These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#261 - 2013-07-23 13:41:04 UTC
The fact you're reducing tracking BELOW BATTLESHIP SIZED GUNS is pretty indicative of a problem. I understand Signature Resolution plays into this as well, but you're skewing things to an extreme.

Thoughts ::
Med Short Turret weapons are more flexible and more adaptable to situations, even "longer" range situations.

Med Long Turret weapons are being further and further cornered into a small role performance.

In the modern fleet fight, keeping range is a luxury that you don't really have. The only fleets that dictate range are loki-boosted cruisers with specific kite setups in mind. And even then, with a proper counter cruiser loki-boosted fleet, you nullify that pretty quickly.

So, Medium Long range weapons fall into an inconvenient squeeze between the larger weapon platforms, such as the Tr3 BCs, which can EASILY reach up to 70km+ with large weapons and not a lot of effort and can dictate range well, while being unable to compete with the shorter range weapon platforms.

At the end of the day, I really would like the balance team to take a step back before these changes and lay down a very simple idea....

"What is the purpose of medium long range turrets? How do they fit into the tactical arena?"

Besides artillery, I have only ever used medium rail-guns on my Arazu/Lachesis because I NEVER want to be close in range with those cruisers, and arguably can always dictate range. And the Zealot can pull it off because it gets a HUGE range bonus for their Beam weapons. Other than that, if you can not guarantee dictating range or increase range to a sufficient amount, then medium long range weapons fail, and even worse after the tracking penalties happen because they can't adapt to the situation as presented.

So, perhaps you should sit down and re-view your "purpose" for medium long range weapons. Decide on a clear GOAL that they accomplish on the battlefield, and restructure your changes accordingly. Because, right now, I don't think the issue is what the numbers are tweaked at, it's "Besides a few ultra-specific usages, why do we have these weapons?"

Where I am.
lone wolfman
Doomheim
#262 - 2013-07-23 13:43:20 UTC
also i do not know why people are worried about the HM being left behind. with these changes i think they are getting buffed. HM will still hit the target while rails/arty/beam won't.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#263 - 2013-07-23 14:50:06 UTC
lone wolfman wrote:
also i do not know why people are worried about the HM being left behind. with these changes i think they are getting buffed. HM will still hit the target while rails/arty/beam won't.




As hard as a shart, but yeah.

HMLs are pretty underwhelming at the moment.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2013-07-23 15:08:21 UTC
To the person asking about gleam, with gleam on that fit it is 8.5k optimal and the tracking is WORSE than a scorch pulse, post patch it gets even worse.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#265 - 2013-07-23 16:36:59 UTC
Akturous wrote:
To the person asking about gleam, with gleam on that fit it is 8.5k optimal and the tracking is WORSE than a scorch pulse, post patch it gets even worse.



I never bothered training beams over small.
Aplier Shivra
#266 - 2013-07-23 17:07:05 UTC
So, I've seen this touched upon a little bit in the past 14 pages. It is looking like after this change, beams will be stepping on the territory of pulse's T2 ammo, while doing more dps with all other ammo types. Some quick numbers are showing beam's IN multifreq/gleam dps to be within just a few % of pulse's conflag, although that's with gleam still having worse tracking, but IN multifreq getting the same dps out to double the range. Looking at scorch, beam's IN xray will match it's range and be doing a bit over 10% more dps, or if that scorch pilot wanted more range and is using two tracking comps for it, beam's IN ultraviolet will still match the range and dps, and with those two tracking comps towards tracking speed will be able to track almost just as well.

However, for the pilots without T2 guns, the difference becomes huge the moment a pulse boat wants to do damage with any decent amount of range. Pulse would have to put in standard to match beam's multifreq optimal, but with beams doing 75% more damage at this range. Even against frigs that would be giving you some tracking problems at 15km beams still blow pulse's dps out of the water while being able to project out even farther much more easily. Because (scripted) tracking comps only give 15% optimal vs. 30% tracking, for every range-scripted TC the pulse boat tries to use to increase range, the beam boat can put that TC towards tracking and downgrade the ammo one step to have the same range.

I know there are many other factors to consider, and my head is going through them faster than I can type them. I do feel like this change for beams is a step in a good direction, but heavy-handed in the implementation. Short range weapons should not need to use to T2 ammo to hope of matching long range's dps against anything other than close, fast frigs.

