These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Tier3 Battlecruisers

First post
Author
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#241 - 2011-11-07 20:05:13 UTC
Also I thought I'd mention that the Oracle and Tornado seem pretty spot-on in terms of ship handling / flying experience-- amazing offensive capabilities, easily wrecked if pilot error occurs. Brilliant. The only thing I wonder about is whether or not they'll be too cheap, since they fly like they cost a lot more than ~45m :3
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2011-11-07 20:12:55 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TALOS

  • Mobility and armor tanking conflicts with each other: no surprise here, fitting plates into your Gallente armor oriented slot layout decreases its mobility, which is a direct contradiction with how blasters are supposed to work. This leaves little to no choice but to fit shield extenders on Gallente ships (I'm looking at you, Mr. Brutix and Hyperion X) to keep some mobility and actually try to apply the blaster damage output. Also let's not forget Minmatar ships are usually faster than Gallente by design, while Gallente traditionally use the shortest weapon system available.


  • Don't we need to have a look at shield extenders/armor plates as well? If we nerf them, are we confident with possible changes to passive tanking? Can't we make active tanking more useful on PvP setups, so that passive tanking is less used for blaster platforms and more on Amarr platforms, designed to be more static than Gallente? Doesn't that require looking into NOS/Neuts as well? How about Cap boosters? Overheating?

  • You probably do not want this thread descending into Hybrid balancing but have you considered changing the above.

    Assuming given the repair bonuses that Gallente are a Primarily active tanking race then if how would people feel about changing shield and armour to active and passive rig sets.

    Passive - decrease speed
    All armour and shield extension/resistance rigs

    Active - increase sig radius
    All armour and shield rigs affecting active tanking

    This may help active armour compete with buffer with the current speed changes they would also be faster than active tanked Amarr ships.
    Cailais
    The Red Pill Taker Group
    #243 - 2011-11-07 20:16:50 UTC
    Frothgar wrote:
    Daedalus Arcova wrote:
    Frothgar wrote:
    1600 Rolled Tungstun has both the Highest HP addition in addition to the lowest (non-faction/storyline) mass addition. This of course makes it so there is only one choice when it comes to fitting plates.

    Perhaps this needs to change.


    This is a very good point. At present, the only downside to using Rolled Tungsten over lower meta-level plates is only 1 or 2 points of CPU. It's almost always a no-brainer. T2 plates are also completely pointless because of this mechanic.

    Perhaps another way of adding some helpful complexity to choosing plates would be more variation in the CPU and/or PG need of the various grades of plates.



    Perhaps in addition to mass/inertia variations within plates, we could have them have variations in CPU and powergrid.

    eg light light plates have lower PG usage, higher CPU, while heavy well fortified ones are lower CPU and higher PG usage. This would be able to adress concerns of Minnie ships doing Nanofiber plates exclusively to have LOLOL 5 E-war slots.

    At the same time, at one point recently on test, Trimarks reduced shields, and extenders reduced armor. Perhaps test this with polycarbons also reducing hull?

    I think there are ways this can be done that aren't a straight "Nerf ACs, Boost Blasters!!!" (Which might be another topic all together)

    I'd like to see armor tanking in general get a stern looking at to promote more varying play styles across the spectrum.


    What if certain plates boosted HP regen from armour reps?

    C.
    tika te
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #244 - 2011-11-07 20:25:56 UTC  |  Edited by: tika te
    there is only one true fix for the blasterboat problem - you may like it or not, but make those blasterboats the fastest ships in game. point.

    a bit less radical solution: give blasterboats a massive afterburner speed bonus so their sig radius is not so big while closing the gap to a target...or alternatively: massive mwd speed boost so they can close in the speed much much faster than on standard mwd fit..

    plates are plates and will never make up for terrible blaster range unles fitting them miracousely boosts your speed... ;-p
    Phantomania
    Lonely Trek
    #245 - 2011-11-07 20:27:01 UTC
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    Also I thought I'd mention that the Oracle and Tornado seem pretty spot-on in terms of ship handling / flying experience-- amazing offensive capabilities, easily wrecked if pilot error occurs. Brilliant. The only thing I wonder about is whether or not they'll be too cheap, since they fly like they cost a lot more than ~45m :3




    "easily wrecked if pilot error occurs" any ship is easily wrecked if pilot error occurs, they are not "spot-on" for the role intended!
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #246 - 2011-11-07 20:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
    Phantomania wrote:
    Ganthrithor wrote:
    Also I thought I'd mention that the Oracle and Tornado seem pretty spot-on in terms of ship handling / flying experience-- amazing offensive capabilities, easily wrecked if pilot error occurs. Brilliant. The only thing I wonder about is whether or not they'll be too cheap, since they fly like they cost a lot more than ~45m :3




    "easily wrecked if pilot error occurs" any ship is easily wrecked if pilot error occurs, they are not "spot-on" for the role intended!


