These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sam Bowein
Sense Amid Madness
#341 - 2011-11-09 12:26:45 UTC
Selar Nox wrote:
How about a webifier range bonus on blaster boats (cruiser-size upwards), increasing with hull size (BSs bigger bonus than BCs, which get more than cruiser)? Not talking about 5%, more something like doubling or tripling the range. So we get fired at while "crossing the gap" but actually get a chance to arrive over there...

Just a thought that crossed my mind...

I'd rather like a scram range bonus (+20% per level, so 18km for scram II). That would allow to get close to ships that would normally kite you.
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#342 - 2011-11-09 12:27:47 UTC
My out of the box idea of the day. Keep an open mind.

From day one there is one attribute that all Gallente ships have that is superior to all other races. This was obviously a racial trait of some sort whose purpose has been lost in the sands of time.

Gallente ships have more structure points than any other race. A lot more in most cases. The Amarr generally have second most, followed by the Matari then the Caldari. The only exception to my knowledge is the Tech 3 ships where the Amarr suddenly have more structure. This is obviously the design team forgetting about the old racial trait of Gallente.

If there were a few more low slot modules released... like an Advanced damage control II. Say this increased the hull resists by 25 percent and gave a hull HP Boost of 50 percent... increasing the efficiency of reinforced bulkheads (WOW WHO EVER USES THAT MODULE!) even increasing the efficiency of bulkhead and remote bulkhead reppers (Yes they exist in the game, I swear). Switch the active armor bonus's on existing gallente ships over to Structure resist bonuses. Switch MWD bonuses to structure amount bonuses.
Now you have a Gallente ship that is beefy, is unaffected by heavy armor plates, and able to fit a nice passive tank with a couple of decent modules. Can other races fit these things? Sure why not. They can't fit them as well as Gallente can. They won't have ships with bonuses to fitting them and they won't have as much structure points.

REAL MEN HULL TANK. (only it wouldn't be a joke this time.)

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#343 - 2011-11-09 12:32:52 UTC
Sam Bowein wrote:
Selar Nox wrote:
How about a webifier range bonus on blaster boats (cruiser-size upwards), increasing with hull size (BSs bigger bonus than BCs, which get more than cruiser)? Not talking about 5%, more something like doubling or tripling the range. So we get fired at while "crossing the gap" but actually get a chance to arrive over there...

Just a thought that crossed my mind...

I'd rather like a scram range bonus (+20% per level, so 18km for scram II). That would allow to get close to ships that would normally kite you.


There might be a problem with this being too binary. If your target is faster than you and is outside scram range, then you have the current difficulties in getting to blaster range. But if you are able to apply a long-range scramble, then suddenly you have a massive speed advantage and can easily close to optimal.

In the first case, it's too hard to get to blaster optimal; but in the second case it's too easy. Something more graduated would be better.
Dare Devel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#344 - 2011-11-09 12:35:14 UTC
sq0 wrote:
I for one STOPPED PLAYING EVE mainly because everything i've been training from start became pretty useless. It is extremly demotivating when you train few months for gal ships ( t2 guns, bs lvl 5 etc ) and they are useless. Now i paid for month subscription for action price, because i was reading there are going to be big changes to hybrids, but i will probably cancel. (blasters) The time you need to get in range(if it is even possible), use up half a cap and take bilion dmg in process, sacrifice med for web to keep range. after getting in range another precious secs need to stop and alling somehow to be able to track (1on1 not prob because other cannt track either, but in group combat someone will be shooting at you, probably all... ).

After microscopic changes blasters are about to get and not adresing the fastest ship should have shortest range issue.(how the **** im going to kill min).
BLASTERS ARE STILL NOT WORTH IT AT ALL !!!



Agreed.
I do not understand why CCP Tallest or CCP Ytterbium both keep on saying
"we do not want to make hybrid an Op DPS platform....."
To make it an Op DPS platform you have to Buff it significantly in the first place.

Currently they are just throwing quarter of a bone to the Hybrid community every time we reach 10 pages of frustration in the forum.

