These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#41 - 2013-07-18 13:32:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
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



1. It still pretty much impossible to fit beams/rails and an armor tank. This upsets me.. You basically end up getting worse numbers in EVERYTHING tank/dps/speed.
2. This entire thing is an excersize in powercreep. You should nerf the talos and t2 ammo properly rather than majorly buffing everything else IMO.
3. Beams still have the problem that if you fit them on anything that ship won't have any fitting for anything else (You can't shield tank an omen, it doesn't have the slots for it) So you can't fit the cap booster you have to have (Because otherwise you just instantly cap out endlessly)

TL:DR The fittings on these weapons (And cap use) is too high to use with armor tanks.. I want to armor tank my ******* amarr ships >_< (Also why are you trying to make Medium rails and large blasters with null the same? -_-)

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Jessica Danikov
Network Danikov
#42 - 2013-07-18 13:40:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jessica Danikov
I've done some pretty heavy mathematical investigation into tracking- why are sig resolution and tracking different stats on guns, apart for historical reasons? They're part of the exact same thing, it's just one number arbitrarily split into two on gun stats.

All it does is confuse the issue, as evidenced by massive blog posts about people not understanding and trying to educate people that leave some probably just as confused when they started, and the bit where Rise had to come up with a 'A real tracking number that combines tracking speed and resolution'. It's just plain silly that the 'real' tracking number isn't just a singular tracking number on any and all guns.

Edit: And just talking it over with a friend, I've realized that it does make sense to have them separate on two counts: firstly, tracking disruption/boosting only affects the tracking part of the number, secondly, the units of that tracking number naturally match up with the units of angular velocity.

Still, the unified numbers make it a lot easier to understand 'can I hit, can't I hit' and perhaps should be displayed somehow.
Arline Kley
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#43 - 2013-07-18 13:41:04 UTC
Quote:
Garviel Tarrant]TL:DR The fittings on these weapons (And cap use) is too high to use with armor tanks.. I want to armor tank my ******* amarr ships >_<


Welcome to my world - these are further changes that are going to be rushed out the door, leading to issues further down the line.

"For it was said they had become like those peculiar demons, which dwell in matter but in whom no light may be found." - Father Grigori, Ravens 3:57
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#44 - 2013-07-18 13:46:58 UTC
Arline Kley wrote:
Quote:
Garviel Tarrant]TL:DR The fittings on these weapons (And cap use) is too high to use with armor tanks.. I want to armor tank my ******* amarr ships >_<


Welcome to my world - these are further changes that are going to be rushed out the door, leading to issues further down the line.


Bear in mind that these are initial proposals. If you want to suggest amendments, then doing so with detailed data, and considered, reasonable arguments is the way forward.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
BAJRAN BALI
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2013-07-18 13:47:37 UTC
Aww crap! Well there goes arti tracking.Cry

YouTube: kds119 Twitter: @realkds119 Blog: derptw.blogspot.com
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#46 - 2013-07-18 13:47:46 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
It's a general consensus that Medium Rails need a buff, but giving them a 15% bonus to both RoF and damage seems a bit drastic to me - they don't suck that bad (and Rail Proteus or Astarte still works very well in killing rats that are weak to Kin/Thermal).


You don't think that CCP will give one hand and take away with the other?
The upcoming T3 Apocalypse will nerf any advantages of the Proteus back into the stone age.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#47 - 2013-07-18 13:50:40 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:

2. This entire thing is an excersize in powercreep. You should nerf the talos and t2 ammo properly rather than majorly buffing everything else IMO.


Medium beams and rails were essentially unused even before tier3 BCs were introduced. They haven't been buffed because of powercreep, but because they're just terrible.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#48 - 2013-07-18 13:57:00 UTC
Those changes look good on paper to me.

Like several people have said, looking at T2 ammo might be cool too. -75% range on Javelin always seems like a killer - you do get the tracking bonus with it but I seem to remember that the in-space chance of hitting something at that range even with the bonus was slim and none.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2013-07-18 13:57:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Knight
ah

this change is so uncreative and just seems cheap
lets just boost dmg along the whole range , that should fix them ... nope , it only fixes one thing (hopefully) but imho these weapons have other problems too ,what should be adressed also

other problems:
size of guns arent balanced
lets compare dual 150mm , 200mm ,250mm t2 railguns:

----------------- D150 --- 200 --- 250
optimal(km) 14,4 21,6 28,8
falloff (km) 6 10 12
dmgx 1,98 2,64 3,63
rof(s) 3,9 4,88 6,38
tracking 0,0441 0,0294 0,02415
cpu 33 37 42
pg 74 166 208

while 250mm is the standard and if you short on fitting and want to go tankier you can fit the 200mm guns,
the dual 150mm is nearly useless cause its alpha and optimal is so far behind the other two
half the optimal of the 250mm and 12% less dps overweights the less fitting need and better tracking
the better tracking only to counter its horribly low optimal as you have to fight much closer to get nearly same dps as from the
what should be done is to increase its optimal and fitting need, even the 200mm should have better optimal

just compare them to arties where both 720mm and 650mm are widely uses as both are well balanced vs eachother