My suggestion would be to reduce the numbers on rails to 15% damage, 7.5% RoF, -10% tracking, and beams to 15% damage, -5% tracking, (arties can stay as their proposed amounts). Instead take a closer look at T2 ammo choices as a point of balance between the gun types. I'm okay with beam's short range ammo matching pulse's for dps and range cause it will still have worse tracking, I'm not okay with their faction short range ammo matching that dps as well with twice the range, or for their T1 ammo out dpsing pulse's.

Perhaps even introduce a new mid range T2 ammo that can add another strategic option. For beams this could be a crystal with 10% reduced range, 85% reduced cap use, and damage between the T1 and navy Standard crystal. Arties could have one that has 10% reduced range, 50% reduced RoF (so it fires twice as fast), and 8 explosive/3 kin damage, which would translate to about 20% more dps than faction titanium sabot but much lower alpha and no tracking bonus, and still less dps than T1 fusion. Other things are possible, these are just some ideas for T2 ammo that can get the ball rolling.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#267 - 2013-07-23 20:20:40 UTC
Will you fix the quad light beam lasers while you're at it? Their range is lower than the small turrets they're derived from.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#268 - 2013-07-23 20:34:24 UTC
If I slap 250mm rails onto a Ferox, and load it with faction AM right now - I end up with 399 DPS at 31km + 19.5km of falloff. The Ferox has 80 - 100 DPS in drones after that. Unheated. Pushing 60k EHP.

Am I reading it right that medium Rails overall will get a 35% DPS buff? This buff would push the Ferox into 540 DPS territory before drones or overheating. It's a nice improvement - still not on par with the Naga but nice nonetheless.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2013-07-23 22:02:45 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Will you fix the quad light beam lasers while you're at it? Their range is lower than the small turrets they're derived from.

no they wont
just like they wont fix the unused/overused ammo types
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#270 - 2013-07-23 22:29:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Feldman
Aplier Shivra wrote:
So, I've seen this touched upon a little bit in the past 14 pages. It is looking like after this change, beams will be stepping on the territory of pulse's T2 ammo, while doing more dps with all other ammo types. Some quick numbers are showing beam's IN multifreq/gleam dps to be within just a few % of pulse's conflag, although that's with gleam still having worse tracking, but IN multifreq getting the same dps out to double the range. Looking at scorch, beam's IN xray will match it's range and be doing a bit over 10% more dps, or if that scorch pilot wanted more range and is using two tracking comps for it, beam's IN ultraviolet will still match the range and dps, and with those two tracking comps towards tracking speed will be able to track almost just as well.

However, for the pilots without T2 guns, the difference becomes huge the moment a pulse boat wants to do damage with any decent amount of range. Pulse would have to put in standard to match beam's multifreq optimal, but with beams doing 75% more damage at this range. Even against frigs that would be giving you some tracking problems at 15km beams still blow pulse's dps out of the water while being able to project out even farther much more easily. Because (scripted) tracking comps only give 15% optimal vs. 30% tracking, for every range-scripted TC the pulse boat tries to use to increase range, the beam boat can put that TC towards tracking and downgrade the ammo one step to have the same range.

I know there are many other factors to consider, and my head is going through them faster than I can type them. I do feel like this change for beams is a step in a good direction, but heavy-handed in the implementation. Short range weapons should not need to use to T2 ammo to hope of matching long range's dps against anything other than close, fast frigs.

My suggestion would be to reduce the numbers on rails to 15% damage, 7.5% RoF, -10% tracking, and beams to 15% damage, -5% tracking, (arties can stay as their proposed amounts). Instead take a closer look at T2 ammo choices as a point of balance between the gun types. I'm okay with beam's short range ammo matching pulse's for dps and range cause it will still have worse tracking, I'm not okay with their faction short range ammo matching that dps as well with twice the range, or for their T1 ammo out dpsing pulse's.

Perhaps even introduce a new mid range T2 ammo that can add another strategic option. For beams this could be a crystal with 10% reduced range, 85% reduced cap use, and damage between the T1 and navy Standard crystal. Arties could have one that has 10% reduced range, 50% reduced RoF (so it fires twice as fast), and 8 explosive/3 kin damage, which would translate to about 20% more dps than faction titanium sabot but much lower alpha and no tracking bonus, and still less dps than T1 fusion. Other things are possible, these are just some ideas for T2 ammo that can get the ball rolling.


Beams will continue to be irrelevant until they get a cap usage reduction. On a beam Nomen, every 10 seconds you've just used 10% of your cap to fire guns with no other mods being active. Adding a cap booster can help band-aid this, but the possibility of running out of cap charges before projectile/hybrid platforms run out of ammo is pretty bad.