At the moment Hybrid is in such a state that the only players that use it are those who have not trained on any other weapon platform or those who fly ships that are Hybrid weapon Based.

We all know that they are not welcome in any fleet other than the recon for long point or the interceptor.

Till date we only have got insignificant buffs that does next to nothing.

30% cap consumption on guns - This gives us an efficiency of 1 cap per sec per gun (and I am considering large turrets) . With max 8 guns you get 8 cap per sec less consumption. We not only use cap for guns but for blaster boats we use tackle like no
other race. Mandatory web + Scram + MWD/AB. What we needed was some kind of cap recharge bonus on ammo that would
have allowed us to have some sort of cap buffer against nuets and cap draining modules. 30% less cap cosumption is so so useless.

5% boost to damage output-The blaster guns need a change to their Damagemod at least 30%. Why because we are close range high dps platform. If the DPS of Pulse Laser and Auto Cannon Projectile differ only by 10% from Blasters is that justified?
How can we become OP(by this 30% increase) when our largest optimal for heaviest DPS is less than 8KM and Other can do 10% less damage from atleast 20km away. We are not even fastest. Seriously CCP Tallest this is just common sense to me that if you cannot give high speed or agility since you might break Minmatar superiority give them DPS to compensate. By giving an annoying 5% you are just making us more and more frustrated.

20% Tracking-I can live with that

5% agility and 10m/s speed increase on select hybrid ships-I have no problems with this if the Web strength was 90% but because it is only 60% blasters need a buff on webbing strength. Atleast give them some sort of bonus to reach 75% webbing strength. We have to remember that we have an optimal of 8kms only and we need a fair chance to slow them down and keep them in that range.

EWAR like sensor damp is of no use other than increasing the lock time of the targetted ship. With the range the opponent has to be damped to the extent that their targeting range is below 10km to bring them in webbing range. This is impossible.

If you refer to CCP Zulu's post about the agenda for winter expansion following CCP Hilmar's post to the eve community, the first item was Hybrid rebalancing.

In my humble opinion, at the moment after the next round of changes announced, we are still 75% behind the optimum buff to rebalance Hybrids.


Thanks for reading CCP Tallest.

Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#345 - 2011-11-09 12:37:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jill Antaris
Selar Nox wrote:
How about a webifier range bonus on blaster boats (cruiser-size upwards), increasing with hull size (BSs bigger bonus than BCs, which get more than cruiser)? Not talking about 5%, more something like doubling or tripling the range. So we get fired at while "crossing the gap" but actually get a chance to arrive over there...

Just a thought that crossed my mind...


This would be bad, because it would remove the valid tactic of kitting blaster ships, has a huge impact on fleet fights(where people would bring them just for the webs w/o ever bringing them into blaster range), would be a unfair advantage with rail fittings and a long range web will always disfavor the weapon system with the smallest range, webbing a blaster ship at 20km makes it complete useless, doing the same with puls or ac ships let them still bite back with scorch or barrage.

A 90% web doesn't do all this stuff, it gives the blaster ship the required control once in range, gives it point blank defense against undersized ships what mostly allowing it to clear tacklers quick and stay mobile(different to a nano ship that uses range to stay free of tackle), improves the applied DPS, gives options to minimize or maximize transversal and adds some utility in 1 vs X situations, since it would take considerable more tackle for the other ships to regain the range control against the blaster ship.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#346 - 2011-11-09 12:41:13 UTC
Don't worry - I am sure when the weapon systems are balanced that this team will go straight into balancing ships in regards to supporting their weapon systems of choice... It doesn't look like the tall guy want to leave anything out but it's near impossible to change everything at once without losing the grand overview of balance.

I have more faith now than a month ago (except the tier 3 BC's really freaks me out in a bad way)

Pinky
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#347 - 2011-11-09 12:46:46 UTC
Hungry Eyes wrote:
i want to be able to use my Deimos like people have been using the Zealot. Why the hell not?