    Wow, if you're dumb you can die in any ship? Really? Thanks for the heads up!

    Seriously though, the idea for the tier 3 BCs is that they're fast and dish out grape hand over fist when aimed at cruisers and bigger but are fragile and struggle to kill frigs/inties (no drones, large-gun tracking) in exchange. From the few hours I spent flying Torndados/Oracles/Taloses last night I pretty much found this to be the case (they die *fast* if you get into trouble, they dish out a lot of DPS if you position yourself at your ideal range to target, and they (well not the Talos, but the other two) can only kill really small ships if the opposing pilot is terrible (burns at you from range with no transversal).

    The not-Taloses were really fun to fly and performed well without feeling like solo-pwnmobiles. The Talos hull handles ~*just right*~ but it's bad slot layout and gimpy weapons make it useless as a blaster platform.
    Miriiah
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #247 - 2011-11-07 20:40:27 UTC
    Fix the Rokh and Raven (Or better yet, just fix torps instead of raven..) not make the Naga SUCK because those ships suck. please.
    Bomberlocks
    Bombercorp
    #248 - 2011-11-07 20:46:26 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    TALOS

    General efficiency: we do realize it suffers from some problems next to the other hulls. Unfortunately, as some of you pointed it, the real issue here comes from blasters, and how they compete against similarly close ranged weapons like autocannons and pulse lasers. Thus, this is little more that can be done by tweaking the hull itself, since the problems mainly come from:


    • Damage projection: blasters have issues projecting damage, especially considering Tech2 ammunition like Scorch and Barrage, which greatly empowers pulse lasers and autocannons and leave hybrids far behind for little increased damage to compensate. The issue is also widened because blasters benefit less from tracking enhancers and falloff related bonuses than their Minmatar close weapon counterpart.

    • Mobility and armor tanking conflicts with each other: no surprise here, fitting plates into your Gallente armor oriented slot layout decreases its mobility, which is a direct contradiction with how blasters are supposed to work. This leaves little to no choice but to fit shield extenders on Gallente ships (I'm looking at you, Mr. Brutix and Hyperion X) to keep some mobility and actually try to apply the blaster damage output. Also let's not forget Minmatar ships are usually faster than Gallente by design, while Gallente traditionally use the shortest weapon system available.

    • Lack of usefulness in gang/fleet engagements: thus, because of blaster low damage projection and Gallente poor mobility when armor tanked, blaster ships are found lacking in gang warfare, as either your target or yourself are long dead before you can reach it. Besides, having blaster ships moving all around the battlefield to engage its target leads to coordination issues with the rest of the fleet, especially if logistics are implied.


    So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves.


    For instance, let us give you a quick insight of the indirect problems we have to face regarding blaster balancing:


    • Do we want to nerf Barrage and Scorch? If yes, by how? Wouldn't that kill their usefulness as a whole? If no, can we add even more falloff to blasters, knowing it may be over-inflating the balance of power again?
    • Don't we need to have a look at shield extenders/armor plates as well? If we nerf them, are we confident with possible changes to passive tanking? Can't we make active tanking more useful on PvP setups, so that passive tanking is less used for blaster platforms and more on Amarr platforms, designed to be more static than Gallente? Doesn't that require looking into NOS/Neuts as well? How about Cap boosters? Overheating?
    • Can we make Gallente ships faster than Minmatar knowing they also use railguns? Wouldn't that be defeating the original design goals for Minmatar ships?


    Turning the Talos into a drone oriented ship: this ship is not supposed to be a drone boat, as it would allow it to hit smaller targets far too easily. We will maybe consider reintroducing its 25m3 dronebay if it is found really underperforming, but this is really unlikely for the moment

    The problems of the Talos, are, are you say, closely tied to the problems of blaster boats in general. Unless radical changes are made to fleet mechanics, active tanking will always be inferior to passive tanking. Blasters contradict the armour tanks of blaster boats.

    Therefore:

    I suggest you remove the speed penalty of armour rigs. Replace it with an agility penalty. This should give a decent bonus to speed for active armour tankers.

