These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] X-L Weapons Balance

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#381 - 2013-05-20 06:01:31 UTC
luciours wrote:
Here's an idea, instead of swinging the nerf bat everytime someone *****'s that their ship, A, isn't as op as the other ship, B, why don't you make ship A op as well. boom ship A and B are now balanced an ship B isn't bitching for being nerfed.

And now both ship A and ship B lord over all of the other ships, from C to Z, and even over their estranged cousins ship ` and ship ^.

There are more ships than just Dreadnoughts, and you can't simply buff every Dreadnought to make the class balanced within itself without worrying about the effect it would have on the balance versus every other ship class.

These nerfs were well needed. I find the tears about the Moros particularly amusing because people fail to see just how much better it was than all the others, and how good it still is.
Crellion
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#382 - 2013-05-20 06:38:47 UTC
I could be pursuaded to like this nerf.

It would take giving back to the Moros a 1k drone bay, with ability to control 20 drones and bandwidth to allow this to be 20 light drones only (or 10 meds or 4 heavies obviously) with a dmg bonus applying only in seige.

Get on it CCP dude Idea
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#383 - 2013-05-20 06:43:25 UTC
Hagika wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Just because you think it's a bad change doesn't automatically make it a bad change.
The same things were said about the HM nerf but in time most of the community came to recognize that these changes were necessary.


You actually think the HM nerf was good and not excessive?

Funny you say that but even people who complained about them being over powered say they are horrible now...

They're better than medium beams and medium rails.
So that leaves them on par with or slightly worse than medium artillery.
People only think HMs are terrible because they were accustomed to using them like high DPS weapons without the disadvantage of short range. The nerf (and the buff to other missiles) made HAMs much more viable, to start with.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Luscius Uta
#384 - 2013-05-20 07:36:01 UTC
Angelhunter wrote:
So i would like to know, will there actually be any further discussions or modifications to these proposed changes or are they set in stone? It seems from reading through this entire thread that most people are overall NOT happy with this proposal.




Foul sinner, you dare question the holy word of CCP Fozzie?? Burn in fire you heretic!!!11

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#385 - 2013-05-20 07:38:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Hagika wrote:


Why shouldnt you be able to use your short range ammo at point blank on a target that your ship was built to shoot? surely that must make sense to you, and if doesnt, then you should rethink the your idea on the purpose of a dread.


You are at point blank range when shooting an offline tower, not an online one. Why do you think the Moros should be clearly the best dreadnought in both situations, at both point-blank range and what is much more like medium-range (for SR weapons)?

Angelhunter wrote:
So i would like to know, will there actually be any further discussions or modifications to these proposed changes or are they set in stone? It seems from reading through this entire thread that most people are overall NOT happy with this proposal.


Agreed, there is no justification for increased falloff on the Moros.
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#386 - 2013-05-20 07:41:57 UTC
Hagika wrote:

CCP's issue with the moros was not a damage one, they are happy with the dps of the ship. Their issue was the range it can use antimatter. They didnt want it to have the longer range it did past a certain point.


http://i.imgur.com/BtRcwjx.png

Again ...where is the range nerf?? Moros is shooting much further with Antimatter now. It still outperforms all other dreads. So you are getting a %3 reduction to dps while 30k pos shooting for an increase in damage projection. You should be saying HELL YES.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#387 - 2013-05-20 07:54:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Deerin wrote:
Hagika wrote:

CCP's issue with the moros was not a damage one, they are happy with the dps of the ship. Their issue was the range it can use antimatter. They didnt want it to have the longer range it did past a certain point.


http://i.imgur.com/BtRcwjx.png

Again ...where is the range nerf?? Moros is shooting much further with Antimatter now. It still outperforms all other dreads. So you are getting a %3 reduction to dps while 30k pos shooting for an increase in damage projection. You should be saying HELL YES.


Just looking at that plot, I'd say take skilled antimatter optimal down to 15 km or maybe even pushing 10 km, and no change to falloff from the old stat.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#388 - 2013-05-20 08:52:44 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Why shouldnt you be able to use your short range ammo at point blank on a target that your ship was built to shoot? surely that must make sense to you, and if doesnt, then you should rethink the your idea on the purpose of a dread.

Do you mean to say that the dread is only designed to shoot POS?
Alright, lets reduce the tracking -90%, didnt need it anyway.
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#389 - 2013-05-20 09:40:42 UTC
I plugged the changes in EFT.

The Moros is still superior to every other dreads at every ranges.

I compare all dreads fitted with 3 Faction Damagemods, and their close-range max DPS ammo.

The Moros gets 14190 DPS, the Naglfar gets 11691 DPS, the Revelation gets 10320.

The problem is, despite the changes, the Revelation still has worse tracking, worse damage projection.

Tracking-wise, he's still superior (0.00575 for the Moros, 0.00506 for the Revelation).

Range-wise, he's also superior thanks to the massive 40% DPS upgrade Moroses get over other dreads (A Moros gets 20+60, a Revelation gets 39+24, both fitted with 3 scripted TCs. Because of the Moros' superior DPS, the range advantage the Revelation has is of no use at all).

