These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Hybrid Turrets

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dare Devel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#81 - 2011-11-05 17:32:20 UTC
Joelleaveek wrote:
The hybrid changes are ok. Gallente ships need to be faster though. Fastest in the game. Otherwise you still wont be able to catch your target.


Care explaining what aspect of the hybrid changes are ok ??? Ugh
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#82 - 2011-11-05 17:47:00 UTC
Hi CCP Tallest,

I've been thinking about my previous suggestion about giving the Rokh and Eagle more DPS. While it still might be worth giving the Eagle another high slot, I think a damage bonus is actually a mistake for Caldari ships.

To fix Hybrid for Caldari and yet, keep them unique in the EvE universe here are my suggestions:


  1. Caldari Hybrid ships should be about being good at Medium to Long range, so retain the 10% range per level bonus.
  2. Caldari should remain slow.
  3. But to make them 'Unique' in EvE and easily resolve their readily apparent weakness against other races comparable ships, the fix is to give them more tank and better resistance.
  4. So the existing 5% resistance buff becomes 7.5 and shield HP is increased.


tl;dr - Caldari Hybrid should be about lower DPS but be about surviving longer once the faster races catch up and close range to make the fight 'fair' and balance Caldari Hybrid ships in EvE.

Example: Rokh vs Abaddon

At present, the Caldari buffer tank seems strong, but is comparatively weak. The Amarr Abaddon is the Armor version of the Rokh, with a 5% armor resitance bonus like the Rokh has a 5% resistance shield bonus.

But with a (very) large buffer tank, the numbers show the weakness of Caldari. These figures are without command ship gang links etc, which only serve to increase the differences between the races. I have tried to match the tank like for like so, 3 armor 1600 plates, for 3 large shield extenders etc.

Rokh: 170,923 EHP, average of 75% resistances, signature 648, 412 dps with blasters and null ammo
Abbadon: 209,682 EHP, average of 80% resistances, signature 470, 442 dps with pulses, but 55km range!

The Rokh has 4 power diagnostics in the low slots, without these - and frankly you wouldn't want to fit them normally - the EHP drops to just 147,478. The Abaddon also has plenty of fitting overhead, with three mid slots left for cap boosting and other goodies.

If the tanking numbers were far higher, these issues would be understandable, but it's tank is inferior in every way. There are also no implant set that increase shield tanking numbers, only a set to reduce signature size, so slave set also = win.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Dare Devel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#83 - 2011-11-05 18:05:50 UTC
Reduced Capacitor usage:
• All hybrid turrets: -30% capacitor use

Currently in Live a Neutron Blaster Canon II with CN Animatar uses 2.3 cap 18.2 activation/7.87 ROF
According to the reduction that is going to use per turret @1.62 cap 12.74 activation/ 7.87 ROF

Since that scales with guns we will save x(Fitted Turret) * 0.68 cap /second.

LOL
Mr Painless
Perkone
Caldari State
#84 - 2011-11-05 18:40:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Painless
My 2 cents on the subject:

As I see it the main problem with hybrids is that they are inferior to other turret systems (and missiles), but most attempts to buff them basically turns them into projectiles or lasers, thus making them lose their uniqueness.

Also, lore-wise, railguns are (shield tanked) Caldari racial weapon, which are at war with (armor tanked) Gallente, story is the same for blasters, only vice-versa.

My suggestion: keep hybrids as they are, or maybe tweak them a little, keeping most of their basic strengths and weaknesses as they are. But, make railguns do significantly more damage to armor part of ship's tank by applying say, 30% reduction in armor resists against them (the 30% is a complete wild guess and is certainly subject to change), and do the same to blasters against shields.

This will make hybrids unique. Their use will be situational - they will be mostly sub-par when fighting against "wrong" type of tank, but they will shine against "right" type of tank. Think for example, a blaster Brutix that will be able to **** a Drake, but still lack in performance against a Harbinger or plated Cane. Or maybe a rail Rokh, which could shine against armor tanked snipe battleships, but still be quite sucky against shield tankers.

