These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#821 - 2011-11-16 14:32:51 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Rank Ships Kills
1 Drake 54822
2 Hurricane 47905
3 Abaddon 34259
4 Armageddon 21631
5 Zealot 15305
6 Tempest 13981
7 Maelstrom 13797
8 Dramiel 13186
9 Rifter 10627
10 Cynabal 9963
11 Sabre 9563
12 Rapier 8719
13 Scimitar 8496
14 Tengu 8312
15 Hound 8265
16 Vagabond 7737
17 Manticore 7276
18 Loki 7110
19 Harbinger 6001
20 Capsule 5365

Today in the top twenty we have:
3 Caldari
10 Minmatar
4 Amarr
2 Angel

0 Gallente

Anyone see that changing with the current set of fixes on SISI?



It may be worth noting that the majority of those Abaddons are likely running projectiles.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#822 - 2011-11-16 14:38:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
No. This isn't enough. This is not acceptable.

Forget the new effects.
Forget the new ships.
Forget the new T2 modules.
Forget gimmicky things like trails, nebulae.


None of it matters because a THIRD of eve's ships are UNUSABLE, While a single race's weapon type is now used even on unbonused ships with better results!

Hybrids encompass TWO races. The are the majority of Gallente's fixed weapons, and half of Caldari's.

Every single rail and blaster platform will continue to be drydocked, not enough has been done.

CCP you promised to fix this, now FOCUS AND JUST FIX THE DAMN THINGS. Your ADHD is coming out again and with your terrible track record of not finishing things don't you dare give a ******* halfass promise that you will look into it.

Get to work, almost half of your game is BROKEN.

FIX THIS.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Hentes Zsemle
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#823 - 2011-11-16 14:40:45 UTC
So basicly you just saying that the guy responsible for this project is not working on it for at least a week more, while the expansion is out in 2 weeks.

I guess theese changes are final then.
Alara IonStorm
#824 - 2011-11-16 14:41:16 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
In case anyone missed the post from CCP Tallest:

update (08/11/11): based on player feedback, the following changes will be made to hybrid balancing (and T2 ammo balancing).

* Hybrid turret reload time will be 5 seconds.
* Hybrid ammo will be 50% smaller (and turret capacity reduced to keep same number of charges)
* Blaster damage +5% (except XL turrets)
* Railgun tracking +5% (except XL turrets)
* Hail falloff penalty will be 25%, not 0%.

Balancing is an ongoing project that we hope to continue beyond the Crucible expansion and we are reading and appreciate all the feedback. The above changes are based on the feedback Tallest received up to that point and will make it into Crucible.

Are these changes the Final ones. In the Tier 3 Battlecruisers Thread CCP Yitterbium made what is only post I have seen where someone from CCP discusses the actual problems with Hybrids whilst speaking on the Talos.
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
TALOS

General efficiency: we do realize it suffers from some problems next to the other hulls. Unfortunately, as some of you pointed it, the real issue here comes from blasters, and how they compete against similarly close ranged weapons like autocannons and pulse lasers. Thus, this is little more that can be done by tweaking the hull itself, since the problems mainly come from:


  • Damage projection: blasters have issues projecting damage, especially considering Tech2 ammunition like Scorch and Barrage, which greatly empowers pulse lasers and autocannons and leave hybrids far behind for little increased damage to compensate. The issue is also widened because blasters benefit less from tracking enhancers and falloff related bonuses than their Minmatar close weapon counterpart.

  • Mobility and armor tanking conflicts with each other: no surprise here, fitting plates into your Gallente armor oriented slot layout decreases its mobility, which is a direct contradiction with how blasters are supposed to work. This leaves little to no choice but to fit shield extenders on Gallente ships (I'm looking at you, Mr. Brutix and Hyperion X) to keep some mobility and actually try to apply the blaster damage output. Also let's not forget Minmatar ships are usually faster than Gallente by design, while Gallente traditionally use the shortest weapon system available.

  • Lack of usefulness in gang/fleet engagements: thus, because of blaster low damage projection and Gallente poor mobility when armor tanked, blaster ships are found lacking in gang warfare, as either your target or yourself are long dead before you can reach it. Besides, having blaster ships moving all around the battlefield to engage its target leads to coordination issues with the rest of the fleet, especially if logistics are implied.


So yes, we are aware of all of that and CCP Tallest and myself, among others, keep discussing of possible ways to fix the issue blasters face at the moment. However, what you must understand here, is that there is no magic trick we can pull out of our hats to fix all these issues instantly, as they require looking into massively complex tasks that have a lot of repercussions themselves.


For instance, let us give you a quick insight of the indirect problems we have to face regarding blaster balancing:


  • Do we want to nerf Barrage and Scorch? If yes, by how? Wouldn't that kill their usefulness as a whole? If no, can we add even more falloff to blasters, knowing it may be over-inflating the balance of power again?
  • Don't we need to have a look at shield extenders/armor plates as well? If we nerf them, are we confident with possible changes to passive tanking? Can't we make active tanking more useful on PvP setups, so that passive tanking is less used for blaster platforms and more on Amarr platforms, designed to be more static than Gallente? Doesn't that require looking into NOS/Neuts as well? How about Cap boosters? Overheating?
  • Can we make Gallente ships faster than Minmatar knowing they also use railguns? Wouldn't that be defeating the original design goals for Minmatar ships?