Because they are 2 different ships. Minmatar have no Zealot substitute as well, get over it.
The different ships of a class are different, and not all races need to be good at everything.
Crying that you cancel your sub if CCP doesnt do xyz is just pathetic.
sq0
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#348 - 2011-11-09 14:18:46 UTC
Jill Antaris wrote:


This would be bad, because it would remove the valid tactic of kitting blaster ships


THis shouldn't be viable tactics- blaster have no range im faster haha you wil NEVER EVER KILL ME.
tactics should be to deal enought dmg to blastership until it gets to me, so i have big enought head start in dmg, since once it will get into range, it's dps is higher. And the dps should be more than 5% higher - i don't believe long range ship will tear down only 5% hp untill i get there...
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#349 - 2011-11-09 14:21:07 UTC
Nemesor wrote:
My out of the box idea of the day. Keep an open mind....


You know.... that actually sounds pretty cool.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#350 - 2011-11-09 14:24:45 UTC
In my book Minmatar should be forced to use all their lowslots for speed modules to be faster than blasterships using those lowslots for armor tank... And maybe even their rigs too
Bhaal Chinnian
#351 - 2011-11-09 14:30:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Bhaal Chinnian
ok another brilliant idea....DENERF SENSOR DAMPS and give all gallente cruisers and above an appropriate effectiveness bonus.

5% for BS per level
7.5% for BC per level
10% cruiser per level
none for frigs
***remove Gallente's ability to use railguns
1) solves range problems passively by forcing your target into range of webs
2) no need for speed buff
3) hybrid damage buffs are sufficient now, since the real issue is employing blasters at range
case closed...move along pleaseP



******note. only allow sensor damps to be used by gallente ships

'A Good Plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed next week'-- George Patton

Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#352 - 2011-11-09 14:48:43 UTC
Bhaal Chinnian wrote:
ok another brilliant idea....DENERF SENSOR DAMPS and give all gallente cruisers and above an appropriate effectiveness bonus.

5% for BS per level
7.5% for BC per level
10% cruiser per level
none for frigs
***remove Gallente's ability to use railguns
1) solves range problems passively by forcing your target into range of webs
2) no need for speed buff
3) hybrid damage buffs are sufficient now, since the real issue is employing blasters at range
case closed...move along pleaseP



******note. only allow sensor damps to be used by gallente ships



Restricting module use to a single race is not a good idea. 10 percent would give us the strength damps had per nerf. Yikes. Making a race completely rely on Ewar to survive is a bit, meh. I like damps though and think they would provide a decent boost to the enviroment if they were buffed a bit.

TLDR: It would help but this isn't a complete solution.
Kiev Duran
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#353 - 2011-11-09 14:49:50 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:


When was the last time you saw someone flying Caldari into combat for something other than ECM (something that was considered the only advantage of Caldari right up until it got pummeled with the nerf bat) or POS bashing (an activity CCP acknowledges as being unfun)?


REALLY?

Drake? The second most often used PVP ship? There is a reason we fit two caldari, two minmatar, one amarr, and one gallente to our jammers.

That aside: Drake, Manticore, Hookbill, Nighthawk, Chimera, Cerberus, Hawk, etc .

This poor Caldari ship isn't going to sail, the Caldari are some of THE most often used ships are there is a reason, they don't need buffing, lest we see even more drake roams of 20-50 drakes at a time.


I'll give you that I forgot about the Drake, a who's recent (from my point of view of periods of play spliced with long breaks) popularity has been confusing, satisfying, and frustrating; but the other ships you listed are either weak for combat, out-preformed, or fulfill more of a support or niche role that I was referring to.

The Manticore, while a fun ship to fly, is a stealth bomber that has all the problems of fitting for solo combat that all Caldari run into while only really being useful in full stealth bomber fleets and general covert ops fleets. Extremely niche in it's role; it preforms at more or less the exact same effectiveness as all other stealth bombers, if flown correctly and well fit.

The Nighthawk and Creberus are both overpriced ships that are extremely lackluster in combat as they only receive bonuses to heavy missiles and the bonuses are geared to allow heavy missiles to be used from distances where missiles are extremely ineffective against anything other than POSes and sieged dreads. They are hardly worth flying before realizing that they only do about as much (if not distinctly less) damage than a Drake, which because of costs completely removes any reason left to fly these ships.