    I suggest you give blaster boats an inherent bonus to remote repping (RR), either directly (but you'll have to add high slots to the Brutix and co) or via a bonus to armour repping drones.

    I suggest you give blasters a flat 20% increase to range (10% each for optimal and falloff). This will make blasters more competitive combined with the other improvements that they are receiving.

    I suggest you strongly consider dropping either rails or missiles from the Naga and giving it a damage bonus instead. Simply adding cruise missiles will not do much for the ship as cruise missiles, like torpedos, have long flight times and it is far too easy to avoid them.

    Tiers BCs in general:

    They are too fast. They should be faster than BS but slower than BC.

    Their range will make whole groups of other ships obsolete.
    Who would fly alpha BS if the Tornado can outrange them all?
    Who would fly Zealots if an Oracle has far greater range and just as much mobility at a lower cost?
    Who would fly Vagabonds if the Tornado can outrange it at similar speeds and lower cost with much higher dps?
    Who would fly a cruiser if any of these ships can drop a turret for a medium neut and still do incredibly high dps?
    How will any ship survive a gatecamp if they can be alpha'd by the Talos, Oracle or Tornado?
    What is the point of a Munnin if the Tornado can do what it does with much higher alpha and range, the same mobility and lower cost?
    What is the pont of the Ferox, Eagle and Rokh if the Naga can outrange them all and if even the Talos can do more damge at the same ranges they do?

    The tier3 BCs are seriously unbalanced. The only isk/effort counter are the new destroyers which are in turn seriously overpowered.

    Stop, and think very hard about this before you introduce these changes.
    Gypsio III
    Questionable Ethics.
    Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
    #249 - 2011-11-07 20:49:57 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:


    stuff


    It's good to see you discuss the problems. Some comments...

    Damage projection. If ACs and Pulse benefit too much more than blasters from TEs, cut the TE falloff bonus to 15%.

    Lack of blaster usefulness in fleet environments. People shouldn't be using blasters here, they should be using rails.

    Giving more range and/or falloff to blasters, either innately or via Null, just homogenises the weapon systems. For Scorch and Barrage, if you don't want to alter their damage-projection abilities but still think they're a bit too good, you might consider cutting their tracking, reducing their power close up (blasters' realm) and against small stuff, while leaving them basically unchanged against same-size targets at range.

    Making Gallente faster than Minmatar, then running into the railgun kiting problem. Er, this problem already exists in the form of artillery. If you still don't like kiting Gallente rail fits, then consider restricting the Gallente bonus to blasters, or to have a mass-addition or velocity-subtraction factor associated with railguns (tricky to balance though).

    Naga. Worrying about applying missile damage to small stuff has the fundamental problem of missile damage application mechanics. The missile damage formula puts a hard [target sig]/[missile explosion radius] limit on missile damage, while the turret equivalent, acting as a modifier to tracking, can be negated via range and careful piloting. So it's much easier for the AC Tornado and MF Oracle to apply "full" damage to battlecruisers.

    In any case, if the Naga is going to be relatively poor against small stuff, then it should be relatively good and fat stuff. But it isn't - it's got the lowest DPS I think, and no real range advantage over Pulse Oracle and AC Tornado. The rail version remains unattractive while there is the 150 km hard limit on useful sniping, thanks to instant probing and on-grid warping, as it lacks damage below 150 km. For this reason, criticising the "excessive range" of Cruise is absurd.

    People have criticised the split bonuses, but you don't balance bonuses, you balance ships. It's quite possible to give the hull advantages to make up for the split bonus. An extra slot, or more mobility, for example. But the current Naga doesn't have that kind of advantage.

    Tornado. It is overpowered. Too much DPS, alpha and range with artillery, too much raw DPS with ACs, and too much a combination of tracking and range also, giving it the abilityt o apply DPS to small stuff, in direct contradiction of your stated design goals. The falloff bonus has to go, it makes artillery too powerful too, too much range. You could drop both falloff and ROF bonuses, replacing them with nothing, and it would be sensibly balanced. Of course, it has to have bonuses, so just nerf its agility and speed then give it bonuses to speed and agility so there's no net effect.
    Raven Ether
    Doomheim
    #250 - 2011-11-07 20:51:33 UTC
    Meh I hate to see fantastic art and magnificent models wasted on a niche role, whose practical warfare use is questionable.
    Akara Ito
    Phalanx Solutions
    #251 - 2011-11-07 21:04:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Akara Ito
    Has it ever been considered to accept that Blasters are a niche weapon ?
    Imo, a possible way to solve the Hybrid issue could be to boost the damage of Javelin so Rails can be used on short ranges more efficiently.