He states that you are all aware of this but the numbers you present seem to only kick the tires on Hybrids but not fix the issues.

Will we see any of this addressed in the Nov 29th release of Crucible? Will there be real Hybrid Balance?
Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
#825 - 2011-11-16 14:45:52 UTC
So in short Hybrids have been buffed, it may not be enough, but we'll look at it again when we have time?

Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
CCP Affinity
C C P
C C P Alliance
#826 - 2011-11-16 14:50:50 UTC
Hentes Zsemle wrote:
So basicly you just saying that the guy responsible for this project is not working on it for at least a week more, while the expansion is out in 2 weeks.

I guess theese changes are final then.



All expansions have a cut off point for continuing changes... this allows for it to be tested ;) As Soundwave said.. balancing WILL continue but the changes mentioned are the ones that will make it into this release

♥ CCP Affinity ♥

Follow me on Twitter

Game Designer for EVE Online

Team Astro Sparkle

Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#827 - 2011-11-16 14:53:34 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:
RAGE


Mate, I understand how you feel... and i believe I was the one originally pointing out that a third of our ships are drydocked.

Let Soundwave answer. At least we know someone is listening now.

More flies with honey and all that.
Neo Agricola
P A R A B E L L U M
#828 - 2011-11-16 14:57:39 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
All expansions have a cut off point for continuing changes... this allows for it to be tested ;)

That is a Standard procedure for Software Developing.
And it is good that you are working that way, otherwise there were more Bugs. Now all you have to do is to listen to those testers who give you feedback from a Sisi Point of View. But with the recent changes in CCPs behaviour I do not have any doubts about that.

IMHO: You (CCP) made a big step in the right direction!

CCP Affinity wrote:

As Soundwave said.. balancing WILL continue but the changes mentioned are the ones that will make it into this release


Great!
And I guess, we are not talking about: We will look into Hybrids in 2 years again, but you mean: we are still looking into Hybrids.
(perhaps you should point that out, so everyone is seeing that point.)

Best regards and keep up your good work!

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710

Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#829 - 2011-11-16 14:58:03 UTC
Vincent Gaines wrote:
No. This isn't enough. This is not acceptable.

Forget the new effects.
Forget the new ships.
Forget the new T2 modules.
Forget gimmicky things like trails, nebulae.


None of it matters because a THIRD of eve's ships are UNUSABLE, While a single race's weapon type is now used even on unbonused ships with better results!

Hybrids encompass TWO races. The are the majority of Gallente's fixed weapons, and half of Caldari's.

Every single rail and blaster platform will continue to be drydocked, not enough has been done.

CCP you promised to fix this, now FOCUS AND JUST FIX THE DAMN THINGS. Your ADHD is coming out again and with your terrible track record of not finishing things don't you dare give a ******* halfass promise that you will look into it.

Get to work, almost half of your game is BROKEN.

FIX THIS.


Jeezus, speaking of temper tantrums. Why not see what all the buffs on hybrids and rails have for effect on Tranq. before doing even more changes.

The combination of more room for fitting more speed, more ammo, more fall-off, more tracking, more damage and more basicly everything is a good start one should think.

I for one would not be happy if the only thing they did was hybrid changes. It would be quite the crappy expansion.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Archare
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#830 - 2011-11-16 14:59:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Archare
So these are the changes that are going live? If balance is going to be a part of every major release does that mean we have to wait another 6 months with an imperfect new BC that's just patched up with drones while ships just collect dust? Will further fixes/adjustments come along beforehand?

The overall changes to grid and cpu will have a large effect on possible fits, increasing overall dps, but not capability. The compromise of the design philosophy in the Talos is evident of need for further review of the weapon system, and/or ship hulls. I think half the anxiety is that hybrid weapons will be left half done or forgotten about like many other projects.
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#831 - 2011-11-16 15:02:25 UTC
Ciar Meara wrote:

Jeezus, speaking of temper tantrums. Why not see what all the buffs on hybrids and rails have for effect on Tranq. before doing even more changes.

The combination of more room for fitting more speed, more ammo, more fall-off, more tracking, more damage and more basicly everything is a good start one should think.

I for one would not be happy if the only thing they did was hybrid changes. It would be quite the crappy expansion.



After 3 years of ignoring the problem, we get approx. 4 weeks of looking into it.

They've admitted that there is more to the issue and that they are not close yet.

It's not so much freezing current changes for release, what I take offense to is Soundwave saying no changes from now on until the next major release, i.e. the summer expansion.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

CCP Affinity
C C P
C C P Alliance
#832 - 2011-11-16 15:05:12 UTC
All I can say right now is that balancing is an on-going project and yes.. by that we don't mean, we will drop this and pick it up in 2 years... we mean we are still working on it but every release has a cut off point for what makes it in :)

When Tallest returns he will check this thread out and reply with more details, I just wanted to let everyone know what is making it into Crucible.