Just a thought...
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#85 - 2011-11-05 19:12:34 UTC
Everything I wrote about myself was a reply to someone trying to patronize or ridicule me.
I do agree blasters need a buff and railguns need a miracle. But we must be carefull not making blaster boats invincible even if it has taken like forever for CCP to realize something was out of order.
See you on the test server :-)
Hentes Zsemle
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2011-11-05 19:26:39 UTC
give 50% more damage to blasters, further 20% damage to rails
hybrids fixed
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2011-11-05 19:31:34 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
I think Pinky Denmark's point is that we don't need to over boost hybrids when the reality is the ships themselves are broken. It was the same deal with minmatar, decent enough line up with poor BS's and Caps... Boosted weapons and now we have Abaddons with 1400mm's as the top fleet ship.

Beyond a few changes (ammo, blaster tracking) I feel it's time to move on and focus on specific ships. I mean, most of the comments have been that Gallente need more speed, which has very little to do with the weapons themselves.

Would blasters be broken with 10% more damage and even more tracking? No, but I fear there will be several ships that will be no better after this change and that's the problem.


Hybrid balancing is the subject at hand. Does Tallest have the authority to balance ship hulls? Thats why I have been concentrating on Hybrids. One part of the problem at a time and all that.

Yes, Blaster boats need more speed. Consider this for a moment: What if blaster boats accelerated to their top speed very quickly. A short dash like a cheetah catching its prey. Rather than giving them a boost to top end speed... give them a distinct advantage to closing that 20-40km distance.

10 percent buff to damage is really conservative. A short speed burst with at least a 30 percent DPS buff would help a great deal.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2011-11-05 21:03:42 UTC
Nemesor wrote:
Pattern Clarc wrote:
I think Pinky Denmark's point is that we don't need to over boost hybrids when the reality is the ships themselves are broken. It was the same deal with minmatar, decent enough line up with poor BS's and Caps... Boosted weapons and now we have Abaddons with 1400mm's as the top fleet ship.

Beyond a few changes (ammo, blaster tracking) I feel it's time to move on and focus on specific ships. I mean, most of the comments have been that Gallente need more speed, which has very little to do with the weapons themselves.

Would blasters be broken with 10% more damage and even more tracking? No, but I fear there will be several ships that will be no better after this change and that's the problem.


Hybrid balancing is the subject at hand. Does Tallest have the authority to balance ship hulls? Thats why I have been concentrating on Hybrids. One part of the problem at a time and all that.

Yes, Blaster boats need more speed. Consider this for a moment: What if blaster boats accelerated to their top speed very quickly. A short dash like a cheetah catching its prey. Rather than giving them a boost to top end speed... give them a distinct advantage to closing that 20-40km distance.

10 percent buff to damage is really conservative. A short speed burst with at least a 30 percent DPS buff would help a great deal.


Well he must have some ability to change hulls as he has already applied a whopping 10 m/s bonus to speed and a 5% (I think it was 5 or something similarly insignificant) to the Gallente boats and some Caldari ships. I was almost able to detect this massive fix on Sisi. I think it subtracted about .4 sec from my align time. Additionally, he did some pretty major changes to the destroyers if you've read the post. They are now OMG ass kicking. Though again, the thrasher will absolutely rock. I went head to head last night with one on Sisi in an Enyo and got just owned in a very point blank fight. His AC's absolutely ate through me. Before I would have probably won that fight.
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#89 - 2011-11-05 23:56:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus Arcova
I just compared a Neutron-fit Megathron to a Mega Pulse-fit Armageddon on PyFA, with the new hybrid and ship stats. Note that these stats are the ones taken from the Chaos build leak, and so are the same as has already been announced by CCP. (hybrid changes and speed buff)

Both fits are armour buffered, and I've given them two damage mods each. Both ships have seven turret slots, fitted with each race's highest tier of short-range weapon system (Neutrons and Mega Pulse). Both ships have 125m3 of dronebay and bandwidth.

Armageddon EHP is 120. Megathron is 121.
Armageddon speed is 116/792(MWD). Mega is 127/900.
Armageddon's turret DPS with IN Multi is 760 with 15km optimal and 10km falloff. Megathron turret DPS with FN AM is 832 with 4.5km optimal and 12.5km falloff.

So, after factoring in a full flight of Ogre IIs for both ships, the Megathron gets a whole 6.6% more DPS than the Armageddon, with 13.6% more MWD speed, and an extra mid slot to play with (but very tight CPU).

The price of that 6.6% better damage output is having less than a third of the optimal range.

