These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

possible way to balance minmatar
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lili Lu
#21 - 2011-11-10 17:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
ElCholo wrote:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I wasted my time posting that. After re-reading this guys post, I'm pretty sure that only a ******* nut job would even be able to get past the first few senteces and still be able to take any of it seriously. Either this guy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about or this is a very well done troll.


Are you talking about the OP or Naomi? Either way, yes you did waste your time. Naomi is not worth taking seriously on here, way too much Minmatar hate.

As to the issues in this thread, a Minmatar nerf is not gonna happen at least with this patch. I've seen some people suggest that the falloff buffs for tracking mods were overdone and that if those were toned down the vast AC superiority over balsters would diminish. Blasters would still need buff(s) as a tracking mod nerf would hit them also although to a much lesser extent.

Regardless, it is wierd to see a set of very modest buffs hit sisi for hybrids. Hopefully CCP is trying a different tactic than the overdone buff out of the gate with no alterations that they have used in the past. So there is some possibility that they actually will inject some further tweaking buffs on sisi before just plopping their preset ideas onto tranquility.

I fly minmatar and amarr on this character, but I have two others that use hybrids. I gave up on the Hyperion and Rokh and rails and blasters, even though I wanted to like the ships and guns. I'm hopeful that further upward tweaks come for hybrids on sisi and then tranquility such that the ships and guns are worth using.

Edit- nice to have you back Liang
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#22 - 2011-11-12 06:58:35 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
waiting for liang or someone to come in here. . . I have already spent too much time arguing some very reasonable points which just get 'scorch this, pulse that' thrown back at me so. . . good luck with your attempt.


Summarizing all of your posts on the subject "Lasers should be the WTFpwn kings of all guns. Projectiles should be utter ****. BTW, I'm in PIE."

-Liang


learn to read,

and what the hell does my being in PIE have anything to do with this?
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2011-11-12 09:32:07 UTC
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
learn to read,

and what the hell does my being in PIE have anything to do with this?


Because you've never established a solid reasoning behind your opinion that amarr should have better turrets. The argument that Amarr are a slow, armor-tanking race would logically mean that blasters deserve as much projection as pulse do.

And once again, my Tempest isn't doing 700 DPS at 60km like your Abaddon is.
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#24 - 2011-11-12 23:59:46 UTC
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
learn to read,

and what the hell does my being in PIE have anything to do with this?


Because you've never established a solid reasoning behind your opinion that amarr should have better turrets. The argument that Amarr are a slow, armor-tanking race would logically mean that blasters deserve as much projection as pulse do.

And once again, my Tempest isn't doing 700 DPS at 60km like your Abaddon is.


Sure i can argue you second point - but it simply does not follow from the first. Its a troll I suppose - just did not expect it from him.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2011-11-13 00:11:27 UTC
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ruah Piskonit wrote:
waiting for liang or someone to come in here. . . I have already spent too much time arguing some very reasonable points which just get 'scorch this, pulse that' thrown back at me so. . . good luck with your attempt.


Summarizing all of your posts on the subject "Lasers should be the WTFpwn kings of all guns. Projectiles should be utter ****. BTW, I'm in PIE."

-Liang


learn to read,


In none of these threads have I seen one point against the fact that lasers are just as "OP" as Minmatar.

Perhaps there is a good place to start? Or will you just dismiss this as "scorch this, pulse that?"
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#26 - 2011-11-13 00:52:46 UTC
Roosterton wrote:

In none of these threads have I seen one point against the fact that lasers are just as "OP" as Minmatar.
Perhaps there is a good place to start? Or will you just dismiss this as "scorch this, pulse that?"

