These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Medium Rail, Beam and Artillery rebalance

First post First post First post
Author
Adwokat Diabla
Loving my Nyx
#21 - 2013-07-18 12:01:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Adwokat Diabla
CCP Rise wrote:
Morel Nova wrote:
Swap the arty RoF buff to a 20% damage bonus instead. Artillery is for alpha strikes, this risks making all weapon systems a bit too similar which is boring.


Its very intentional that it gets ROF and not damage. Alpha on Arty is already plenty high, making arty Hurricanes and Muninns both viable before the changes. We wanted to make sure the dps kept up with rails and beams somewhat without overbuffing alpha which is working fine currently.


so why would I want to fly anything other then arty stuff. they will probably track better then rails or at least have very simliar, have similar dps, will always kill the target before reps land? ****, count me in on this because that just owns in the unbalanced whoopass kinda way
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#22 - 2013-07-18 12:05:10 UTC
A needed change. But what about heavy missiles now ?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Alsyth
#23 - 2013-07-18 12:16:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Alsyth
- heavy missile are so bad you should up them at the same time (same range, same category)
- lowering the tracking is a bad idea imo, that's THE thing that makes them more interesting than, say, pulse Oracle or blaster Talos, and as your graph shows, they are too similar now.
- RoF for Artillery is not good, give them better alpha or all will be too similar. And btw their damage is already crap, giving them a smaller buff than Lasers is really mean
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#24 - 2013-07-18 12:25:56 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Rise is there any intention to do a ammo review ?
-50% and -75% penalties are too high for long range guns


Javelin and Gleam are exactly what a T2 ammo should be. It's all the others that should be changed.
Dzajic
#25 - 2013-07-18 12:29:50 UTC
You might have forgotten that tin detail of Talos having a wee bit more damage than rail Deimos.
Janeos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2013-07-18 12:29:53 UTC
Adwokat Diabla wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Morel Nova wrote:
Swap the arty RoF buff to a 20% damage bonus instead. Artillery is for alpha strikes, this risks making all weapon systems a bit too similar which is boring.


Its very intentional that it gets ROF and not damage. Alpha on Arty is already plenty high, making arty Hurricanes and Muninns both viable before the changes. We wanted to make sure the dps kept up with rails and beams somewhat without overbuffing alpha which is working fine currently.


so why would I want to fly anything other then arty stuff. they will probably track better then rails or at least have very simliar, have similar dps, will always kill the target before reps land? ****, count me in on this because that just owns in the unbalanced whoopass kinda way

Your love for eating both cap and ammo will keep you fitting long range guns with substandard alpha.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#27 - 2013-07-18 12:40:44 UTC
Rail damage & ROF bonus looks good, but 15% tracking penalty looks pretty heavy handed.

You've already nerfed Tracking Enhancers, so getting that 15% back takes at least 2 TEII. And how bad is Spike ammo going to be now?

The last hybrid balance pass boosted tracking IIRC. Now you're taking it away again?

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#28 - 2013-07-18 12:44:56 UTC
+1

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#29 - 2013-07-18 12:53:55 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
mmkay so why are all the comparisons ignoring T2 ammo? ..... who uses antimatter on rails? .. anyone?

T2 ammo needs a buff on long range guns .. -75% range makes it unusable...


Antimatter is used as the de facto ammo for rails.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

scimichar
Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
#30 - 2013-07-18 12:59:11 UTC
The damage/tracking bonus on the rails is nice, but what about fitting? To fit a MWD thorax with a scram you need two ACR and one POU rigs. For an eagle (even with your hac changes), you still need a ACR rig. Shouldn't need to use fitting rigs for standard fits.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#31 - 2013-07-18 13:00:05 UTC
I don't even get why a stationary talos is allowed to hit a talwar. It should be missing at all ranges.

Before you take into account the fact that it for some reason goes about as fast/faster, and can therefore zero the transversal and just instakill it, regardless of range.
Allus Nova
#32 - 2013-07-18 13:07:22 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Good morning space adventurers!

IF YOU WANT TO CRITICIZE THIS PROPOSAL PLEASE READ THE EXPLANATION BELOW FIRST <3

Okay so I'm going to give you the numbers first, then do some text walling below to try and explain why we arrived where we did.