Using long-range ammo (Null and Scorch), the raw damage difference is just as negligible. But the range difference increases yet further, with Scorch-loaded Pulses outdamaging Null-loaded Neutrons for 3/4 of their optimal range.

Gallente ships are supposed to be designed around very close range, very high damage blaster combat and drones. The Megathron is pretty much the embodiment of that philosophy. And yet, in the Armaggeddon we have a ship that does equivalent damage both inside and outside blaster ranges, can apply the same damage as the Megathron at three to four times the range, has an identical drone bay and bandwidth, has the same tank (more of which is in armour, compared to the Megathron's redundant hitpoints in shield and hull), and that only closts 3/4 of the higher tier, supposedly superior Megathron.

Considering the similarities of the hulls, it's obvious that there are serious problems with the hybrids themselves, as well as with Gallente ships. Blasters are supposed to have vastly greater damage potential than other weapon systems, but even in their sweet spot, the difference is insignificant.

Unless CCP massively buffs blaster (and rail) damage beyond what they have done already, changing Gallente ship stats and bonuses alone won't fix the problem.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#90 - 2011-11-06 00:19:24 UTC
i have been playing around with the kronos with 425II and rails and from the talos to this there is a big difference... rails desperatly need more tracking... i have maraders lev iv so 30% would be more then enough... among that 5% more damage and 15% faster rate of fire would make them pretty much awesome... but you would also have to reduce cap useage to compensate...

but rails are still useless on the rokh low dps does not make up with range that cant be used...
caldari need a rate of fire bonus...

i was also playing around with the talos with 3 mag stabs 2 te II and 8 nuetrons II with null... shoots out to 40km... not bad at all... (personally a boost to null falloff would suffice for me)

of coarse all gallente ships need a speed boost but not 10m/s per sec increase more like 10% increase...

yes to the ammo changes...
make them split damage like has been proposed... but also add a tracking bonus like you did to projectiles...

i still feel that blasters need more sting to them 10% more dps with 50% more alpha would be the trick... plus a rof reduction of 30% would also help with cap... though blasters need soemthing to make up for the loss of sig radius bloom caused by an active mwd... either reduce the blasters sig resolution or increase thier tracking by atleast another 20%...

plus please unbork drone ships...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Pyre leFay
Doomheim
#91 - 2011-11-06 01:55:29 UTC
Main problem is not really the fault of the ships or the weapons but of the environment they are in and the current rules there in.

Blasters are like a shotgun. Nothing is wrong with the weapon system, its just that there is zero cover in space.
You need to be fast or outlast and wear out your target. Yet to do anything not involving speed, you need speed. Neuts, webs, scrams or a massive tank, yet all other weapons systems can operate outside of these utilities and widdle you down.
It is dependent on counterparts to intervene and not a solo system at all.

Rails suffer from the reverse. in grid probe and everything is on top of them.
Party Lips
Calamitous-Intent
#92 - 2011-11-06 04:25:09 UTC
yup i think they got the hint that they didn't buff the hybrids enough. waiting for a patch or news on how they plan to fix em.
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
#93 - 2011-11-06 06:29:20 UTC
My input:

The peak DPS of blasters needs to be increased much more with respect to the current changes. The current peak DPS doesn't make up for the lack of range of blasters when compared to ACs and Pulses. A 50-60% increase would get you in the ballpark. Leave fitting, ship bonuses and tracking alone. Reduce the ROF slightly, increase the alpha for a net result of 50%+ increase in DPS.

A blaster ship should be THE scariest thing on the battlefield at close range.

A lot of changes over the years have marginalized blasters: increased static EHP of ships, increased peak active tanking, defensive rigs far outweighing the effectiveness of offensive rigs, reduction in T2 ammo peak DPS. The list goes on and on. Blasters need to do BIG damage at close range. All the other weapon systems have their unique advantages and abilities. The only way to fix the problem is to do something radical and extreme. Otherwise you're just going to end up with oatmeal.

Intelligence shouldn't be free.   Mining, reloaded.   ADDICTED.

