These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Solinuas
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#201 - 2011-11-08 09:22:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Solinuas
Well i have something interesting to put out here, the only blaster ship worth anything i have flown is the adrestia, the reason why is simple, it had the kind of slap in the face close up DPS you would expect from blasters, was fast, and most importantly its 24km t2 scram made reange control far easier what more gallente ships need to see is tat very same range bonus for scrams, but only make it apply to scrams maybe tone it down to less but it allowed range control which is manditory for blasters

And on top of that it fits to the gallente EWAR as it stands anyway, but i dunno it was just my 2 isk
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#202 - 2011-11-08 09:56:20 UTC
I think that if we were to slap EW bonuses like scram range or web range onto blaster hulls all you will get is everyone sticking AC's or Pulse lasers on them and holding range because there is no real advantage of fighting in your targets scram/web range when you don't have to.

Seriously. If you give me a long range scram I will be flying a shield tanked Brutix scrambling people from 20km away and shooting them with 425's with barrage all day!

Or long range webs I will be armour tanking my Brutix, fitting Pulse lasers, dual web and a disruptor. Even with the targets MWD going my 24 km webs will let me dictate range and I never have to enter scram/web/neut range.

I'm sorry but EW bonuses to T1 hulls is not the answer.
Dark Voynix
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2011-11-08 11:26:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dark Voynix
hello.
Did a long post, in this forum but i make a new post instead a reply.

So sorry if i crosspost, ill give here only quick note to my idea, if you dont think its a complete crap please read the entire post.

My idea is to give blaster weapon a "web effect". Immagine that blaster weapons and antimater affect opponent engins making them less effective ( -25%). this will make blaster user "faster" in blaster range and make them have a chance to come close again to the opponent after a bump. DPS changes are cool, power requirement was badly needed, but blaster ships should be able to keep close range when the succeed to come close. and maybe a key is here. Let do blaster affect opponet angine. We can also give different ammo a different percentage ( less dammage, more pebbing effect) because francly.. there is any reson to use t1 ammo that is no antimater? here we could have one.

Blasters will be unique and people will have a reason to not use autocannons.

I made more extensive consideration in a separate post, sorry again for the double posting. Oops
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2011-11-08 11:49:40 UTC
Dark Voynix wrote:
hello.
Did a long post, in this forum but i make a new post instead a reply.

So sorry if i crosspost, ill give here only quick note to my idea, if you dont think its a complete crap please read the entire post.

My idea is to give blaster weapon a "web effect". Immagine that blaster weapons and antimater affect opponent engins making them less effective ( -25%). this will make blaster user "faster" in blaster range and make them have a chance to come close again to the opponent after a bump. DPS changes are cool, power requirement was badly needed, but blaster ships should be able to keep close range when the succeed to come close. and maybe a key is here. Let do blaster affect opponet angine. We can also give different ammo a different percentage ( less dammage, more pebbing effect) because francly.. there is any reson to use t1 ammo that is no antimater? here we could have one.

Blasters will be unique and people will have a reason to not use autocannons.

I made more extensive consideration in a separate post, sorry again for the double posting. Oops


Then you will have every ship of every class of every race fitting one blaster to slow down enemies.
Dark Voynix
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#205 - 2011-11-08 11:56:21 UTC
Nemesor wrote:
Dark Voynix wrote:
hello.
Did a long post, in this forum but i make a new post instead a reply.

So sorry if i crosspost, ill give here only quick note to my idea, if you dont think its a complete crap please read the entire post.

My idea is to give blaster weapon a "web effect". Immagine that blaster weapons and antimater affect opponent engins making them less effective ( -25%). this will make blaster user "faster" in blaster range and make them have a chance to come close again to the opponent after a bump. DPS changes are cool, power requirement was badly needed, but blaster ships should be able to keep close range when the succeed to come close. and maybe a key is here. Let do blaster affect opponet angine. We can also give different ammo a different percentage ( less dammage, more pebbing effect) because francly.. there is any reson to use t1 ammo that is no antimater? here we could have one.