Just a little snippet from the big thread:

Ruah Piskonit wrote:

Cambarus wrote:

Saying amarr ships are gun platforms is like saying they're built to kill things; it also applies to just about every other ship in the game. Hell, a DOMI gets more than half of its dps from guns. But you then go on do describe the gallente as brawlers and the minmatar as skirmishers, wtf are you comparing here? How is a blaster using brawler not a "pure gunship"? Or an arty mael, or damn near every ship in the game? Also, minmatar most certainly do not have similar tank/gank to amarr, you're insane if you think that, especially once range gets factored in (hint: 45km falloff is not as good as 45km optimal)


Well yah, they kill things at the cost of a whole range of other things. 'face melting' is a reference to lazers, and is an old reference.
Come now, if that's not good for a laugh, I don't know what is.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#27 - 2011-11-13 03:11:58 UTC
i dont get it you want to buff minmatar AC guns to have higher alpha while keeping dps/tracking/range...are you nuts by any chance?

do you even know what so called problems are?

how long do you play this game do you fly all race ships at all?

i mean how did you get to this brilliant idea in the first place?

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
draconothese
Independant Celestial Enterprises
#28 - 2011-11-13 06:01:56 UTC
no what i want to do is make the recycle time on there guns a bit longer so there main focus is alpha strike so auto cannons would be faster firing then artiller but still slow compared to all the other race guns
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2011-11-13 08:31:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Liang Nuren wrote:
Onictus wrote:

Now load them with Fusion and anti-matter and re-compare.

Balanced my ass.

I fly both by the way, AC more often then blasters because ACs actually like HIT STUFF.....


"Oh no, a working weapons system works better than a non-working weapons system! But it works about as well as another working weapons system. Whatever shall we do? Nerf the working weapons systems!!!!!!!!"

No.

-Liang



Excuse me? Wasn't that you whining about me putting words in your mouth?

I didn't say nerf anything.....did I now? I said compare.

with my skills a.k.a imperfect support skills (only have sharp shooter IV thus far) equal in both projectiles and hybrids



L Neutron +TE faction antimatter. Optimal 4968, Falloff 15,600 so figure your useful range is 20km....at which point you do 50% of paper DPS on a slow target

800mm Repeating Artillery +TE faction short range Optimal 3743, Falloff 29,952 Effective range 35,000...nearly double a blaster.

That is just singe lets try two TEs.
800mm repeater Optimal 4064 Falloff 37,776
L Neutron Optimal Optimal 5615 Falloff 19,667

That is short range faction ammo, DPS differences don't ******* matter if you have to pull a battleship within 10KM to do 75% DPS Damn I wonder why one is broken?

...and its worse for mediums that blaster only reach 10KM with 2TEs

SO my question to you are we arguing the same side or are you just being an ass because I challenged Your Highness.
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#30 - 2011-11-13 09:22:26 UTC
I've seen a lot of posts like this and I am going to take a quick guess at their origin. My first toon was minnie. I just wanted to go fast and shoot stuff and that was what people said they did. Of course everyone also warned me that they were 'all-arounders' and 'skill intensive' which was quite correct. And I did in fact lag behind my friends in development because I kept getting side-tracked on the skill que. Now if you check the stats on player base most new players do not pick Minmatar as their starting character. And I am willing to bet that 1/2 those are the second toon of an existing character. What am I getting at (what were you getting at Jane?) oh yeah. So if you have already been playing for a while and you already have a good skillset then yep Matar will rock. Most folks have drone skills and fitting skills. Half of them have missile skills. So you are looking at projectiles and command skills a fairly short path for a second ship type. And you don't even notice all the other work that went into it because you spent that time working on your first type. Hence Matar becomes the second ship you learn to use. Because when you are already 2/3ds of the way to being an all-arounder there is not a better class of ships to fly. I'm done. Flame away.

90% of of the time my posts are about something I actually find interesting and want to learn more about. Do not be alarmed.

Headerman
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2011-11-13 11:10:27 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Onictus wrote:

Now load them with Fusion and anti-matter and re-compare.

Balanced my ass.

I fly both by the way, AC more often then blasters because ACs actually like HIT STUFF.....