♥ CCP Affinity ♥

Follow me on Twitter

Game Designer for EVE Online

Team Astro Sparkle

Neo Agricola
P A R A B E L L U M
#833 - 2011-11-16 15:06:32 UTC
Archare wrote:
So these are the changes that are going live? If balance is going to be a part of every major release does that mean we have to wait another 6 months with an imperfect new BC that's just patched up with drones while ships just collect dust? Will further fixes/adjustments come along beforehand?

We had to live with that 3+ years. Now they are starting to work on those Problems and all you can do is complaining how slow they are?

Good things need time and if by end of 2012 those hybrids are as good as Projectile / Lazors/ Missils without "1 Weaponsystem is better than all others" and without "they are all the same" it is great.

So for the love of Blasters: Give them some time to make it right!

DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710

thoth rothschild
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#834 - 2011-11-16 15:16:11 UTC  |  Edited by: thoth rothschild
Hi,


i want to thank you for giving us a response.
Keeping up communication is very important for me even if that could mean to get an answer i do not like. Keep talking to us:)
I LIke

Edit to make my message more clear :)
Julius Foederatus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#835 - 2011-11-16 15:21:03 UTC
Thanks for the replies CCP. I kinda wish we could get a little more this patch, but at least by quoting that post you guys show you understand the underlying problems with hybrids, so I'll take a delay if it means that they'll be fixed properly. That said, please please please do not mess with blaster range. The last thing we need is more medium ranged weapons that turn this game into RvB. There are ways to fix the guns without making them like ACs or pulse with scorch.
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#836 - 2011-11-16 15:21:04 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
All I can say right now is that balancing is an on-going project and yes.. by that we don't mean, we will drop this and pick it up in 2 years... we mean we are still working on it but every release has a cut off point for what makes it in :)

When Tallest returns he will check this thread out and reply with more details, I just wanted to let everyone know what is making it into Crucible.



Could we get some rough ETA on when you are going to adress two of the biggest balance issues of Sub-BS warfare?

- Autocanons being too easy to fit, having too much range with some ships/fits.

- Large shield extenders too easy to fit, to the point that anything with 4 mids must be shield tanked, and the lows are only for DC/tracking/damage.


If pvp is dominated by minmatar, there is a reason. And it will always be like that as long as you ignore those two points.
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#837 - 2011-11-16 15:38:05 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:
[quote=CCP Affinity]
- Autocanons being too easy to fit, having too much range with some ships/fits.

- Large shield extenders too easy to fit, to the point that anything with 4 mids must be shield tanked, and the lows are only for DC/tracking/damage.


I agree completely with the first point. It is the reason the Hurricane is so good.

LSEs not so much. You would gimp Caldari and some Gallente fits.
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#838 - 2011-11-16 15:38:06 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:

- Autocanons being too easy to fit, having too much range with some ships/fits.

- Large shield extenders too easy to fit, to the point that anything with 4 mids must be shield tanked, and the lows are only for DC/tracking/damage.


Autocannons have no fitting issue. However AC ranges is a bit too much.

Large shield extenders don't need to be harder to fit. They need a real drawback. The plates agility drawback is a real drawback. A Loki with 2x1600mms will be FAT AS FSCK.

The signature radius buff on LSEs isn't really a drawback.

A good drawback would be reducing capacitor max amount by 15% per LSE on top of the signature radius buff. Another thing would be reduced scan resolution (Because of shields interferences, if you want a RP explanation).
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#839 - 2011-11-16 15:48:27 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
All I can say right now is that balancing is an on-going project and yes.. by that we don't mean, we will drop this and pick it up in 2 years... we mean we are still working on it but every release has a cut off point for what makes it in :)

When Tallest returns he will check this thread out and reply with more details, I just wanted to let everyone know what is making it into Crucible.



let me just chime in here before my sub expires. you might as well have not done any of this "balancing". really, it makes zero difference because we're at square one: this is still Minmatar and Drake Online; Cynabals, Canes, Machs will be the ships of choice for serious PVP'ers. it baffles me how you can allow this. when you see these metrics change, that's when you'll know you're on the right track. in the end im left wondering if you guys even seriously tested any of this. cuz if you did, these changes would not be considered changes.

this was supposed to be a "hybrid balancing patch", and bluntly put, this was not done. Gallente ships are still in the exact same spot. Tallest was told by dozens that he's not even scratching the surface with the little buffs he made. the funniest part is that Gallente pilots ended up with the shittiest BC. the Naga ended up being a more useful hybrid platform.

Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#840 - 2011-11-16 15:48:39 UTC
CCP Soundwave and Affinity, many thanks for the update.

I know Tallest has his plate full, as I'm sure you all do judging by the sweeping changes on test, but as a company, PLEASE do not overlook this thread. There are enough people here citing their lack of satisfaction on these changes. In the end we all want a better, more successful EVE Universe. This will not be realized if one of the four primary weapons of EVE is left to rot. This will not be realized when a huge chunk of combat vessels collect dust in player hangars due to those aforementioned, ineffective weapons.

There's pletny of great feedback here. Please make use of it. Smile