These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#461 - 2013-05-22 02:42:51 UTC
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
so has anybody learned that you dont vote goonswarm members for CSM yet?

because they seem incredibly biased towards changes that afect the ships or equipment they use!!!

So stop saying that phoenix doesn't need buffs because it does.


Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm right there with you in thinking that the phoenix could use a little more love... though honestly I'd also say missile travel time is a larger issue than having to have a web on a carrier to deal full damage.

I just also think that people are making silly statements based on not knowing how missile damage is calculated.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#462 - 2013-05-22 07:36:24 UTC
I'd really like to see the kinetic-only damage bonus get changed to omni-damage, because the smaller-scale cap fights where missile travel time becomes relatively unimportant are also the ones where in-combat refitting makes it trivial to harden against incoming kinetic torps.
ThaMa Gebir
Penumbra Institute
#463 - 2013-05-22 07:45:37 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello once again everyone. We've got a small package of tweaks to capital weapons to announce, intended to help bring us a little bit closer to balance between the different dreadnoughts.

For the most part you all know the major balance problems with the class, the relative dominance of the Moros and the fact that the Phoenix has extreme difficulty applying damage to moving targets, even a moving carrier. These changes apply directly to the capital blasters, autocannons and pulse lasers, as well as to the siege modules themselves.

These changes are not expected to bring the class into perfect balance, but it should be a step in the right direction and be something we can build upon as we go forward.

X-L Blasters: -15% tracking, -10km optimal, +10km falloff

X-L Autocannons: -10% tracking

X-L Pulses: +6.666% optimal

Citadel missiles: Remove the explosion velocity penalty from siege modules

Let us know what you think!



I can only hope you are reinstating the drones and bonus on the Moros or you will have finally kicked it to the grave.

The entire point of having the blasters do the range originally was because EVERYTHING else had the range to hit even large towers with the biggest damaging weapons possible on the ships...

Now you are removing that aswell?

Nice move. Next you will be removing the utility high slot from the megathron... oh wait... you did that already....
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2013-05-22 09:19:22 UTC
Because the Moros going slightly into falloff (assuming no TEs or TCs, of course) to shoot a POS ruins it. Yeah, right.

It will still have the highest applied DPS by a large margin, with the Nag catching up somewhere around the 60km mark (i.e way past where anyone cares), and the others never competing.

Best basic DPS from weapons, double DPS bonus, better cap endurance than the Rev, best tank, easier fitting than the Rev...

No, the Moros is going to remain clearly the best Dread. The only question is whether the Nag steps up past the Rev (I think it will, because it'll be easier to fit well, for similar results).
Weasel Juice
Mayhem and Destruction
#465 - 2013-05-22 10:55:02 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Because the Moros going slightly into falloff (assuming no TEs or TCs, of course) to shoot a POS ruins it. Yeah, right.

It will still have the highest applied DPS by a large margin, with the Nag catching up somewhere around the 60km mark (i.e way past where anyone cares), and the others never competing.

Best basic DPS from weapons, double DPS bonus, better cap endurance than the Rev, best tank, easier fitting than the Rev...

No, the Moros is going to remain clearly the best Dread. The only question is whether the Nag steps up past the Rev (I think it will, because it'll be easier to fit well, for similar results).


Neither the Revelation nor the Moros have any fitting problems whatsoever. They are not limited by PG or CPU.

The Revelation will remain to have slightly more tank potential, but that is a rather moot point, since especially in capital warfare DPS is your tank.

However, your point about the Moros is correct. The whole argument about "trouble hitting a POS" is rather ridiculous. Yes, when the nerfs go forth, antimatter probably won't cut it. But guess what, you have a lot of other ammo types that allow you to pump out more DPS at practically *any* range over the Revelation, with superior tracking.

The question should be, at what range should the Revelation become superior in applying DPS over the Moros? Right now it's about 120km. And mind you 130km is about the maximum range where you can put out any reasonable DPS with any dreadnaught. And then consider the range of most dread engagements.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#466 - 2013-05-22 13:18:06 UTC
mynnna wrote:


Except in the formula, (Explosion Velocity)/(Target Velocity) is multiplied by (Sig radius/Explosion radius) and then the whole mess is raised to ln(drf)/(ln5.5), so it's not actually necessary for the missile explosion velocity to be higher than the target's velocity as long as (sig radius/explosion radius) is big enough.


By that notion, it's somehow expected to have a bloomed sig radious at all times... that's not the case especially when taking other ships into account, for example T3s, AFs, and any other ship with no MWD or armor tanked.