Likewise, cap reduction to fire rigs do exist, but when you're dropping tank or gimping the fit for fitting mods because of the increased powergrid requirements, you're generally better off using something else.

EDIT: I feel its worth noting that i'm not just EFT warrioring. Try using beams on the test server with a Controlled Bursts 4 character using a fit that has any sort of active modules as well and the cap usage is rough enough to make you reconsider just rolling something else thats probably better anyways.

The moar you cry the less you pee
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#271 - 2013-07-23 23:09:29 UTC
Pinky Feldman wrote:


Beams will continue to be irrelevant until they get a cap usage reduction. On a beam Nomen, every 10 seconds you've just used 10% of your cap to fire guns with no other mods being active. Adding a cap booster can help band-aid this, but the possibility of running out of cap charges before projectile/hybrid platforms run out of ammo is pretty bad.

Likewise, cap reduction to fire rigs do exist, but when you're dropping tank or gimping the fit for fitting mods because of the increased powergrid requirements, you're generally better off using something else.



Sadly the cap reduction and fitting made to the large beams didn't trickle down to medium and small. Until then there's little reason to use anything other than Scorch....hmm roughly same dps out to Scorch range, enough range for almost all purposes, and better tracking....I'm listening....but also half the fitting and cap usage?
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#272 - 2013-07-23 23:30:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Wrong thread
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Foxyfloofs
Constantine.
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
#273 - 2013-07-23 23:37:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Foxyfloofs
What a great change! Maybe the diemost can be used like normal ahac after this. Shield-rail vigilant anyone?

Also to those complaining about fitting, how can you honestly expect the same amount of ehp when you're fighting at 20 or 30 km? more importantly what would you even do with it if you had it, the only people able to hit you are those with long ranged weapons themselves making it an even fight...except for scorch but let's not go there.

15% tracking isn't a big deal unless you intend to use them like blasters in which case use blasters
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#274 - 2013-07-24 00:02:48 UTC
CCP Rise

its funny if you look at the tracking of medium Rails as they are currently they still don't track aswell as gardes or bouncers and you are going to nerf the tracking of rails further as you believe the tracking is too good ... so you must believe gardes and bouncers tracking is also too good...

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
Gul Amarr
Orange County Cruisers
#275 - 2013-07-24 00:03:28 UTC
Anything worthwhile I can do with a Sac I couldn't do with a Drake at 1/3 the cost?

No?

Thought so...
TekGnosis
Rules of Acquisition
#276 - 2013-07-24 00:20:51 UTC  |  Edited by: TekGnosis
Eeeeh, so my initial instinct.... WTF can I haz my HML back??? Now even Arty does better deepz prolly.
Getting applied damage with HML is pretty hard vs especially all the speed buffed (well everything).

Nerfing rail tracking after buffing them last patch seems... *sigh*, thought the damage/rof bump is... strong...

Looking specifically at my Zealot...

HPL Pulse tracks .076 at 34km with no tracking mods and pushes 456dps with 3xHSII.
HBL INXray tracks .036 at 35km with no tracking mods and pushes 521dps with 3xHSII.

GIven that a lot of stuff happening out at 25km + tracks just fine inside .04 this is pretty strong and will get these used.

Up close, HBL get 635dps and the crap .045 tracking, but I'm a little confused how the long range guns T2 short range ammo beats the short range guns T2 ammo (639)...

If you can mitigate the tracking problems, these seem a touch strong actually. Especially considering Aurora gives 360 at 81km, where tracking doesn't really play much.

Sentries are all out of whack in comparison though, I still might choose them instead.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#277 - 2013-07-24 00:47:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Akturous
Aplier Shivra wrote:
Snip


The thing is, the useful engagement range of most laser ships is covered with scorch and scorch has better tracking than Gleam (the high tracking ammo), not to mention when you switch to MF in pulses your tracking damage goes way up.

I think Beams (all sizes, but especially meds) need an optimal boost (indeed med rails and arty could certainly use one). Since their tracking is worse than scorch, I should be able to use MF in an equivalent size beam and get the same optimal as a scorch pulse. That would increase the damage, but still have much worse tracking which is fine.

They certainly need a cap use and fitting reduction, though I'd much prefer to see the amarr ships be given lots of extra cap and fitting, that would lend some creativity to its uses. Tachyons might as well be called Oracle laser beams, since it's the only ship that fits them effectively.