"Oh no, a working weapons system works better than a non-working weapons system! But it works about as well as another working weapons system. Whatever shall we do? Nerf the working weapons systems!!!!!!!!"

No.

-Liang



Excuse me? Wasn't that you whining about me putting words in your mouth?

I didn't say nerf anything.....did I now? I said compare.

with my skills a.k.a imperfect support skills (only have sharp shooter IV thus far) equal in both projectiles and hybrids



L Neutron +TE faction antimatter. Optimal 4968, Falloff 15,600 so figure your useful range is 20km....at which point you do 50% of paper DPS on a slow target

800mm Repeating Artillery +TE faction short range Optimal 3743, Falloff 29,952 Effective range 35,000...nearly double a blaster.

That is just singe lets try two TEs.
800mm repeater Optimal 4064 Falloff 37,776
L Neutron Optimal Optimal 5615 Falloff 19,667

That is short range faction ammo, DPS differences don't ******* matter if you have to pull a battleship within 10KM to do 75% DPS Damn I wonder why one is broken?

...and its worse for mediums that blaster only reach 10KM with 2TEs

SO my question to you are we arguing the same side or are you just being an ass because I challenged Your Highness.


Well if you are gonna compare just one attribute out of many, then just **** off.

Australian Fanfest Event https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=90062
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2011-11-13 11:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Headerman wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Onictus wrote:

Now load them with Fusion and anti-matter and re-compare.

Balanced my ass.

I fly both by the way, AC more often then blasters because ACs actually like HIT STUFF.....


"Oh no, a working weapons system works better than a non-working weapons system! But it works about as well as another working weapons system. Whatever shall we do? Nerf the working weapons systems!!!!!!!!"

No.

-Liang



Excuse me? Wasn't that you whining about me putting words in your mouth?

I didn't say nerf anything.....did I now? I said compare.

with my skills a.k.a imperfect support skills (only have sharp shooter IV thus far) equal in both projectiles and hybrids



L Neutron +TE faction antimatter. Optimal 4968, Falloff 15,600 so figure your useful range is 20km....at which point you do 50% of paper DPS on a slow target

800mm Repeating Artillery +TE faction short range Optimal 3743, Falloff 29,952 Effective range 35,000...nearly double a blaster.

That is just singe lets try two TEs.
800mm repeater Optimal 4064 Falloff 37,776
L Neutron Optimal Optimal 5615 Falloff 19,667

That is short range faction ammo, DPS differences don't ******* matter if you have to pull a battleship within 10KM to do 75% DPS Damn I wonder why one is broken?

...and its worse for mediums that blaster only reach 10KM with 2TEs

SO my question to you are we arguing the same side or are you just being an ass because I challenged Your Highness.


Well if you are gonna compare just one attribute out of many, then just **** off.


I can compare many attributes, again, I fly BOTH races and weapon systems ....with equal skills.


EVERYTHING with Gallente points to an innate DPS advantage with the turret system that simply doesn't exists, particularly in comparison to DPS, Hyperion ot Meal for example both in gank buffer shield fits, the meal does more damage significantly, until the hype gets into optimal, then its buffer against buffer, and the mael should win that one as well.

Use the hull bonues and the mael will tank the Hype until the hype runs out of charges.....its one of the rare cases where you cna compare same tier hulls between Gallente and Matar and the Gallente comes out being the faster ship.

Cyclone VS Brutix? Same thing, Cyclone has enough tank to neut the Brutix out of charges, other wise the if the Cyclone has missiles its a simple matter of overheating weapons until it overwhelms the Brutix's 300(ish) DPS tank....while the brutix has to burn to stay in range of pathetic electron distance (i.e. x2 TE 7km) all while doing 60% of its "inferior" paper DPS from the edge of scram range.

Myrm and cane is fit and counter-fit either can beat the other but there are so many variables that its a moot point.


Range is a deal breaker, unless blasters get a serious DPS buff the lack of an engagement envelope on SLOWER ******* hulls is the goddamn issue. Because otherwise the systems are pretty close in performance and output except that blaster have NO ******* RANGE.