    There is already a type of weapons that gets rarely used - beam laser, yet not much complain about it.
    Not because they suck but because their strenghs are rarely needed. (And Scorch is a bit op for that mather)

    If Javelin would be buffed, using railguns on Gallenteships for medium to short range combat would be an option while blasters could be used if you really, really need a shitload of DPS at all cost.

    If you combine this with a tracking enhancer/computer nerf that cuts the falloff bonus to 15 % it should balance things out a bit imo.
    Yes blaster would be a niche weapon, but hybrids in general would be usefull and thats the actual goal isnt it ? Maky hybrids usefull and thereby make Gallenteships usefull again as they could switch from short to medium ranges by changing ammo and the general Hybrid balancing wouldnt need to be changed yet again after this buff.
    Kiev Duran
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #252 - 2011-11-07 21:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kiev Duran
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    NAGA:

    Dual bonuses: what you have to consider here, is that in its default configuration, the Naga has 8 launchers AND 8 turrets, which means:

    • Torpedo projection smiliar to Raven: even with one bonus to torpedoes, it does the same amount of damage/projection than a Raven. Adding another bonus to missile damage would make this ship greatly outperform its battleship equivalent
    • Why removing the torpedo explosion velocity? It was removed as it was making this ship too useful against smaller targets, which again defeats the purpose of this class. You also have to consider in your play testing that torpedoes cannot deliver full damage output in 1v1 scenarios against other tier3 battlecruisers. Remember the other new battlecruisers have a comparatively low signature radius (180-200) and high speed to mitigate damage output. If you want to test this ship against its natural targets, please try battleships/capitals instead
    • Giving this ship another hybrid bonus threatens the Rokh, while possibly make it better than the Talos for close range combat



    Am I supposed to read this as "because the other Caldari ships are long range, medium damage, we want the close range bruiser to deal medium damage," because that's how it reads. Please don't fall into the mistake of comparing what is supposed to be a high damage ship to a medium damage ship and a (brokenly) low damage ship. Every other ship in the game gets two relevant bonuses, that are in almost all cases made use of every time the ship is flown. This is so prevalent that in cases where one or both bonuses are consistently not used, we acknowledge that something is wrong with the ship. Why should the Naga not receive two bonuses that it can use when well fit?

    Your fears about a missile explosion radius bonus making torpedoes do too much damage against smaller ships are completely misplaced. Torpedoes have a base explosion radius of 450 at smallest and no skills to reduce this number. Even with a 7.5% bonus and battlecruisers 5, this number would only be reduced to a hair over 281, which means that Caldari and Gallente battlecruisers would take full damage if sitting still. Even so, this is fine as the niche that tier 1 and 2 battlecruisers occupy is one of increased damage to cruisers at the expense of increased vulnerability to battleships. Combine this with the simple fact that you can reduce the damage a full bonused torpedo would do by moving at faster than 100 m/s (an easy feat for all BCs in almost all combat scenarios) and you see that this becomes something of a non-issue.

    Furthermore, if the ship actually having two useful bonuses makes other ships look poor in comparison, then I think that says a lot more about the other ships being underpowered than it does about the Naga being overpowered. The Talos is, as many others have stated, shaping up to be an extremely underwhelming ship; and the Rokh is one of (if not the) most ineffectual ships in the game.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:


    Cruise missiles: initial reasons not to have them were because of the following combination:

    • Hit smaller targets: may be made to reliably hit smaller targets with target painters/rigs
    • Reliable projection: they have a fairly long range, within which the Naga doesn't have to worry about capacitor or transversal velocity
    • Mobility: Naga can use points above to deliver long range constant damage while being quite difficult to catch itself

    You could argue points above are not always applicable and you would be right, which is why cruise missiles are still being considered. However, it they are introduced into the Naga, hybrid bonuses most likely will be removed from it

    Lack of fittings: first pass fittings were too generous, but we possibly squeezed them down too much in this version, more investigation must be made on this



    Cruise missiles can be geared to hit smaller targets reasonably well with proper skills, rigs, and ammo. This is not often done, however, due to the penalties to damage (and in some cases range, though this is less of an issue) incurred by attempting to fit this way. In order to do this you need to be skilled enough to use the T2 precision ammo (which isn't exactly a trivial time investment) and then fit out with launcher rigs (rigs slots which could go to other infinitely more useful things like EHP or speed), and what do you get when it's all said and done? Cruise missiles that can hit some cruisers for an unreduced value of 30 DPS per launcher (at max skills) before ship bonuses or modules. That's not terrible, but it's not exactly something to fear. The kicker though, is the fact that the explosion velocity of these cruise missiles is 106 m/s. This means that to hold down all but the slowest cruisers to apply your average DPS to them you need to double (or in some cases triple) web them, something that no Caldari ship has the slots to do.