Blasters will be unique and people will have a reason to not use autocannons.

I made more extensive consideration in a separate post, sorry again for the double posting. Oops


Then you will have every ship of every class of every race fitting one blaster to slow down enemies.


Then make them chance based. Better effect but chanche based so you need a full rack of hybrids to get a good chance. Also make them able to "web" only the equivalent size or smaller, so frig sized blasters cannot "web", cruiser, BC or BS's.
Selar Nox
#206 - 2011-11-08 12:37:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Selar Nox
Adding to lots of others changes mentioned in this thread I would like to throw this suggestion into the ring. It's copied and slightly edited from another thread, but this one seems more appropriate.

I am not saying this is the perfect one-fits-all-solution and will solve the Hybrid/Blaster issue alone. In fact I see this suggestion as one element/module of a more extensive change to hybrid weapons and plattforms.

As many other before me I also agree, that it's not the weapon system alone that needs adjustments, it's the also ship that uses it.

And I also like the idea of faster accelerating ships, that don't touch the domain of Minmatar Ships. So we cannot just change the agility value. And btw, big, heavily armored ships and high agility seems an odd combination.

My suggestion would be to make the Gallente something like the Masters of MWD. Thorax, Deimos and Vindicator already hint that the Federation has its knowledge in this field.

Hm, how to combine these requirements (faster acceleration without touching agility; MWD)?

As we know, an active MWD adds mass to our ship. (Details)
And higher mass means lower acceleration and speed.

So how about Gallente Ship Bonus to...

... decrease Mass Gain by MWD
Results while MWD is active:

  • improved acceleration
  • higher top speed
  • higher agility (can be countered by an agility malus while MWD is running)

So now we have a ship that when using MWDs accelerates better and can reach higher speeds than before, but has trouble adjusting the direction it is burning. Not the best for orbiting/kiting (Hurray for Minmatar!) and now we come to the problem Velicitia,Pattern Clarc & others already mentioned (in other thread): Overshooting your target.

... control/avoid overshoot better/easier

  • reduce cycle time of MWDs -> allows shorter MWD-pulses
  • reduce cap need per cycle -> overall cap cost keeps as it is now

Overshooting is still possible, but now it depends more on player skill than cycle time.

Other suggestions (possible, but not necessarily mandatory)
  • bonus on webifier range (faction mods already show, that the federation is quite capable in this field)
  • move mag stabs (and only these!) from low to med slots. This way blasterboats can fit a tank to cross the gap without sacrificing damage (what should be their domain). Instead the decision is now between damage/EWar/Cap.

  • Overall result:
    Gallente ships can close the gap to the enemy faster to get in blaster range and avoid being hit for too long without an ability to strike back. And all this without touching the agility/speed(-tank) domain of Minmatar ships and similar.
    Kiting still works, as Gallente ships don't have their agility.
    Vincent Gaines
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #207 - 2011-11-08 12:56:35 UTC
    Selar Nox wrote:
  • move mag stabs (and only these!) from low to med slots.

  • And screw Caldari rail boats completely? No.

    Not a diplo. 

    The above post was edited for spelling.

    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #208 - 2011-11-08 13:17:24 UTC
    Currently the tall guy will just have to focus on primarily balancing hybrid turrets vs projectiles and energy weapons.