The Hawk is an assault frigate, and therefore terrible. No, seriously, why would anyone fly an assault frigate when they could be flying a Rifter? The Rifter pretty much out preforms or preforms at any given assault frigate's effectiveness for less than a third the cost and training time involved.

I've never flown a Hookbill for anything other than lol-ing my way through level 1s, but I can assure you that I've never seen one flown into combat and I'd never want to take a frigate that cost that much into combat unless it was amazing at a crucial combat role, like tackling. It could be that the Hookbill is a wonderful little combat boat that fails for not being as good as a Rifter, a ship that makes up the vast majority of frigate sized, small scale combat because it is arguably the best combat frigate.

The Chimera, a ship that is focused on repairing other ships that are fighting, perfectly fits my definition of "support ship not directly used for combat."

The reason ECM pilots like ourselves fit two Caldari racial jammers isn't because Caldari have good combat ships, but because Caldari make up the largest percentage of races represented in the playerbse and many pilots will fly their own race's ships, regardless of how good or bad they are due to the "fun" factor. That and the proliferation of Drakes, seriously how did that happen?

PinkKnife wrote:
Kiev Duran wrote:


Sniper HACs and BCs w/ best T1 ammo :

Zealot w/ Heavy beam (2 HS) - 380,4 dps (22,5+10km), 0.04125 rad/sec, 1004 volley
Muninn w/ 720mm Arty (3 Gyro) - 340,9 dps (22,5+21,875km), 0.0378125 rad/sec, 2815 volley
Deimos w/ 250mm Rail (2 MFS) - 355,3 dps (18+22,5km), 0.02875 rad/sec, 1247 volley
Eagle w/ 250mm (3 MFS) - 319,6 dps (40,5+15km), 0.02875 rad/sec, 1121 volley
Ferox w/ 250mm (3 MFS) - 306,9 dps (27+15km), 0.02875 rad/sec, 1077 volley
Brutix w/ 250mm (1 MFS) - 332,7 dps (18+15km), 0.02875 rad/sec,1367 volley
Hurricane w/ 720mm Arty (3 Gyro) - 409,1 dps (15+21,875km), 0.0275 rad/sec, 3379 volley
Hurricane w/ 720mm Arty (2 Gyro) - 363,9 dps (15+21,875km), 0.0275 rad/sec, 3198 volley
Harbinger w/ Heavy beam (2 HS) - 399,4 dps (15+10km), 0.04125 rad/sec, 1401 volley

Okay, this is just comedic. The Ferox does 33% less damage per second than a similarly fit Hurricane with greater than 66% less volley damage? With a range difference of 6km? I knew the Ferox was severely underpowered, but I've never actually dug up the numbers before.

The Eagle is...lacking, the numbers above show that it either needs a DPS increase or a serious volley increase, but the real problems with the Eagle are the ship's speed, agility, and fitting.

This is ridiculous, CCP. Fix Caldari. If these numbers are correct, I can choose to try and contribute to a fight, and not actually matter, or I can choose to not be able to apply damage, because in the 20 - 30 seconds it takes my damage to reach a target the fight's over. Outside of ECM, there is no reason to bring Caldari into a combat scenario. This is bad design.


Again, you're looking at it the wrong way, compared to the other hybrid boats, you're exchanging 20-30 dps for 9-13KM in optimal range, easily a comparable trade. The only REAL outliar here is the insane numbers that the projectiles put out, not only do they get the best volley damage, but they get the highest dps, tracking thats just barely under rails, and greater usable range.


Perhaps I am looking at it the wrong way, but in many cases 30 DPS is an entire launcher's or turret's worth of DPS (or more), so forgive me if it's hard to swallow that an Eagle is effectively a Muninn with less Arties, worse tracking, worse speed, and worse agility. In a game where range beyond 100km means nothing, what's the point of an entire race based around shooting past 150km?
Slaktoid
Perkone
Caldari State
#354 - 2011-11-09 15:31:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Slaktoid
I think many of the changes are fine, but I will make a suggestion here. I fly Proteus alot and there's only 1 type of ammo that's usable. Faction antimatter. The rest we just don't care about.