Flip that around and you have LOL rails...a system that is poor in everything except range.....and if short range system's a al barrage and scortch didn't offer BETTER performance under 80km's that would be fine as well
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#33 - 2011-11-13 12:10:45 UTC
draconothese wrote:
no what i want to do is make the recycle time on there guns a bit longer so there main focus is alpha strike so auto cannons would be faster firing then artiller but still slow compared to all the other race guns


then you don't have clue what are you talking about your change would reduce dps by more then half and will bring meteor storm of whine due to blob of alpha strikes AC boats with Arty boats as support.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#34 - 2011-11-13 12:14:06 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Headerman wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Onictus wrote:

Now load them with Fusion and anti-matter and re-compare.

Balanced my ass.

I fly both by the way, AC more often then blasters because ACs actually like HIT STUFF.....


"Oh no, a working weapons system works better than a non-working weapons system! But it works about as well as another working weapons system. Whatever shall we do? Nerf the working weapons systems!!!!!!!!"

No.

-Liang



Excuse me? Wasn't that you whining about me putting words in your mouth?

I didn't say nerf anything.....did I now? I said compare.

with my skills a.k.a imperfect support skills (only have sharp shooter IV thus far) equal in both projectiles and hybrids



L Neutron +TE faction antimatter. Optimal 4968, Falloff 15,600 so figure your useful range is 20km....at which point you do 50% of paper DPS on a slow target

800mm Repeating Artillery +TE faction short range Optimal 3743, Falloff 29,952 Effective range 35,000...nearly double a blaster.

That is just singe lets try two TEs.
800mm repeater Optimal 4064 Falloff 37,776
L Neutron Optimal Optimal 5615 Falloff 19,667

That is short range faction ammo, DPS differences don't ******* matter if you have to pull a battleship within 10KM to do 75% DPS Damn I wonder why one is broken?

...and its worse for mediums that blaster only reach 10KM with 2TEs

SO my question to you are we arguing the same side or are you just being an ass because I challenged Your Highness.


Well if you are gonna compare just one attribute out of many, then just **** off.


I can compare many attributes, again, I fly BOTH races and weapon systems ....with equal skills.


EVERYTHING with Gallente points to an innate DPS advantage with the turret system that simply doesn't exists, particularly in comparison to DPS, Hyperion ot Meal for example both in gank buffer shield fits, the meal does more damage significantly, until the hype gets into optimal, then its buffer against buffer, and the mael should win that one as well.

Use the hull bonues and the mael will tank the Hype until the hype runs out of charges.....its one of the rare cases where you cna compare same tier hulls between Gallente and Matar and the Gallente comes out being the faster ship.

Cyclone VS Brutix? Same thing, Cyclone has enough tank to neut the Brutix out of charges, other wise the if the Cyclone has missiles its a simple matter of overheating weapons until it overwhelms the Brutix's 300(ish) DPS tank....while the brutix has to burn to stay in range of pathetic electron distance (i.e. x2 TE 7km) all while doing 60% of its "inferior" paper DPS from the edge of scram range.

Myrm and cane is fit and counter-fit either can beat the other but there are so many variables that its a moot point.


Range is a deal breaker, unless blasters get a serious DPS buff the lack of an engagement envelope on SLOWER ******* hulls is the goddamn issue. Because otherwise the systems are pretty close in performance and output except that blaster have NO ******* RANGE.

Flip that around and you have LOL rails...a system that is poor in everything except range.....and if short range system's a al barrage and scortch didn't offer BETTER performance under 80km's that would be fine as well


Yes hybrids suck ogre ass nice for you to figure that out genius.

So we should nerf lazors and projectiles so we can all suck with you?

i dont think so.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2011-11-13 12:18:35 UTC
Again where did I say nerf anything.

You quoted my every. single. post. I made in this thread.