    CCP, please take a look at how missiles are used in your game. Through posts like these, myself and others get the feeling that there is a disconnect between how you want missiles to be used and how they actually are.
    Phantomania
    Lonely Trek
    #253 - 2011-11-07 21:08:09 UTC
    Raven Ether wrote:
    Meh I hate to see fantastic art and magnificent models wasted on a niche role, whose practical warfare use is questionable.



    This! I'd be happier flying a weak tanked Naga with 8x Heavy Missile Launchers + damage bonus's! P
    Knoppaz
    distress signals
    #254 - 2011-11-07 21:17:35 UTC
    Shin Dari wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    TALOS
    So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves.
    I might have a fix for you. Two things need to be done.

    1. Create a new propulsion system -> Warp Pulse Drive. Provides an massive sprint but consumes an insane amount of cap points. Deactivates itself after 1 cycle.

    2. Massively increase cap capacity and decrease recharge rate on all gallante ships. This would mean that other races won't be able to use Warp Pulse Drives. And that even Gallante ships can't use it constantly in battle.



    Why a new module? Just give the Talos a bonus for 100MN AB, like cutting the added mass from AB in half or so..
    The result would be / should be:

    - somewhat slower than 10MN MWD
    - slightly higher cap consumption than 100MN MWD
    - Acceleration somewhere between 10MN AB and 10MN MWD when active
    - no change in sig radius


    Knoppaz / distressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com

    a capsuleer's way to insanity

    Kiev Duran
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #255 - 2011-11-07 21:25:32 UTC
    Knoppaz wrote:
    Shin Dari wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    TALOS
    So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves.
    I might have a fix for you. Two things need to be done.

    1. Create a new propulsion system -> Warp Pulse Drive. Provides an massive sprint but consumes an insane amount of cap points. Deactivates itself after 1 cycle.

    2. Massively increase cap capacity and decrease recharge rate on all gallante ships. This would mean that other races won't be able to use Warp Pulse Drives. And that even Gallante ships can't use it constantly in battle.



    Why a new module? Just give the Talos a bonus for 100MN AB, like cutting the added mass from AB in half or so..
    The result would be / should be:

    - somewhat slower than 10MN MWD
    - slightly higher cap consumption than 100MN MWD
    - Acceleration somewhere between 10MN AB and 10MN MWD when active
    - no change in sig radius




    The problem that Dari is trying to address is that Gallente ships, even when fitted with micro warpdrives, simply cannot move quickly enough to "grab" their target to make use of blasters. The problem that other ships could MWD away as the Gallente closes would be fixed by simple application of webs and scrams if the Gallente ship could close to begin with.

    For the record, I disagree with the notion to limit any module to any particular race, but many people have noted that if ships could "sprint" into blaster range many problems with the weapon system would fix themselves.
    Sirinda
    Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium
    #256 - 2011-11-07 21:40:59 UTC
    There's no sense in trying to tighten two different screws at the same time.

    Fix the underlying problem with hybrids first, then go about balancing the Talos with its brethren. Any other approach to this problem is doomed from the start.
    Knoppaz
    distress signals
    #257 - 2011-11-07 21:41:43 UTC
    Kiev Duran wrote:
    Knoppaz wrote:
    Shin Dari wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    TALOS
    So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves.
    I might have a fix for you. Two things need to be done.

    1. Create a new propulsion system -> Warp Pulse Drive. Provides an massive sprint but consumes an insane amount of cap points. Deactivates itself after 1 cycle.

    2. Massively increase cap capacity and decrease recharge rate on all gallante ships. This would mean that other races won't be able to use Warp Pulse Drives. And that even Gallante ships can't use it constantly in battle.



    Why a new module? Just give the Talos a bonus for 100MN AB, like cutting the added mass from AB in half or so..
    The result would be / should be:

    - somewhat slower than 10MN MWD
    - slightly higher cap consumption than 100MN MWD
    - Acceleration somewhere between 10MN AB and 10MN MWD when active
    - no change in sig radius




    The problem that Dari is trying to address is that Gallente ships, even when fitted with micro warpdrives, simply cannot move quickly enough to "grab" their target to make use of blasters. The problem that other ships could MWD away as the Gallente closes would be fixed by simple application of webs and scrams if the Gallente ship could close to begin with.