Medium Rails (all sizes and metas):
+15% Rate of Fire
+15% Damage Multiplier
-15% Tracking Speed

Medium Beams:
+25% Damage Multiplier
-10% Tracking Speed

Medium Artillery:
+10% Rate of Fire
-5% Tracking

So the basic idea is that we're increasing damage by quite a lot for all medium long range turrets, while also lowering their tracking a little bit.

From a high level, the goal here is to make long range weapons valuable enough that people are able to use them for both PVP and PVE without being laughed at. This is hard to accomplish without stepping heavily on the toes of either large weapons or short-range medium weapons. We felt that a large damage increase was absolutely necessary for there to be any chance of seeing increased use, but the higher damage goes the more pressure gets put on other weapon systems. By making tracking speed a bit worse we preserve a lot of the advantage that medium short-range guns bring, while also making medium long-range guns a great choice verse large guns in many situations.

To understand why that last part is true, its VERY important that you understand how tracking works in EVE. I want to use an example here to help illustrate:

The tracking speed on a standard Neutron Blaster Talos with Null loaded is .0794
The tracking speed on a new 250mm Railgun Deimos with Antimatter loaded will be .0304

It looks like the Talos tracks 3x as well as the Deimos. In reality, because of the role Signature Resolution plays, the Deimos will actually track moving targets about 19% better than the Null Talos.

A real tracking number that combines tracking speed and resolution would look like this:

Real tracking on standard Neutron Blaster Talos with Null loaded is .0001985
Real tracking on a new 250mm Railgun Deimos with Antimatter loaded is .0002432

If you want to make this kind of comparison for other ships and situations, divide tracking speed by the signature resolution of the gun and compare the resulting numbers. If you want to see an awesome in-depth explanation for tracking, I recommend reading THIS BLOG by Azual Skoll.

One of the discussions we had with the CSM on this topic (there were a lot) revolved around a situation where you get to choose which ship to bring to a fight where you will be shooting at Talwars. Do you want a new medium long-range gun ship, or an Attack BC with large short-range guns. So I made a DPS graph here showing three fits: a 200mm Rail Thorax, a 250mm Rail Deimos, and a Neutron Talos, all of which have 2 tracking enhancers fit. The situation shown would be if the Talwar has MWD on and is moving at full speed at an angle of 60 degrees (hopefully fairly average, though it will vary a lot). You can see what that looks like here: DAMAGE GRAPH

There are of course a lot of other reasons to bring medium long-range ships over large like price, speed, resilience, and the option to shoot to much longer ranges. Overall we are still a tad worried about power creep here, but hopefully this will put medium guns in a healthy place in relation to their competition.

Be sure to check out the HEAVY ASSAULT CRUISER REBALANCE as well as many of those ships are affected by this change and vice versa

As always, looking forward to feedback.
CCP Rise



CCP Rise,

How do you justify the changes to Heavy Missiles after this? The reason behind the taking of HML's and throwing them into the junk bin was that they were out of line with other long range weapons. With these improvements of other long range turret weapons...HML's are now the red headed step child of attack systems. Will CCP re-assess it's nerf of HML's? They have become non-viable for both PvP and PvE due to poor dps, and the loss of a huge chunk of their range.

-Nova
Miles Winter
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-07-18 13:09:40 UTC
If I may add some input here as a completely new player with my current experience so far:

- I decided to focus on lasers and Amarr ships due to how they look
- I have been routinely told by other players whom I've asked, that beam lasers are almost completely useless and pulse lasers are only good when you get to T2 and can fit scorch.
- I can't really fit much of anything on anything. Even the most basic frigate fits have required 7+ days of training, I know that's peanuts to bittervets, but to a new player, that is staggering.

I don't know how any of this would impact or influence any decisions around these forthcoming changes to long-range support weapons, but it felt like something useful to say and is related in respect to the way the different weapon systems and tech levels influence each other.

Personally, I would prefer T1 weapons to be the all-around systems, T2 to be specialized. That would make new characters a fair bit more viable in combat, while older players are better in specific niches.

Unfortunately, I cannot see any sweeping and drastic changes in regards happening, both because people are used to the current meta and because of the immense impact that would occur economically within the game.
iyammarrok
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2013-07-18 13:09:44 UTC
Ok.. this may seem like a strange question but still...

You have compared the tracking and dps on a Talos, against that of a Thorax and Deimos(t)....