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#94 - 2011-11-06 07:13:14 UTC
I'm still in agreeance with the idea that blasters need the close range face melt role more defined. They need more damage, period. Especially in Cruiser and BS classes.
Bhaal Chinnian
#95 - 2011-11-06 07:46:48 UTC
Nemesor wrote:
A massive boost to their effectiveness will not make them the most powerful thing in EVE. A massive boost to blasters will make them the most powerful thing in EVE from ranges of less than 10km or so. That is as it should be. Blasters are supposed to dominate up close.
If you defecate yourself a little when a Blaster Megathron comes out of warp on top of your Abbadon, then Blasters are exactly where they need to be. Just as a Megathron pilot curses when that same Abbadon is 30km away.
EVE isn't about making all things the same. Its about making everything shine at the right time and under the right circumstance.
Since 2005, CCP has slowly nerfed and buffed their way into a corner. If they boost Blaster range then Blasters become lasers. If they boost Blaster damage then people like you will complain about them being OP. If they nerf anything right now people will justifiably hang the DEVs from the nearest tree.

Boosting the damage is the best course of action given the circumstances.


THIS!


  1. CCP Please Increase the damage for Blasters.....pretty please?
  2. CCP Please give Gallente cruisers and above a 'reasonable' straightline speedboost(not agility).
  3. CCP Please give the Myrmidon,Eos, and especially the Proteus,125 drone bandwidth.
  4. CCP Please give the Gallente a little love.


'A Good Plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed next week'-- George Patton
Dare Devel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#96 - 2011-11-06 07:59:58 UTC
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:

A blaster ship should be THE scariest thing on the battlefield at close range.
.


That should be the end result of this hybrid balance. "Up Close and Personal" or decent damage output from long range.

Another ship should not want to fight at those ranges with a blaster boat if it knows what it is going to get at that close range.
Or a long range Rail boat finds a place in FCs recommended list or becomes a Missioner's choice again.

A blaster boat once commits to a fight either explodes or create explosions. A decent rail boat at long ranges give those
Hybrid trained pilots an opportunity to get into a long range fleet alongside Maelstroms or Apocs

Current hybrid changes are
-30% Cap consumption
+20% tracking on turrets
-1 to 5 cpu depending in gun size
-12% Power Grid

My proposal is as follows(exclude Capital) ...
(- means reduction, + means addition, * means no change)
(Also you may not want to apply the above -30% Cap consumption or +20% tracking on turrets)
-15% Power grid requirement on Hybrid guns
-10% CPU requirement on Hybrid Guns
+7.5% tracking bonus on Antimatar ammo 20% on Iron Ammo (So scale it up from 7.5 to 20 between the ammo accordingly)
+50% increase to Damage Mod to Hybrid Turrets
+7.5% Cap recharge rate on Antimater to 15% in Iron Charge
*No Changes to range

Reasons for such changes...
-15% Power grid requirement on Hybrid guns
-10% CPU requirement on Hybrid Guns
Allow us to fit T2 MWD, with T2 Tank mods and T2 tackle. This is much needed for Blaster as well as Rail boats.

+7.5% tracking bonus on Antimatar ammo 20% on Iron Ammo (So scale it up from 7.5 to 20 between the ammo accordingly)
This will scale properly with number of turrets. We can free up one slot for fitting a tackle mod which is much needed for a
blaster boat or a sensor mod for rail boat.

+50% increase to Damage Mod to Hybrid Turrets
This will give much needed DPS increase to Rail. They will get to 800+ dps bracket with max damage ammo.
Blaster will reach about 1100 dps at close range.

+7.5% Cap recharge rate on Antimater to 15% in Iron Charge
We do not have to fit 3 CCC rigs along with 3 cap recharge mods to regen enough cap to counter cap consumption for
chasing around with prop mod on, opponent Neuting, tackle mods, tank and Guns.

The above are absolute necessity.

We have rallied with CCP for Hybrid balancing for too long a period (years). We have no juice left in us now to carry on further. This is our moment when CCP announced Hybrid Balancing. It is like seeing light at the end of the tunnel. If you take that away from us I will forget hybrid forever and move to Minmatar. I have only invested my time on the guns about 4 mill SP so will stand to lose about 3 months of training time. I will have to suck it up.

Have a nice day all.
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
#97 - 2011-11-06 08:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Emily Poast
Well, IMHO Mariner6, Nemesor, and Dare Devel had all said it pretty well. So maybe i want to say it a little differently and then do a TLDR.

Basically, in 'short range' engagements ( and short range is relative) all races have two tanks. Their traditional racial tank (armor or shield) and something I will call role tank. Because of the role ranges of lasors, projectiles and missles are so long in 'short range' they get the role GTFO tank. I.e. They can disengage if necessary and cease the incoming damage.