    For the record, I disagree with the notion to limit any module to any particular race, but many people have noted that if ships could "sprint" into blaster range many problems with the weapon system would fix themselves.



    Then just give it a bonus that cuts oversized AB mass even more. Result:

    Faster and equal agility / more agile than regular size MWD, no increased sig radius, slightly higher cap use.

    Sounds good to me..

    Knoppaz / distressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com

    a capsuleer's way to insanity

    Shin Dari
    Covert Brigade
    #258 - 2011-11-07 21:55:19 UTC
    Knoppaz wrote:
    Kiev Duran wrote:
    Knoppaz wrote:
    Shin Dari wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    TALOS
    So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves.
    I might have a fix for you. Two things need to be done.

    1. Create a new propulsion system -> Warp Pulse Drive. Provides an massive sprint but consumes an insane amount of cap points. Deactivates itself after 1 cycle.

    2. Massively increase cap capacity and decrease recharge rate on all gallante ships. This would mean that other races won't be able to use Warp Pulse Drives. And that even Gallante ships can't use it constantly in battle.



    Why a new module? Just give the Talos a bonus for 100MN AB, like cutting the added mass from AB in half or so..
    The result would be / should be:

    - somewhat slower than 10MN MWD
    - slightly higher cap consumption than 100MN MWD
    - Acceleration somewhere between 10MN AB and 10MN MWD when active
    - no change in sig radius


    The problem that Dari is trying to address is that Gallente ships, even when fitted with micro warpdrives, simply cannot move quickly enough to "grab" their target to make use of blasters. The problem that other ships could MWD away as the Gallente closes would be fixed by simple application of webs and scrams if the Gallente ship could close to begin with.

    For the record, I disagree with the notion to limit any module to any particular race, but many people have noted that if ships could "sprint" into blaster range many problems with the weapon system would fix themselves.

    Then just give it a bonus that cuts oversized AB mass even more. Result:

    Faster and equal agility / more agile than regular size MWD, no increased sig radius, slightly higher cap use.

    Sounds good to me..
    And you think it would be a good idea to give all blasterboats this bonus?

    And how will this prevent Gallente ships from being constantly the fastest ships?
    Kiev Duran
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #259 - 2011-11-07 22:01:35 UTC
    Sirinda wrote:
    There's no sense in trying to tighten two different screws at the same time.

    Fix the underlying problem with hybrids first, then go about balancing the Talos with its brethren. Any other approach to this problem is doomed from the start.


    The problem with that is how intertwined a racial weapon system and racial ships are. On one hand we have those who claim that there is nothing wrong with blasters and that fixing the only ships that blasters go on would fix blasters, while on the other you have those who claim there is nothing wrong with blaster ships and by fixing the only weapon system blaster boats use would fix blaster boats.

    Blasters are used almost exclusively by Gallente, ships that use blasters are undoubtedly sub-par.
    Railguns are used almost exclusively by Caldari, ships that use railguns are undoubtedly sub-par.

    So what's really broken? Are good ships cursed with bad guns, or have good guns been given to poor ships?

    Most likely is that both hybrids and hybrid ships are each a fair bit underpowered, compounding with themselves and making the situation a great deal more complicated and delicate than if only one or the other were underwhelming. CCP likely either suspects this as well or has evidence to support it, and while I'll always be frustrated with how long it takes them to address issues that the player-base seems to spot on Sisi, I'm relieved that they're showing restraint and actually attempting balance rather than the heavy handed buff sprees that they were once infamous for. So CCP can take the time they need to fix hybrids, so long as they do it right and don't just give me a button I can push to win PvP.
    Knoppaz
    distress signals
    #260 - 2011-11-07 22:26:57 UTC
    Shin Dari wrote:

    Quote:
    way too many quotes Shocked


    And you think it would be a good idea to give all blasterboats this bonus?

    And how will this prevent Gallente ships from being constantly the fastest ships?


    Well, they can be the fastest. That's what everyone is talking about it seems. Blasterboats need to get in range quick and this way they are able to.
    On the other side, since it uses more cap than regular size MWD it would only be useful to close the gap so Gallente would be the fast sprinters over "short" distance.
    Minmatar would still be the kings on sustained top speed as they should be.

    Knoppaz / distressSIGNALS http://distresssignals.tumblr.com

    a capsuleer's way to insanity