Currently:

* Void M has shorter falloff, worse tracking and just a smidge more dps than Faction Antimatter. Thus it never gets used.
* Javelin M has half (!) the optimal range of Faction Antimatter, worse tracking and the exact same dps. It also uses more cap than Faction Antimatter. Thus it never gets used.

In the future I'd like to see Void M/Javelin M have the same dps as now, but better range and better tracking than Faction AM (or at the very least equal to Faction AM). I feel the progression should be Standard Ammo -> Faction Ammo -> T2 Ammo, in line with the skillrequirements of the guns. As it is now theres just no reason to ever use T2 ammo for hybrid mediums (bar maybe Spike and Null in a few situations).

Lower reload times would also help counter the current "One ammo to rule them all" mentality that we have with Faction AM. I especially would like you to compare Javelin M to Caldari Navy Antimatter for example, and at least get it on par with Faction AM.

Keep in mind that these suggestions are colored by a Wormhole Proteus pilot of course =)

Edit: Also before I forget. Ammo should probably take less space, especially for XL. Moros with no ammo is sad Moros =(
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#355 - 2011-11-09 15:32:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Magosian
Fine. I'm just gonna lay it out.

All I'm seeing in terms of hybrid-balancing is the juggling of numbers, statistics, and proposed changes to those numbers which may or may not result in a generally-accepted change.

Who cares?

Hybrids are fundamentally broken. This is a fact.

Why?

Projectiles are capfree, provide alpha, focus on falloff to determine effective range, allow the pilot to change damage type, and are fitted on the fastest ships in the game.

Lasers are virtually ammo-free, focus on optimal to provide dominant range, crystals quickly swapped to dictate effective range, and fit on the best-tanked ships in the game.

Hybrids do not give you anything like this! Hybrids do not provide a unique role.

Allow me to repeat myself, for emphasis, or flavor, or annoyance. Take your pick.

Hybrids are fundamentally broken. This is a fact.

Why?

Projectiles are capfree, provide alpha, focus on falloff to determine effective range, allow the pilot to change damage type, and are fitted on the fastest ships in the game.

Lasers are virtually ammo-free, focus on optimal to provide dominant range, crystals quickly swapped to dictate effective range, and fit on the best-tanked ships in the game.

Hybrids do not give you anything like this! Hybrids do not provide a unique role.


The proposed changes on test do not provide hybrids with anything which competes with lasers or projectiles at a fundamental level, thus the proposed changes will not have any worthwhile, lasting, desired effect. This is IN ADDITION TO the lackluster stats and effectiveness of hybrids. You NEED to work on improving the numbers AFTER you've given the turrets some real effective incentive to compete with the likes of other turrets!!! Yes, I said the proposed changes, to date, are worthless. I'm sorry.

As a pilot, I know there are situations where I want my weapons to be cap free. I know there are situations where my first and possibly my ONLY shot, needs to hit HARD; it needs to count. I know there will be times when hundreds of ships will fight at various ranges in long battles, so not only will I want to be able to instantly change my effective range, but if my entire fleet goes balls-deep in the EHP department, chances of overall victory increase dramatically.

The only thing I DON'T know is, when will hybrids be the weapon to compliment situations similar to those mentioned above?

CCP, Please understand I greatly applaud the effort and I think most of the players agree on this. But this makes it all the more frustrating to see it wasted. If you, CCP, are not willing to change hybrids from the ground up so they can compete with projectiles and lasers at a fundamental level, all of these efforts and tweaks are in vain. Please make some effort to show you understand this.
sq0
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#356 - 2011-11-09 15:43:52 UTC  |  Edited by: sq0
QUOTE idon;t know who right now that said minnmatars should use low slots for speed to run from BLASTERS that use those slots for armor.

Well that's true and seems unfair.

In my opinion NATURAL SOLUTION is previously mentioned TEMPORARY LARGE SPEED BURST with cooldown.