On the othrr side of the coin, us space frenchies have to purposelly put ourselves into web and scram and neut range. Its very sticky in there, and not a nice place to be. There is absolutely no chance to use the role GTFO tank of the other races. So as our traditional armor tank is getting chipped away, we have to rely on our Role tank: murderous-in-yo-face-blaster-WTFPWN-obliteration. Once we commit, our best defense is a good offense. Kill them before they kill us. Murder. And it has to be a significant increase in damage, because by the time we are in range, we are already taking damage and we have a lot of ground to make up. Murderous close in damage is the only way a gallente escapes with his ship instead of his pod.

So, to sum up the other folks ideas:

Blasters:
Murderous damage and tracking increases. 40-50%ish each. Facemelting.
Speed. Perhaps just fastest (by a lot) accellaration, but not max top speed.

Rails: I think everyone agrees they need more tracking and increased damage. You could even justify it by reducing their max base range. (the extra range is mostly wasted anyway). A rail Brutix Or Diemost or even Celestis should be able to put enough damage downrange quick enough to mean business. Personally, I dont think a big alpha is needed -that role is taken. Just give us a ROF increase and cap reduction.

And just my own personal and selfish opinion: Gallente are armor tankers. ACTIVE tanks too. It might need tweaking to make it better, but it can be fixed. Just please, whatever you do, dont change us to shield tankers. Please?
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2011-11-06 09:59:02 UTC
One other idea is to take away falloff range completely, and re-focus them with this in mind.

Increase optimal range a bit, so it's hit or miss as far as range goes. Then Give them another 30-40% increase in damage. don't increase tracking too much you don't want to overpower them.

Maybe add some kind of DoT effect so they burn through shields even if you miss a shot.

or make it so each shot nuets some cap.'

Anything to make them so different they don't have to compete with auto cannons, they just ARE different.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#99 - 2011-11-06 10:08:18 UTC
Dare Devel wrote:
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:

A blaster ship should be THE scariest thing on the battlefield at close range.
.



+7.5% tracking bonus on Antimatar ammo 20% on Iron Ammo (So scale it up from 7.5 to 20 between the ammo accordingly)
This will scale properly with number of turrets. We can free up one slot for fitting a tackle mod which is much needed for a
blaster boat or a sensor mod for rail boat.




I think you have this backwards. You're just thinking of blasters as being like all the other weapons, but their very short range makes them different. The tracking is more of an issue at CLOSER ranges so any tracking bonus should be LARGER for SHORTER range ammo. So with your numbers it should be 20% on antimatter and 7.5% on iron, but even then i think the antimatter bonus will prove to be too small for medium and large rails. Why do you feel the need to treat the small blasters, which don't have too much problem, the same as the other sizes which have an ever increasing problem? I'd say 30-40 on large, 25-30% on mediums, 10-15% on smalls for the antimatter scaling down to the 7.5-10% level for iron (and include this level of bonus in the t2 ammo too)
Dare Devel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#100 - 2011-11-06 10:22:41 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
Dare Devel wrote:
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:

A blaster ship should be THE scariest thing on the battlefield at close range.
.



+7.5% tracking bonus on Antimatar ammo 20% on Iron Ammo (So scale it up from 7.5 to 20 between the ammo accordingly)
This will scale properly with number of turrets. We can free up one slot for fitting a tackle mod which is much needed for a
blaster boat or a sensor mod for rail boat.




I think you have this backwards. You're just thinking of blasters as being like all the other weapons, but their very short range makes them different. The tracking is more of an issue at CLOSER ranges so any tracking bonus should be LARGER for SHORTER range ammo. So with your numbers it should be 20% on antimatter and 7.5% on iron, but even then i think the antimatter bonus will prove to be too small for medium and large rails. Why do you feel the need to treat the small blasters, which don't have too much problem, the same as the other sizes which have an ever increasing problem? I'd say 30-40 on large, 25-30% on mediums, 10-15% on smalls for the antimatter scaling down to the 7.5-10% level for iron (and include this level of bonus in the t2 ammo too)


Think what happenes when a opponent ship is at closer range...
You tackle it with web scram. So higher tracking is useless. But when they are kiting you and you swap to a long range ammo (Your long range is really 25-30km) you need more tracking then.

Does that make sense?