    The ships and modules will have to be balanced after the this - including a look into :
    • Fail optimal bonus (or fail game mechanics not supporting the bonus)
    • Armor rigs and plates slowing down blasterboats while Shields don't hinder autocannon ships

    Plz lets get the following things sorted first :

    Hybrid ammunition revamp
    • Fewer options for range (like -50%, -25%, 0% and 25% range bonus)
    • More variation in kin/therm damage distribution (each step of range have a 20/80 and 80/20 distribution)
    • Cap bonus on ammo need to be linear and cost more cap the longer range
    • 10% more damage to all ammunition
    • To enable hybrids to adobt to fast changing range and make them reload in 5 secs instead of 10 secs

    Hybrid damage balance
    With a general 10% increase on hybrid ammo the railguns still need an additional +10% damage to be on par with the other weapon groups. Extreme range with the poor ranged game mechanics we face atm should not be a strong parameter in damage comparisons. Getting them to deal equal damage at their shortest range should be a fine balance while the secondary advantages like Alphastrike, Range, Reload times, tracking and signature resolution should be the spice setting them all apart for taste and preference...

    Hybrid tracking
    With the blaster boats designed to be grinding their hulls against the enemy where tracking gets really tough and webs can no longer stop an enemy ship totally the blasters really need the proposed 20% tracking increase. This will set them apart from autocannons that currently have better tracking and doesn't really need it with the autocannons working just as good kiting as they do close range.
    The railguns too have a very very bad tracking and would benefit equally. Sniping is almost dead on TQ anyway and as such there is no reason to gimp the railgun tracking anymore. Let all hybrid systems benefit from a 20% better tracking.

    Making railguns unique
    As mentioned above hybrids need a unique role to set them apart from artillery and beam lasers.
    • Artillery have the ability to use different types of damage as well as a unique hard hitting alphastrike. Also they use no cap.
    • Lasers have a near instant change of crystals to adopt really fast on range. They also have unlimited T1 ammunition, hits very hard and the large lasers have a tier 4 Tachyon dealing waste damage on long ranges if a pilot can make them fit.
    • Futhermore beams seems to generally do more dps than the competitors and outrange projectiles.
    • With the above suggested changes the railguns should have about equal dps as artillery and still less than lasers. They will have the ability to hit better and further out. A fast change of ammunition securing a better adjustment to range, but they will only have 25% the alphastrike from artillery and they will only be able to use thermal/kinetic ammunition.

    To further seperate classes of weapons from eachother I would suggest differentiating guns on their signature resolution. Small variations could give the smaller tiers advantages lost in raw dps. It could also be used as a unique advantage on either railguns or beams whereever it will fit best.

    Anyway I hope to see a revised set of hybrid changes soon.
    The 3 types need to be balanced while all being unique - both things are still not taken care of...

    Pinky
    Zey Nadar
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #209 - 2011-11-08 13:33:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Zey Nadar
    Iam Widdershins wrote:

    I think that hybrids, blasters in particular, would like to see a slightly bigger boost to tracking. From what I hear in the 3TBC feedback thread, most people think the Talos can't hit jack up close. Maybe they are using it wrong, I don't know.


    This has always been an issue with blasters. The sweet spot where they an actually do that great damage is very small. (compare to minmatar with whom good falloff mitages the problem to great extent). Gallente ships are the easiest of all to kite.

    Quote:

    I think the general hybrid-ship speed adjustment could be amplified a bit. I do NOT think that hybrid ships should EVER be made faster than Minmatar, or every blaster ship ever would be basically a cheap Adrestia, running down Vagabonds and tearing them to shreds.

    Having slower ships with shorter range will always be inferior to faster ships with greater range. Is this the 'balance' you are looking for? "Dashing" into tackling and shooting range with MWD would make more sense if Gallente guns didnt require capacitor.

    Quote:

    On a side note, I think that the disadvantages of Gallente's active tanking bonuses need to be looked at. I think that the Brutix and Hyperion hulls, as well as the Deimos, need their bonus increased to 10% per level. Currently the 7.5% per level bonus yields a 37.5% advantage over base, with no effect on buffer and remote repair; meanwhile, Amarr's predilection for resist bonuses gives those ships a 33.3% bonus to active tanking, AND buffer, AND remote repair.