One shouldn't require that the target have a bloomed sig radius in order to be effective.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#467 - 2013-05-22 15:46:13 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:
mynnna wrote:


Except in the formula, (Explosion Velocity)/(Target Velocity) is multiplied by (Sig radius/Explosion radius) and then the whole mess is raised to ln(drf)/(ln5.5), so it's not actually necessary for the missile explosion velocity to be higher than the target's velocity as long as (sig radius/explosion radius) is big enough.


By that notion, it's somehow expected to have a bloomed sig radius at all times... that's not the case especially when taking other ships into account, for example T3s, AFs, and any other ship with no MWD or armor tanked.


Well, it depends on your point of view. In general, ships already have sig radii considerably greater than the explosion radii of same-size missiles, so there is a built-in bloom effect. Compare the 1500 m radius of citadel torps with the ~3000 m sig of a capital, or the 94 m and 105 m radii of medium missiles with a Proteus's sig of 168 m or so.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#468 - 2013-05-22 16:46:58 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:

Well, it depends on your point of view. In general, ships already have sig radii considerably greater than the explosion radii of same-size missiles, so there is a built-in bloom effect. Compare the 1500 m radius of citadel torps with the ~3000 m sig of a capital, or the 94 m and 105 m radii of medium missiles with a Proteus's sig of 168 m or so.


For this, then, I would like to see target painters moved to a low slot.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#469 - 2013-05-22 18:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Skia Aumer
Alright, I've built graphs of damage application for new XL guns, which I'd like to present here:

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns.PNG

The lower graph is for large guns, for reference.
They are built for more or less realistic fittings, with 2xTE for autocannons and 2xTC for lasers and blasters.

As you can see from those graphs:
1. Blasters and autocannons have exactly the same range performance. It never happened for subcapital guns and I still dont understand why it is made that way for new XL guns. I think it's a way to homogenization, and it's boring.

2. All three weapons have exactly the same effective range. It means lasers sux, just plain and simple. Blasters and projectiles can compete in different categories, for example: blasters win in DPS and tracking, but ACs win in cap-less functioning and selectable damage. But lasers loose it all - mediocre DPS, poor tracking, eat cap, and cannot switch damage type. Fozzie, do you call it a good balance?

EDIT: The following graph includes skills and short range ammo effects:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns2.PNG
In fact, lasers sux even more.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#470 - 2013-05-22 19:53:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Knight
Skia Aumer wrote:
Alright, I've built graphs of damage application for new XL guns, which I'd like to present here:

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns.PNG

The lower graph is for large guns, for reference.
They are built for more or less realistic fittings, with 2xTE for autocannons and 2xTC for lasers and blasters.

As you can see from those graphs:
1. Blasters and autocannons have exactly the same range performance. It never happened for subcapital guns and I still dont understand why it is made that way for new XL guns. I think it's a way to homogenization, and it's boring.

2. All three weapons have exactly the same effective range. It means lasers sux, just plain and simple. Blasters and projectiles can compete in different categories, for example: blasters win in DPS and tracking, but ACs win in cap-less functioning and selectable damage. But lasers loose it all - mediocre DPS, poor tracking, eat cap, and cannot switch damage type. Fozzie, do you call it a good balance?

EDIT: The following graph includes skills and short range ammo effects:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns2.PNG
In fact, lasers sux even more.


where are the missiles?
oh wait nobody uses those ,especially after naglfar overboost
gj ccp
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun
REUNI0N
Against ALL Authorities
#471 - 2013-05-22 20:54:34 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Alright, I've built graphs of damage application for new XL guns, which I'd like to present here:

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns.PNG

The lower graph is for large guns, for reference.
They are built for more or less realistic fittings, with 2xTE for autocannons and 2xTC for lasers and blasters.

As you can see from those graphs:
1. Blasters and autocannons have exactly the same range performance. It never happened for subcapital guns and I still dont understand why it is made that way for new XL guns. I think it's a way to homogenization, and it's boring.

2. All three weapons have exactly the same effective range. It means lasers sux, just plain and simple. Blasters and projectiles can compete in different categories, for example: blasters win in DPS and tracking, but ACs win in cap-less functioning and selectable damage. But lasers loose it all - mediocre DPS, poor tracking, eat cap, and cannot switch damage type. Fozzie, do you call it a good balance?

EDIT: The following graph includes skills and short range ammo effects:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns2.PNG
In fact, lasers sux even more.