TekGnosis wrote:

Eeeeh, so my initial instinct.... WTF can I haz my HML back??? Now even Arty does better deepz.
Getting applied damage with HML is pretty hard vs especially all the speed buffed (well everything).

Nerfing rail tracking after buffing them last patch seems... *sigh*


They also nerfed artillery tracking. Rail damage projection will be pretty damn good, though I think the tracking nerf was a bit heavy.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Ellariona
B52 Bombers
#278 - 2013-07-24 01:14:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Ellariona
Marcel Devereux wrote:
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?
Let me correct that for you:

Shield ships:
Tank - depends on ewar/utility/dualprop/etc,
Speed - depends on ewar/utility/dualprop/etc,
Range - either that or nanos, which works,
Tracking - either that or nanos, which works,
DPS - check.

Armor ships:
Tank - depends on dps/speed,
Speed - depends on dps/tank,
Range - depends on ewar/utility/speed/tank/dps/race/ammo/
Tracking - "not if you want range" (If you have range/speed, why would you need tracking?),
DPS - with blasters and pulses being most popular here, can't complain: check!

As you can see, in terms of EFT-warrioring and theorycrafting, there's not a big gap between armor ships and shield ships. Choices need to be made and it appears as if you don't like making them. If it were the case that one type of tank would be far better than the other, as you implied with your post, noone would fly the other, bad type.

Popular examples of how armor/shield choice is pretty negligible:
- Both armor canes and shield drakes (lol, imagine armor drakes) have been popular ships for ages.
- Both armor and shield T3s have been used for a while now in W-space. If anything, armor is more popular here.
- Both plates and shield extenders are popular items on the market, among other tank mods.
- With nanite reps, the armor vexor is popular again (as far as I've seen in high/low).
- Both armor and shield doctrines are used widely in all security zones.
- Plenty of 'hybrid' ships, able to fit both armortanks and shieldtanks, are being flown with either tank on them, proving that each kind of fit serves a good purpose for at least something. So, I can't imagine one of them being better in a general sense. Who are we kidding here, there is no 'general sense' in PVP.

So you see, it's hardly done, but ship it anyway, EVE will always be a work in progress. If you halt that progress, you're not helping anybody. You need to change stuff to see what is better and what is worse in such complex systems like internet spaceship warfare. To wine about buffs and nerfs is ridiculous, to supply the CSM and devs and features & ideas forum with tweaks, improvements and suggestions or ideas is the way to go. This is not a wine-thread, it's a constructive, productive feedback medium.

_______________________________________________

On the OP,

Only thing I'm worried about is that certain type guns will remain unused, because the changes are too broadly implemented. As another player pointed out already, there's certain sizes and types that really aren't viable in combat compared to their neighboring sizes or other race mediums.

Anyone can see what size/type guns we are talking about by just looking at the ingame compare tool and using a spreadsheet software graph to visualize the data. I suggest the devs look into that further instead of looking at the whole range and trying to implement a quick solution for all medium type guns. Just as the speed nerf (remember, the big one, with nano rework and ceptors nerf and shizzle, couple years back),

I think it might be handy to have some sort of visual representation of all the guns, from small to capital, with all their stats and types sorted properly. (gimme some time, working on it myself, let's see where the outliers are)
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#279 - 2013-07-24 01:34:27 UTC
The changes look ok, but currently you need to make the fitting much easier. So many ships cannot fight these guns with out hugely compromising tank / cap. In order for these guns to be used seriously in PvP fitting requirements need to be lowered- massively.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#280 - 2013-07-24 08:42:32 UTC
Aplier Shivra wrote:
I know there are many other factors to consider, and my head is going through them faster than I can type them. I do feel like this change for beams is a step in a good direction, but heavy-handed in the implementation. Short range weapons should not need to use to T2 ammo to hope of matching long range's dps against anything other than close, fast frigs.

You underestimate just how significant tracking can be.

Taking a Zealot for example. With current beams (before the tracking nerf) - if it is moving at base speed ~250m/s, flying with transversal to a stationary zealot and firing with multifrequency it will not be getting clean hits until it's ~15km away. Any closer and it loses a huge amount of dps.

Even if paper dps is the same, Pulse lasers will still definitely be used on brawling setups. This change is going to put some variation into the weapon fitting which is going to be awesome!

You won't need to worry about every laser ship you encounter once these changes hit being ranged beam fit. In the event you find people like this, get up close and they won't hit you :)