If you want to fix imbalances between Dreads (Or at least, turret-dreads), there are two solutions :

Change Dreads' DPS.

Yes, that means either lowering the Moros' DPS, or upgrading the other Dreads' DPS to about 12000 to 13000.

The second solution is reduce the Moros' range (Truly reduce, that means lowering values, not switching them around) so that Moros pilots (like myself) are forced to switch to medrange ammo to hit large POSes.

That will open up more possibilities.

If you want to confortably hit POSes, use Revelations. If you can sit at 15 away from the objective, you can hammer it with 14k DPS Moroses. If you want to blap subcaps, make sure they don't leave your 30km range, else you'll have to switch to lower-DPS ammunitions.

That'll make room for the other Dreads. In the current situation, the Moros is just better at everything and at every ranges.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#390 - 2013-05-20 10:11:33 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Hagika wrote:
Why shouldnt you be able to use your short range ammo at point blank on a target that your ship was built to shoot? surely that must make sense to you, and if doesnt, then you should rethink the your idea on the purpose of a dread.

Do you mean to say that the dread is only designed to shoot POS?
Alright, lets reduce the tracking -90%, didnt need it anyway.


Im sorry I fail to see where I said dreads were only built to shoot pos's....

Oh wait, i didnt.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#391 - 2013-05-20 10:15:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Hagika
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Hagika wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Just because you think it's a bad change doesn't automatically make it a bad change.
The same things were said about the HM nerf but in time most of the community came to recognize that these changes were necessary.


You actually think the HM nerf was good and not excessive?

Funny you say that but even people who complained about them being over powered say they are horrible now...

They're better than medium beams and medium rails.
So that leaves them on par with or slightly worse than medium artillery.
People only think HMs are terrible because they were accustomed to using them like high DPS weapons without the disadvantage of short range. The nerf (and the buff to other missiles) made HAMs much more viable, to start with.


Actually medium rails hit out farther with more dps. Medium beam, we all know they are struggling along with medium rails...

Hams are a short range weapon to be compared with blasters.. Thanks...
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#392 - 2013-05-20 10:26:05 UTC
I love when people plug ships into EFT and suddenly become an expert on a ship's effectiveness.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#393 - 2013-05-20 10:45:07 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Why shouldnt you be able to use your short range ammo at point blank on a target that your ship was built to shoot? surely that must make sense to you, and if doesnt, then you should rethink the your idea on the purpose of a dread.


There are plenty of structures that don't have shields. The Moros can use AM on those. Hell, the Moros can use AM on a large POS just fine. It's out of Optimal, sure, but not by enough to matter.

Quote:
CCP's issue with the moros was not a damage one, they are happy with the dps of the ship. Their issue was the range it can use antimatter. They didnt want it to have the longer range it did past a certain point.


Citation needed.

Quote:
So they took the lazy route of nerfing the range and in turn didnt take into the account of how it would affect pos shooting, so when they were told that it would be an issue for using antimatter on a pos on top of the TE nerf, they just said who cares, its only a 3% dps nerf and were to lazy to adjust it.


With Plutonium, you still do some 1k DPS more than the next runner up. And you get your magic "I'm in optimal" warm fuzzies while the guy next to you looks at the graph, says "meh," and does more DPS than you.

Quote:
If you look at many of the changes with the upcoming xpac, you will see a ton of lazy or half thought out changes. Battleship threads for example. Many of the changes were just dumb, yet they asked for feedback but then dont post again and just go with their idea regardless of how people proved it was a bad idea. Once again, lazy..


If they didnt not want the moros dps to be that high, they would have done a out right direct dps nerf, just like they did an out right tracking nerf to all dreads.[/quote]

Which changes are dumb, which are lazy, and why do you think they are they so?

Maybe if they had unlimited time and budget, they would have done exactly that. CCP Fozzie has said that this is just a first step for dreads (welcome to the wonderful post-Incarna world of CCP generally following through on iterating features).

Quote:
A nerf to one is a buff to the rest.. Umm no... Thats just more lazy man thinking. The Nag was crap, and it required a complete weapon system change to put it on par with the moros and with selectable damage it will actually be better in some ways.

.....

Back again to the whole nerf to one is a buff to others, all it did was put them slightly closer in terms of dps, that does not fix any of the other ships issues.


None of that changes the fact that nerfing the most powerful thing in a group makes all the rest better relative to the group. That's simply how the zero sum game of balancing a ship class like dreads works.

They all have the same purpose (lots of damage to big things and lots of tank to survive as an island for 5 min), so there aren't many different ways to usefully differentiate them, so balance pretty much comes down to "can they all do the same thing as well as the rest."

The Rev and Nag buff indicate that they were weaker than the power level that CCP wants for Dreads, not that the Moros is at an appropriate power level.

And thank you for explaining in great detail the fact that the Phoenix is a terrible ship (a fact that, incidentally, I pointed out in the post you quoted). Roll

The choice of whether to buff or nerf various portions of the group depends on where you want the power level of that group to be, so, I'll ask again, why do you feel that the Moros should be the template for Dread Power level?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#394 - 2013-05-20 10:50:00 UTC
Strange Shadow wrote:
The length of this thread proves that OP changes are long overdue.