Is that Odyssey TE or the current ones?
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#472 - 2013-05-22 22:10:54 UTC
Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
Because the Moros going slightly into falloff (assuming no TEs or TCs, of course) to shoot a POS ruins it. Yeah, right.

It will still have the highest applied DPS by a large margin, with the Nag catching up somewhere around the 60km mark (i.e way past where anyone cares), and the others never competing.

Best basic DPS from weapons, double DPS bonus, better cap endurance than the Rev, best tank, easier fitting than the Rev...

No, the Moros is going to remain clearly the best Dread. The only question is whether the Nag steps up past the Rev (I think it will, because it'll be easier to fit well, for similar results).



Hey now, the Revelation also catches up in an area around 100km (Blasters vs Pulse, ofc). Beaten out by 2 other dreads in small chunks of range.

The Moros is ruined.


RUINED1111

Big smile

"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
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#473 - 2013-05-23 06:40:31 UTC
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Alright, I've built graphs of damage application for new XL guns, which I'd like to present here:

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns.PNG

The lower graph is for large guns, for reference.
They are built for more or less realistic fittings, with 2xTE for autocannons and 2xTC for lasers and blasters.

As you can see from those graphs:
1. Blasters and autocannons have exactly the same range performance. It never happened for subcapital guns and I still dont understand why it is made that way for new XL guns. I think it's a way to homogenization, and it's boring.

2. All three weapons have exactly the same effective range. It means lasers sux, just plain and simple. Blasters and projectiles can compete in different categories, for example: blasters win in DPS and tracking, but ACs win in cap-less functioning and selectable damage. But lasers loose it all - mediocre DPS, poor tracking, eat cap, and cannot switch damage type. Fozzie, do you call it a good balance?

EDIT: The following graph includes skills and short range ammo effects:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1305/guns2.PNG
In fact, lasers sux even more.


Is that Odyssey TE or the current ones?

I used new rebalanced TEs. With 10%/20% bonus.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#474 - 2013-05-23 06:47:32 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
where are the missiles?
oh wait nobody uses those ,especially after naglfar overboost
gj ccp

In my opinion, capital missiles should have splash damage. Otherwise, they'll remain useless. But just imagine - the whole fleet of slowcats is muted with only one Phoenix. Goons in panic!
Baracuda
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#475 - 2013-05-23 09:03:20 UTC
Thx for nerfing Titans, again.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2013-05-23 10:53:39 UTC
Still think CCP need to rolefy a bit the dreads. For example. Increase lasers damage but reduce their tracking. They becoem the worse battleship blappers but good against capitals.


And really I still think the Siege module could be changed to nonly disable warp and jump and allow sub light speed. Would at least make the combat more interestign and make the range balancing easier for the devs.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#477 - 2013-05-23 11:50:29 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
And really I still think the Siege module could be changed to nonly disable warp and jump and allow sub light speed. Would at least make the combat more interestign and make the range balancing easier for the devs.

Letting them propel themselves may be too much, but at least bumping should be allowed.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#478 - 2013-05-23 11:54:59 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:

where are the missiles?


Considering missiles don't lose damage over distance, it wouldn't really be applicable to the graph.

Quote:

oh wait nobody uses those ,especially after naglfar overboost
gj ccp


Not "overboost" but quite a boost.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#479 - 2013-05-23 15:54:46 UTC
ThaMa Gebir wrote:
I can only hope you are reinstating the drones and bonus on the Moros or you will have finally kicked it to the grave.

The entire point of having the blasters do the range originally was because EVERYTHING else had the range to hit even large towers with the biggest damaging weapons possible on the ships...

Now you are removing that aswell?

Nice move. Next you will be removing the utility high slot from the megathron... oh wait... you did that already....
PSA: There are other ammo types besides Antimatter! *blows mind*

* * * EXTRA! EXTRA! Coming Summer 2003 in Eve Online: Second Genesis--Ammo Types! No longer will you be forced to fire only Antimatter at -50% optimal range! New ammo types offer various ranges, damage profiles, bonuses to optimal, falloff or cap use! This can all be yours NOW!

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#480 - 2013-05-23 16:12:55 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
PSA: There are other ammo types besides Antimatter! *blows mind*

* * * EXTRA! EXTRA! Coming Summer 2003 in Eve Online: Second Genesis--Ammo Types! No longer will you be forced to fire only Antimatter at -50% optimal range! New ammo types offer various ranges, damage profiles, bonuses to optimal, falloff or cap use! This can all be yours NOW!


Pah, sounds deeply implausible. Next you'll be telling me that the Moros's falloff is being increased such that it does more damage at range without even having to use these magical "different ammo types". X