    You hit the nail there regarding how great having resistance bonuses is. Its one reason why Amarr are considered superior to gallente I think. Additionally, gallente having bonuses to active tanking doesnt make sense since they are so hungry for capacitor in the first place, having to use MWD to get in range of their guns, that they should be plated for the most part in real combat.

    Maybe Gallente should have a massive bonus to capacitor size? Not only would it be unique (currently no-one has it) and it would help with many of Gallentes weaknesses. Of course they should still retain the cap usage bonuses for active repping and mwd. Allowing Gallente to make perma

    I havent tested the current changes yet on SiSi though.
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #210 - 2011-11-08 13:39:06 UTC
    In regards to tracking enhancers benefitting AC falloff more than blasters I propose a minor change to tracking enhancers and tracking computers:

    Tracking enhancers seems to favor shield setups more and the minmatar and caldari setups doesn't need much more range.
    I suggest on a T2 Tracking Enhancer:
    Optimal bonus 15% -> 15% (or less as it isn't too important for anyone)
    Falloff bonus 30% -> 15% (less AC pwnage but still a decent bonus)
    Tracking bonus 9,5% -> 9,5% (All the ships really need this bonus the most)

    Tracking computers will limit caldari tank and shield minmatar setups while Amarr and Gallente might better fit these with their armor tanks. I suggest on a T2 Tracking Computer with scripts:
    Optimal bonus 15% -> 20%
    Falloff bonus 30% -> 40%
    or
    Tracking bonus 30% -> 40,0%

    Would be nice and change a little bit of power balance up to the medslots again where a tracking computer is rarely worth it. Also this would likely help the blasters more than the AC's and help balancing everything a little more.

    Pinky
    Cunane Jeran
    #211 - 2011-11-08 13:41:07 UTC
    After more playing (and comparing) Hybrids really need something else, I believe ammo changes would be the way forwards, less range variations (hell what difference does -30% and -10% range make to 1k?) and maybe allowing some damage options instead, such as Kin/Exp Therm/Exp and the standard Therm/Kin, leaving EM out of it for Amarr's sake.
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #212 - 2011-11-08 13:51:57 UTC
    Btw Nothing is wrong with the active tank bonuses - what is wrong is the modules benefitting from them in teh light of the many hitpoint buffs... Boost all LOCAL ONLY shield boosters and armor repairs with at least 50% hitpoints pr cycle while changing the crystal implant set into shield hitpoint implants as a counterpart to slaves...

    But yes ineed with the current combat mechanics the active rep bonus might seem obscene even if the brutix handles itself very fine indeed hehe

    Pinky
    Gecko O'Bac
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #213 - 2011-11-08 14:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko O'Bac
    Pinky Denmark wrote:
    Btw Nothing is wrong with the active tank bonuses - what is wrong is the modules benefitting from them in teh light of the many hitpoint buffs... Boost all LOCAL ONLY shield boosters and armor repairs with at least 50% hitpoints pr cycle while changing the crystal implant set into shield hitpoint implants as a counterpart to slaves...

    But yes ineed with the current combat mechanics the active rep bonus might seem obscene even if the brutix handles itself very fine indeed hehe

    Pinky


    Active tank bonuses aren't useful because they don't allow you to survive high bursts of damage, they don't give logistics enough time to lock you, they suck local cap on ships which should focus on mobility and damage projection and they don't even give any advantage to received reps.

    They are kinda good in very small gangs, or in 1v1, where the probability of getting alphaed is very low and active tanking may give you enough of an edge to survive against multiple attackers. Right now active tanking in pvp only makes sense in the form of spider gangs, or logistics supported gangs. In both cases, a local buffer tank is much better.