Lets look at other mmorpg games ( i know this isn't classic mmorgp like wow, but the principle works same )

Gallente: warriors
Warriors have high defence (because they are allways in the middle of fight), big dmg, slower, but are melee, they have to get right next to enemy to deal dmg and they need to have means to get there. So every warrior/melee class in every such game have some kind of RUSH ability to jump to enemy deal some dmg and than enemy runs away again, or not.

MInmmatar:archers
Low defence (they are not in the middle of fight), slightly lower dmg, fast.

In those games this works perfectly and it is old and well balanced base concept apllied everywhere. Archer starts shooting war from range deal some dmg, war rush him, in most cases even stun to hold him for a while ( webs are the same ) deal some dmg and than archer runs off again and this repeats. Both have good chance of winning and the winner is decided by skill and equip.
BUT IN GENERAL, THEY ARE BOTH AS STRONG. It just depends on player which gamestyle he preffers and that is what should be in eve also. Noone is stronger just different.

I think this example suits perfectly and it's logical and well proven through many years and games.

PLEASE feedback on this idea and comparison. THX
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#357 - 2011-11-09 15:45:09 UTC
Bhaal Chinnian wrote:
ok another brilliant idea....DENERF SENSOR DAMPS and give all gallente cruisers and above an appropriate effectiveness bonus.

5% for BS per level
7.5% for BC per level
10% cruiser per level
none for frigs
***remove Gallente's ability to use railguns
1) solves range problems passively by forcing your target into range of webs
2) no need for speed buff
3) hybrid damage buffs are sufficient now, since the real issue is employing blasters at range
case closed...move along pleaseP



******note. only allow sensor damps to be used by gallente ships



LOL so what... nobody can shoot you until they're in range of blasters. This wouldn't make Gallente overpowered at all. End irony.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Willl Adama
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#358 - 2011-11-09 15:53:01 UTC
I like the changes so far. No need to overdo the buff, you can always change it later.

Hi

Zircon Dasher
#359 - 2011-11-09 16:01:18 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Sam Bowein wrote:
Selar Nox wrote:
How about a webifier range bonus on blaster boats (cruiser-size upwards), increasing with hull size (BSs bigger bonus than BCs, which get more than cruiser)? Not talking about 5%, more something like doubling or tripling the range. So we get fired at while "crossing the gap" but actually get a chance to arrive over there...

Just a thought that crossed my mind...

I'd rather like a scram range bonus (+20% per level, so 18km for scram II). That would allow to get close to ships that would normally kite you.


There might be a problem with this being too binary. If your target is faster than you and is outside scram range, then you have the current difficulties in getting to blaster range. But if you are able to apply a long-range scramble, then suddenly you have a massive speed advantage and can easily close to optimal.

In the first case, it's too hard to get to blaster optimal; but in the second case it's too easy. Something more graduated would be better.



The new ranges of scrams and webs using t2 gang links makes adding scram/web range bonuses to blaster boats ineffective.

t2 scrams with a fleet booster now hit at roughly 16km (heated). [DG/SS/RF scrams at about 18.5km]
t2 webs now hit at roughly 19km (heated). [FN webs at about 27km]

At those ranges it will not matter if blaster boats get an additional scram/web bonus. Gallente boats, with increased agility, will be crawling as soon as they get within 14-15km.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#360 - 2011-11-09 16:16:48 UTC
Magosian wrote:


Hybrids do not give you anything like this! Hybrids do not provide a unique role.



This is think is one of the most fendamental problems with blasters. The decrease in fitting requirments, increased track, reload/ammo changes, and the 5% dmg buff are all nice but will inevitably not have any great impact on the use of blasters as a whole.

What we need is something unique, something not present or available from any other weapon system.


My suggestion is to change the overheating mechanic on blasters. I'd like to see a 10% rof bonus added to heat HOWEVER increase the damage blasters take while overheating by 10-15%. This will allow blasters a significant advantage in dps while overheating compared to other weapons with the tradeoff of slightly less total overheat duration.