Shouldn't boost moros that much in the first place.

Personally do approve careful small changes like this one.


It's not the moros fault they boosted the siege module damage to +700% damage over the +625% it was before ( +840% damage T2 siege never existed before and needs balance ) this balance has taken the form of a bat to the turrets themselves instead of the siege module where the problem was introduced in the first place.

Vincent Gaines wrote:
I love when people plug ships into EFT and suddenly become an expert on a ship's effectiveness.


It's just a lazy way to argue something.

EFT says this...
EFT says that...
My EFT fitting is this...

You can't read a balance thread these days without EFT being mentioned.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#395 - 2013-05-20 11:03:47 UTC
smoking gun81 wrote:


Vincent Gaines wrote:
I love when people plug ships into EFT and suddenly become an expert on a ship's effectiveness.


It's just a lazy way to argue something.

EFT says this...
EFT says that...
My EFT fitting is this...

You can't read a balance thread these days without EFT being mentioned.


Good, at least then we get reliable numbers. We still have to interpret them correctly - after all, failure to understand what the numbers mean can lead to silly claims, such as citadel torps not doing full damage to a 60 m/s Aeon - but that's a separate issue. Now we have the numbers we can see that, if anything, this is a Moros range boost. Straight
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#396 - 2013-05-20 11:13:02 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:
I love when people plug ships into EFT and suddenly become an expert on a ship's effectiveness.



Considering tha after hitting siege you do not touch much buttons or click in a dread, ... if there are ships were you can get a reasonable Idea of their performance in EFT .. those are the dreads :)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
smoking gun81
Doomheim
#397 - 2013-05-20 11:27:13 UTC  |  Edited by: smoking gun81
Gypsio III wrote:

Good, at least then we get reliable numbers. We still have to interpret them correctly - after all, failure to understand what the numbers mean can lead to silly claims, such as citadel torps not doing full damage to a 60 m/s Aeon - but that's a separate issue. Now we have the numbers we can see that, if anything, this is a Moros range boost. Straight


I would prefer people actually do and show the math as an argument so others can check it instead of using EFT with present day stats.
The problem with citadel torps is not the speed of the aeon ( I get a 66 m/s aeon difference in maths right there ) but the fact that supers fit 100 MN dead space MWD's giving them in the example of the aeon 105 M/s non overloaded speed with no ability aside of bumping it repeatedly to stop it.

How do citadel torps fair against 105M/s - 200M/s supers ????
I'm sure someone somewhere could get a lot more speed out of them so don't think this is the upper limit.
Yun Kuai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2013-05-20 11:36:28 UTC
I'm going to try to keep this constructive, but before I start my proper post....lol at all the players who are whining because they just lost a teat to suck at...

Now that I've said that, it's time to be civil and helpful:
1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't dreadnaughts designed to fight other Capital class ships like carriers, supercarriers, and titans as well as bash stationary structures like POS's and iHUBs?
-Check

2) So if Dreads aren't supposed to take subcap fleets alone (i.e the blap Moros's that have been around), then why did all of these dread pilots become so elitist and think they should be able to 1 shot battleships?
-There was a broken mechanic along the lines of too high base tracking on XL guns which CCP is now reducing slightly. Which means if you want to still be an elistist blap dread, you can, but you're going to die horribly now to proper fit dreads.

Getting Dreads (and titans for that matter) back into their intended role of going after other capitals is a good direction. Leaving the option for "lol fits to fight a specific target" should still be viable, even at capital ship levels, but there should be some form of penalty in doing so which CCP is implementing. +1 CCP

As a cautionary statement, CCP has more or less done a good job in rebalancing subcaps but there has been a feeling of too much homogenizaton with every ship having the same number of slots, ehp, and utility. As others have mentioned, it sometimes feels like I pick a ship based on looks because they're all the same. I do hope that CCP makes the right changes to balance Dreads and all capitals so that they are useful against each other but still maintain their racial flavors and strengths/weaknesses.


--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#399 - 2013-05-20 11:38:27 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Hagika wrote:
Why shouldnt you be able to use your short range ammo at point blank on a target that your ship was built to shoot? surely that must make sense to you, and if doesnt, then you should rethink the your idea on the purpose of a dread.

Do you mean to say that the dread is only designed to shoot POS?
Alright, lets reduce the tracking -90%, didnt need it anyway.


Im sorry I fail to see where I said dreads were only built to shoot pos's....
Oh wait, i didnt.

So what's your point then?
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#400 - 2013-05-20 11:40:03 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Vincent Gaines wrote:
I love when people plug ships into EFT and suddenly become an expert on a ship's effectiveness.



Considering tha after hitting siege you do not touch much buttons or click in a dread, ... if there are ships were you can get a reasonable Idea of their performance in EFT .. those are the dreads :)

Apart from DPS there are other esoteric numbers, like tank and capacitor.