    Since resist bonuses give advantages both to active and to buffer/passive tanks, they make much more sense than straight active bonuses. Especially if such bonuses are on the module cycle timer instead of rep amount, which makes them, yes, more powerful, but at the same time more cap-intensive.
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #214 - 2011-11-08 14:35:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Denmark
    In big fleets with logistics buffer tanking has huge advantages, but that doesn't mean active tanks cannot shine in many other situations? Before the huge hitpoint buffs active tanks was prefered in most pvp situations...
    What I was saying don't blaim poor performance on roles, when the problem in reality is in the game mechanics or the module that gets the bonus...
    Gecko O'Bac
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #215 - 2011-11-08 14:41:00 UTC
    Pinky Denmark wrote:
    In big fleets with logistics buffer tanking has huge advantages, but that doesn't mean active tanks cannot shine in many other situations? Before the huge hitpoint buffs active tanks was prefered in most pvp situations...
    What I was saying don't blaim poor performance on roles, when the problem in reality is in the game mechanics or the module that gets the bonus...


    Yeah but what you're saying is kinda like saying "Why an infantryman should whine about being given a Sarissa as a service weapon? Alexander owned much of the old world with them!". We have to balance with the current state in mind. Yes, you can change the system... Or you can change the bonus. Changing the system is almost always the most complicated way to approach the problem, and has far reaching consequences (Like the HP buff... Worked great but at the same time it made active tanking almost useless). Tweaking a bonus on a couple of ships is much easier to do, much easier to test and has much more limited consequences.
    Jerick Ludhowe
    Internet Tuff Guys
    #216 - 2011-11-08 15:12:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
    Pinky Denmark wrote:
    In regards to tracking enhancers benefitting AC falloff more than blasters I propose a minor change to tracking enhancers and tracking computers:

    Tracking enhancers seems to favor shield setups more and the minmatar and caldari setups doesn't need much more range.
    I suggest on a T2 Tracking Enhancer:
    Optimal bonus 15% -> 15% (or less as it isn't too important for anyone)
    Falloff bonus 30% -> 15% (less AC pwnage but still a decent bonus)
    Tracking bonus 9,5% -> 9,5% (All the ships really need this bonus the most)





    Add to this a range nerf to scorch and you have a winning Hybrid buff for sure :)



    As far as my experience with Blaster/Gallente ships on the test server.

    Ares: I understand that this ship can be fast and all ceptors will see a "relative buff" post dram nerf but I think it's still a bit sub par. Give it another 10m/s and add +5m3 bandwidth and +5m3 drone bay.

    Enyo: This ship needs more cpu, wtf is the point of it compared to an ishkur if it can't even use it's 4th low properly... It trades a mid slot and 4 light drones for 1 low slot and 1 more turret... Un-gimp this ship and give her +25 CPU please.

    Thorax: Looking much better after the reduction to fitting requirements however I still feel that it needs another 5 to 10m/s speed buff as well as another 15-20 grid.

    Myrmidon: Nothing has really changed for this ship. I'd suggest removing 2 of the turret slots and giving the ship another 25m3 bandwidth.

    Brutix: Spent a bit of time in this ship on test and it is FAR more "fitable" than before. The lack of lows is still a huge issue and the small speed increase only ends up netting you another 50ish m/s with MWD. I'd suggest increasing the ships base speed by another 5 MS as well as giving it another 25ish Power grid. I'd also like to see this ship get another low slot however I feel that the addition of a slot is dependent on if CCP decides to buff the other tier1s as well.

    Astarte: I also spent a good amount of time testing out this ship on the new test build and have to say that like the Brutix, it has been improved by a small margin specifically in regards to fitting it. The increased speed is really not very noticeable especially considering that the new tier 3 BC are at least 500ms faster with mwd... This ship should receive more or less the same additions that I just proposed for the Brutix. Another 5-10 ms speed, 25ish grid, and another low slot. I believe that this new low slot should be granted as well as an additional slot for the Absolution, and Nighthawk(+grid too). Seleip is already way better than these 3 Field commands so no additional slot is needed there.