The Talos being designed for large hybrids means, at least as far as I can tell, that it should have higher DPS numbers but lower tracking, whether it fits blasters or rails.

looking at your DPS graph showing what things will be like after this change, i can't help but notice that the Talos does not reach anywhere near the dps potential of either the t1 or t2 cruiser.

So, post change, a railfit cruiser will track better and do more dps than a large blaster fit battlecruiser?
Seems a little odd.

Not indicative of corporate policy unless otherwise stated.

BiggestT
Konvict Cartel
The Serenity Syndicate
#35 - 2013-07-18 13:11:30 UTC  |  Edited by: BiggestT
CCP Rise wrote:
Morel Nova wrote:
Swap the arty RoF buff to a 20% damage bonus instead. Artillery is for alpha strikes, this risks making all weapon systems a bit too similar which is boring.


Its very intentional that it gets ROF and not damage. Alpha on Arty is already plenty high, making arty Hurricanes and Muninns both viable before the changes. We wanted to make sure the dps kept up with rails and beams somewhat without overbuffing alpha which is working fine currently.


Ahh the changes make sense now.

Cheers, finally I can use med rails and not feel like less of a man.

Edit: Any plans to review heavy missiles now? Seems like they will be pretty sub-optimal after this...
Minimax Zed
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#36 - 2013-07-18 13:11:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Minimax Zed
CCP Rise wrote:
Morel Nova wrote:
Swap the arty RoF buff to a 20% damage bonus instead. Artillery is for alpha strikes, this risks making all weapon systems a bit too similar which is boring.


Its very intentional that it gets ROF and not damage. Alpha on Arty is already plenty high, making arty Hurricanes and Muninns both viable before the changes. We wanted to make sure the dps kept up with rails and beams somewhat without overbuffing alpha which is working fine currently.


Arty Hurricanes aren't really viable, though, and haven't been since Retribution.

I'm not talking no-tank instacanes; those are a specialized niche use.

The problem is powergrid. Even with 100% perfect fitting skills, and an RCU II in one of your lowslots, fitting a shield arty-cane still requires a 1% grid implant. [Armor is even worse, of course.]

This isn't true for any of the other combat BCs with their beefiest racial medium long-range weaponry -- without an RCU II, some of them wind up 2-5% over on grid, but absolutely none of them wind up a whopping 16% over on grid.

Hurricane powergrid was nerfed too hard

Here's a comparison of powergrid needs for medium racial guns + shieldtank on the four turret combat BCs:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajo2jrZTrd1SdGp0T0hKc05HcVh5RWN5OVcxc0xEcGc&usp=sharing

The Hurricane is a big, big outlier.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2013-07-18 13:14:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Akturous
SO excited the medium long range guns got some love.

One request, less cap use and fitting on the beams and rails please, it's a big big problem, try fitting a shield rail thorax and not capping yourself out with just the guns. Less pg usage on the med arty wouldn't go astray either, that or more pg on ships that need to fit them ala Muninn and Vaga.

Mainly positive feedback from me in both threads instead of threatening you with bodily harm...you're making inroads son.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#38 - 2013-07-18 13:21:18 UTC
iyammarrok wrote:
Ok.. this may seem like a strange question but still...

You have compared the tracking and dps on a Talos, against that of a Thorax and Deimos(t)....

The Talos being designed for large hybrids means, at least as far as I can tell, that it should have higher DPS numbers but lower tracking, whether it fits blasters or rails.

looking at your DPS graph showing what things will be like after this change, i can't help but notice that the Talos does not reach anywhere near the dps potential of either the t1 or t2 cruiser.

So, post change, a railfit cruiser will track better and do more dps than a large blaster fit battlecruiser?
Seems a little odd.


Look at the sig radius and speed of the target that its shooting at.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Grarr Dexx
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2013-07-18 13:22:33 UTC
Capacitor usage of beams is still ****, even a 25% damage bonus is not going to make people use them instead of scorch heavy pulse or tachyon oracles.
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2013-07-18 13:26:22 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
Capacitor usage of beams is still ****, even a 25% damage bonus is not going to make people use them instead of scorch heavy pulse or tachyon oracles.


Supporting this.

I know med rails were shafted enough to deserve the massive DPS buff they got, but you can at least toss in the same 20% cap use reduction for med Beams like you did with the large ones, especially with the tracking hit they get.