able to find a way to break range. Hence, why I fully endorse the following:

Digital Gaidin wrote:
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.