    Megathron: Perfect CCP!!, finally can get a decent pvp fit w/o the use of faction gear or co-procs. The new tracking buff to blasters ontop of the Mega's Tracking Bonus is allowing for more dps at all ranges. Ship seems to be filling it's niche nicely.

    Hyperion: This ship is still a mess... The problem with this ship is that you cannot tank and dps at the same time... and if a Blaster ship cannot dps then wtf is the point of it considering it MUST commit to engage, something that many other ships with comparable DPS and Tank do not have to do.

    The ship needs another 2-3% grid, another low slot, and probably another 25cpu (to be able to utilize that low slot). I'd also go as far as increasing it's drone bay (not bandwidth) by another 25m3 giving it at least a small amount of innate anti tackle flexibility when compared to the other tier 3s.

    Talos: Honestly? The tier3s are a broken mess right now so I don't have any "useful" suggestions other than CCP needs to rethink these ships from concept. Highest tier large weapons costing under 100 pg just seems silly when highest tier mediums are close to 200.... I'd suggest decreasing their speed and upping the sig a little so they do not step on the role of far more expensive ships such as HACs.


    Blasters as a whole: The changes to fitting and tracking are a very nice step in the right direction and I must applaud CCP on not going overboard however I still feel that some minor tweaking is needed.

    Changes I'd like to see would first and foremost be some unique flavor shared between all Hybrid weapons. The idea that sparked my interest the most was a small boost to the chance of wrecking hits for ALL Hybrid weapons. This change combined with a rework of current ammo's (think projectile ammo) would most certainly improve the overall effectiveness of Blasters w/o creating a new FoTM, something that needs to be avoided at all costs.

    Railsgunz!! The fitting reductions and 10% dps increase is certainly a step in the right direction. I do however think that another small DPS increase is needed of about 5%. The other major issue is the dedicated Caldari ships "designed" to field these weapons. More grid is generally needed as well as maybe another Turret slot on the Ferox and Eagle as both these ships will be superseded by the naga as a cruiser/BC sized sniper.


    Thank you CCP for the updates and the mild amount of recent transparencyRoll Keep up the good work and make sure to pay attention to your community.

    Jerick
    Selar Nox
    #217 - 2011-11-08 15:24:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Selar Nox
    Pinky Denmark wrote:
    Btw Nothing is wrong with the active tank bonuses - what is wrong is the modules benefitting from them in teh light of the many hitpoint buffs... Boost all LOCAL ONLY shield boosters and armor repairs with at least 50% hitpoints pr cycle [...]

    + half cycle time & cap need per cylce of local armor repairs. So while overall cap cost stays the same we don't have to wait till our armor is gone until the first repair amount comes in.
    Or even better distribute the armor gain over the whole cycle length (but thats probably not very nice for the hamsters...)
    Never made sense for me where that by nanobots repaired armor was stored during cycle and how it got magically applied in split seconds at the end of a cycle. (Shield boosters I interpreted like a "shield-capacitor" which gets unloaded to the shields at cycle start and needs to recharge during its cycle)
    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #218 - 2011-11-08 15:50:02 UTC
    I always imagined those bots blowing a chunk of metal into the holes like you patch roads and replace a broken brick in a wall... That said indeed the wait for armor reppers to cycle can be fatal Sad
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #219 - 2011-11-08 16:14:30 UTC
    Ok with only 7.5% per level bonus you end up being 2% more efficiant then the 5% to armor resists per lev... Which sucks when you see that the resist bonus makes you have 20% more hp and more efficiant for rr...

    But change that bonus to 10% per lev and make it so incomming rr is also affected by the bonus and then you end up with a bonus that makes up for having 1/5th less hp

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

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

    Pinky Denmark
    The Cursed Navy
    #220 - 2011-11-08 16:56:34 UTC
    lol RR is already super usefull and how do you calculate those numbers? You nust be forgetting how resistance is calculated... The resistance wont be stacking penalized but you will still get less from adding more resist modules.