Where? Genius.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2011-11-13 12:39:17 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Again where did I say nerf anything.

You quoted my every. single. post. I made in this thread.

Where? Genius.

it's implied tho.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-11-13 13:36:53 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Again where did I say nerf anything.

You quoted my every. single. post. I made in this thread.

Where? Genius.

it's implied tho.



I simply said compare, which is exactly what I meant.

Pulse and AC's are ying and yang, and relatively in balance. Missiles are missiles, and BS level missiles need help as well, I doubt you'll find many that will argue credibly that heavy missiles are underpowered.

That leaves blasters, which need SOME advantage to make up for **** poor range.....to match the other weapon systems they need a defined damage advantage or a range buff. not AC take two but a buff that isn't up to AC ranges is at least competitive to allow for some flexibility

Matar themselves.....falloff may need a bit of a tweek, but a small one, but that is all, For all of their strength, Matar have a number of easily exploitable weaknesses.


I'd be a HUGE fan of flying other stuff than the hurri going out on a roam. I like the ship, a LOT, but damn its simply a bad choice to fly anything else (seeing as I can't fly a drake) which irks me to no end.
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2011-11-13 13:39:04 UTC
Page 2 and most of page 1 can be summed up as:

Autocannons are better blasters than blasters are.


As for the OP. No. Nerfing AC refire rate massively hurts DPS, so upping damage to compensate ends up turning them into mini arties and doesn't change the fact they'd still be better at being blasters than blasters are.

I still think the biggest issues lie with tracking and falloff. Reducing TE's falloff bonus back to 15% would be an improvement, although it doesn't really solve the issue that in Eve, there's not really an effective hard Minimum range, only the soft one applied by tracking.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2011-11-13 13:47:47 UTC
Buzzmong wrote:
Page 2 and most of page 1 can be summed up as:

Autocannons are better blasters than blasters are.


As for the OP. No. Nerfing AC refire rate massively hurts DPS, so upping damage to compensate ends up turning them into mini arties and doesn't change the fact they'd still be better at being blasters than blasters are.

I still think the biggest issues lie with tracking and falloff. Reducing TE's falloff bonus back to 15% would be an improvement, although it doesn't really solve the issue that in Eve, there's not really an effective hard Minimum range, only the soft one applied by tracking.



or, cutting falloff bonus on hulls from 10 to 5%.

AC's on non falloff bonused hulls aren't really that worrying. they do get bigger range but their dps drop isn't that hot either.
the demonization of AC's however seem to stem from a select number of hulls that do have a falloff bonus.


I would still avoid any nerfs tho. The example above is the only nerf I would accept for AC's, since nerfing X so that Y can keep up is poor form tbh, power creep be damned.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2011-11-13 14:08:54 UTC
Grimpak wrote:



I would still avoid any nerfs tho. The example above is the only nerf I would accept for AC's, since nerfing X so that Y can keep up is poor form tbh, power creep be damned.



I'm of two minds about that one honestly.

Kill AC's falloff (15% in this case) now laser are gaining in relative power, blasters still have issues, nothing is really solved balance wise ...except that the Amarr pilots can smirk and get about rocking things. I've been on the receiving end of a pulse-poc enough to respect it if I don't get a scram range warp in.

I'd say give blasters maybe 50 optimal a falloff buff (I'd have to play with the numbers) and 20% more damage.

This allows you to fit TE's and at least something resembling a working range, or fit all magstabs and have facefuck DPS to befit the ******** range and disadvantages of EVERY other weapon system.

As it stands ever the prospective reload time buff is still dubious for T1 ammo and blasters its only 6km difference between long and short range and hybrids have 8 range bands to deal with. SO you can still do more with a tracking computer than you can changing ammo...without the DPS loss from having you guns shut down for 10 seconds.


Of course I'm a fan of making blasters reverse artillery keep the short range.....but lengthen the cycle and increase the alpha. Ok I got you now, you are definitely going to feel it.