650mm 19,32+17,5km opt+falloff
720mm 24+17,5km opt+falloff
the loss off range due to downgrading the gun to 650mm from 720mm is way smaller than for rails
20% just optimal

where downgrading to 200mm from 250mm you loose 25% optimal and on top of that 17% falloff
and if you downgrade to dual150mm you loose 50% both falloff and optimal :O
yeah there are similar gun for arties as the dual 150mm but still the loss in just over the top

or vs beams
focused mediumb 21+6km opt+falloff
heavy beam 24+8km opt+falloff
just 12,5% less optimal if you downgrade and 25% less falloff
these seems well balanced vs eachother too just like arties

and for the quad light beam laser that thing is as crap as the dual150mm rail



ammos
the long range ammos loose too much dmg for their better range, thats why nearly nobody uses longer range ammo for medium long range guns
the drop of dps and alpha makes them unviable

I think longer range ammos should get better dmg, to lessen the too steep drop of dps, this shouldnt make these weapons op , just make them usable with longer range ammo, nobody use t1 long range ammo in short range weapons anyway , this wouldnt change a thing for short range weapons


ps: oh and lower the cap use ,as rof increases cap/s increases too , which should be the case
and the tracking hit maybe too much med rails already had problem hitting smaller stuffs
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#50 - 2013-07-18 14:10:10 UTC
This initial pass looks promising, but can explain what the net benefit is going to end up being? I mean, medium rails were in a sorry state, to be sure, but if you're going to buff all the medium long-range weapons systems, is the end-of-the-day picture going to look essentially the same as it did before?

Also, why didn't you just buff rails to be in-line with the "best" (overall (usage, stats, etc., currently, as it stands on TQ now) medium long-range weapon on TQ now instead of power creep? I also don't understand the nerf to tracking, since medium long range weapons already have terrible tracking. The final picture should have been where T3 BCs have an absolute damage advantage but *significantly* worse tracking over medium long-range. It seems as though large short range, long-range ammo turrets will still have a damage advantage and only a slightly worse tracking, which probably won't really be affected by these buffs.

I'd like to remain optimistic, and I was really excited about the announcement of these changes, but I don't know if this pass accomplishes the goals; it more feels like excess power creep and is just going to end up in the same position it is now on TQ more-or-less.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Doed
Tyrfing Industries
#51 - 2013-07-18 14:11:25 UTC
Don't think it would hurt to give Arty a 15% RoF bonus, their dps will still be quite abit lower than Beam and Rails.

Give beams a little reduction in cap use aswell, 10-15 maybe even 20%
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#52 - 2013-07-18 14:12:21 UTC
CCP Rise or Malcanis,

What's the reasoning in not changing Heavy Missiles along with everything else? Weren't they originally nerfed because they didn't line up with the other long range weapon types and now they're being left behind in changes?
Photon Ceray
Palmyra Universal Enterprise
#53 - 2013-07-18 14:13:24 UTC
It looks like a very interesting change that might make long range medium guns viable indeed.

Just please look at T2 ammo as well. make some viable variations, maybe 3-4 types rather than 2.
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#54 - 2013-07-18 14:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Devereux
Let's go over the rails checklist.

Shield ships: Tank - check, Speed - check, Range - check, Tracking - check, DPS - check. Done ship it!

Armor ships: Tank - not if you want to fit the guns, Speed - not if you want a tank, Range - checkish, Tracking - not if you want range, DPS - not if you want that tank, but then again if you wanted a tank you can't fit the guns. Ship it? Sure why not. CCP Rise pities the fool that flies armor.

When are we going to see Armor 2.0?
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#55 - 2013-07-18 14:15:52 UTC
I am a little concerned about the ROF change to rails without a cap usage reduction to go with it

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#56 - 2013-07-18 14:29:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:

2. This entire thing is an excersize in powercreep. You should nerf the talos and t2 ammo properly rather than majorly buffing everything else IMO.


Medium beams and rails were essentially unused even before tier3 BCs were introduced. They haven't been buffed because of powercreep, but because they're just terrible.


Note i also said t2 ammo. T2 sr ammo is quite silly at times.

And i said the fittings/cap use were ****** up. Other then that they were alright.



I'm not saying they couldn't have used a dps buff, i would just rather have seen a slight buff and a slight nerf rather than just a massive buff.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#57 - 2013-07-18 14:34:05 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.


A 25% damage buff is equivalent to a 20% improvement in their cap efficiency. I dunno but that seems like a pretty huge improvement.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#58 - 2013-07-18 14:35:40 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
CCP Rise or Malcanis,

What's the reasoning in not changing Heavy Missiles along with everything else? Weren't they originally nerfed because they didn't line up with the other long range weapon types and now they're being left behind in changes?


Ironic, isn't it?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Daedra Blue
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#59 - 2013-07-18 14:39:02 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Good morning space adventurers!

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

CCP Rise


How bout you give us this in game? On the hover info/as a overview column. So we can see the difference and not fight to find the hidden information.

Thank You!
Serenity Zipher
#60 - 2013-07-18 14:40:09 UTC
I am all for a buff to medium rails/beams, but CCP is failing to see what they direly need the most, increased optimal/falloff range!!!