These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#841 - 2011-11-16 15:54:11 UTC
Sadly, I too have to let my sub expire until I see real change. I said I would and empty promises are not my thing.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#842 - 2011-11-16 16:02:00 UTC
HA HA HAHA! Minmatar WIN! You losers are stuck with your gar gar turret... THE SLAVES HAVE TAKEN OVA! HAHAHAHA.

Anyways, good job CCP. Alot of setups have been improved. Certain frigate setups with regard to rail-guns have seen significant increases in viablity.

Dominix, with large blasters is looking a little better too. BLASTA-SHIELD-SIN is pretty ganky. The capacitor reduciton use is pretty good too. That will help alot with active setups. Pretty well rounded boost. Also, you will never be able to make gallente viable until gallente ships and close range ships in general are given range. Most of the player base dont like the fact they shun away from range increase, but wont use ships for that reason. Very funny and r3tard3d @ the same time.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#843 - 2011-11-16 16:07:46 UTC
We'll look into hybrids again after this goes out on a basis of what's needed.

We've made the first round of changes, once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#844 - 2011-11-16 16:10:59 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
Certain frigate setups with regard to rail-guns have seen significant increases in viablity.

Dominix, with large blasters is looking a little better too. BLASTA-SHIELD-SIN is pretty ganky. The capacitor reduciton use is pretty good too. That will help alot with active setups. Pretty well rounded boost. Also, you will never be able to make gallente viable until gallente ships and close range ships in general are given range. Most of the player base dont like the fact they shun away from range increase, but wont use ships for that reason. Very funny and r3tard3d @ the same time.


Yeah. But people don't like the idea of giving blasters extra range because it's a form of homogenisation. The problem is that they won't like the only alternative either, of reducing Pulse and AC applied damage at close range...

As you mention, the biggest beneficiaries of the current hybrid changes are the ships that don't actually need any help - the frigates and the Dominix, for example. The ships that actually need help haven't been helped. A bit sad really.
Neo Agricola
#845 - 2011-11-16 16:12:17 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We'll look into hybrids again after this goes out on a basis of what's needed.

We've made the first round of changes, once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them.

Thank you for clarification!

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

Chorgat
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#846 - 2011-11-16 16:18:16 UTC
This is a joke right? RIGHT?

You promise to change things and all we get in return is a bag of dogs**t thrown at us.

But hey atleast we got 4 new ships (2 that will be used), engine effects and shiny new implants if we all resub and log on to see this s**t patch come live!

This is just sad ccp... really.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#847 - 2011-11-16 16:22:07 UTC
Is there anyway that guns installed can effect other performances (nerf or boost) on the ship? Using the guns to effect the ship performance may be an avenue for resolving the problems that ships that are supposed to use them suffer from as well as preventing possible overbuffing of ships.

Theme would be long range defensive short range offensive examples

Equipping Pulse Lasers improves mass
Equipping Blasters improves speed
Equipping Autocannosn improves agility
Equipping Dumbfire missiels improves cpu

Equipping Railguns improves shields.
Equipping Beam Lasers improves capacitor
Equipping Artillery improves armor
Equipping Smartfire missiles improves Powergrid

However I feel that in order to balance these should dig into bonsues that might be appealing to other races and decrease performance.

To help balance things they should be a flat rate across all modules so that way you wont wind up with some very obscure setup. I also feel that raw number and not precentile is a way to go as well to prevent over buffing of ships with 8 weapon ports.

However I feel this may require an entire expansion to plan for and there simply isnt enough time for this release. Or the alternative approaches and the sorts. However I feel that boosting/nerfing ship performance with weapons based installed would further devide the weapons.

Either way food for thought.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#848 - 2011-11-16 16:22:41 UTC
Chorgat wrote:
This is a joke right? RIGHT?

You promise to change things and all we get in return is a bag of dogs**t thrown at us.

But hey atleast we got 4 new ships (2 that will be used), engine effects and shiny new implants if we all resub and log on to see this s**t patch come live!

This is just sad ccp... really.


Well they buffed it a bit instead of entirely doing nothing.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Imrik86
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#849 - 2011-11-16 16:39:20 UTC
SMT008 wrote:

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).


WTF? Are you trying to nerf Minmatar or Caldari with this?
Mekhana
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#850 - 2011-11-16 16:45:23 UTC
Hopefully the next wave of changes are coming soon. I expect at most a spike in frigate usage.

Vide longe er eros di Luminaire VII, uni canse pra krage e determiniex! Sange por Sange! Descanse bravex eros, mie freires. Mortir por vostre Liberete, farmilie, ide e amis. lons Proviste sen mort! Luminaire liber mas! 

Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#851 - 2011-11-16 16:50:10 UTC
What a shame - CCP insisting on doing half a job, just because it "might" be enough...
Why don't you guys adress the concerns we have about ammo and unique role of railguns?
Count NULL
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#852 - 2011-11-16 16:53:21 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Greetings

Please post your feedback about hybrid turret balancing in this thread.

Thanks.
Your 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%.


So, none of the fitting or cap usage reductions will be made? Shocked Is that correct? Or are things mentioned in blog still going to be in upcoming expansion? Question
Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#853 - 2011-11-16 16:58:13 UTC
Count NULL wrote:
So, none of the fitting or cap usage reductions will be made? Shocked Is that correct? Or are things mentioned in blog still going to be in upcoming expansion? Question


The current build has cap and fitting changes in place.

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#854 - 2011-11-16 17:17:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Hungry Eyes
CCP Soundwave wrote:
once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them.


i lol'd. u serious? you're gonna watch Gallente ships not get used for months? after all the feedback and people telling you guys these changes mean nothing?
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#855 - 2011-11-16 17:23:10 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
[quote=Shadowsword]
- Autocanons being too easy to fit, having too much range with some ships/fits.



Have you ever put together a fit, and then said "Damn, I need to take dual 650 instead of 800 for this optimal MWD+buffer tank to fit"? Like, say, an Armageddon having to use dual heavy pulse because MWD + 2*1600mm plate + mega pulse are too much?

I haven't, and that's because you have no compromise to make to always include the biggest AC. And if it were balanced properly, you should.


As for LSE fitting requirements, a few numbers (all skills to V):

LSE II requirement:
0.0472 powergrid per shield HP given

1600mm rolled:
0.119 powergrid per shield HP

Since the main bottleneck in cruiser/BC sized fits is powergrid, it translate into paying about 2.5 times more for an armor buffer tank than for a shield buffer. AND you get the worst (by far) drawback. A bigger sig may make you take a bit more damage, but it's the lack of agility that actually get you killed.
Fix Hybrids
Doomheim
#856 - 2011-11-16 17:25:21 UTC
Thank you for your responses, Affinity and Soundwave. It's good to finally hear something on this important issue.

I'm disappointed that further improvements to hybrids will not be made before Crucible goes live, but I'm glad CCP doesn't regard the hybrid problem as being fixed now.

Can you be more specific about the timescale for future adjustments to hybrids, and the ships that use them? Are we going to have to wait until the summer expansion for further adjustments, or will needed tweaks be identified, developed and released in between expansions?
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#857 - 2011-11-16 17:26:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcel Devereux
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We'll look into hybrids again after this goes out on a basis of what's needed.

We've made the first round of changes, once these go live we'll monitor usage, fleet composition etc. If these changes yield an underwhelming results, we'll continue to tweak them.


How about CCP employees are restricted to only flying Gallente ships for the next 6 months? I'm sure 'wait and monitor and maybe fix' will change to 'LETS FIX THIS NOW' very quickly ;-)
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#858 - 2011-11-16 17:28:31 UTC
Having not really flown blaster boats for any extended period of time, let me pose a question to you blaster aficionados:

Is getting into range only really a problem against faster Matari ships with dominating falloff? Would an adjustment to autocannon falloff / falloff bonused hulls / tracking enhancer falloff bonuses get you where you need to be? I'd imagine getting into range on Amarr and Caldari ships is much less of an issue, especially after Crucible.

Am I way off here or does this make sense?

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.

Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#859 - 2011-11-16 17:29:20 UTC
Shadowsword wrote:

LSE II requirement:
0.0472 powergrid per shield HP given

1600mm rolled:
0.119 powergrid per shield HP


Maybe moving the PG down for plates instead of nerfing.

I agree with the armor penalty. It needs to be lessened a lot or replaced on rigs and mods. Same with the Sig radius.
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#860 - 2011-11-16 17:38:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Nemesor
Kahz Niverrah wrote:

Is getting into range only really a problem against faster Matari ships with dominating falloff? Would an adjustment to autocannon falloff / falloff bonused hulls / tracking enhancer falloff bonuses get you where you need to be?


Getting into range while having enough DPS for a CHANCE to overcome the time it took to catch the kiting ship. It is a twofold issue. Yes the falloff on projectiles and the optimal on lasers are redonkulous but both pump out enough damage that they at least rival blasters. By the time a blasterboat through some miracle of God actually reaches a Laser or projectile platform, they have lost a insurmountable amount of HP.
People seem to forget that ACs and Pulse lasers are the SHORT range versions of their respective weapon types while both hit out to ranges that in engagements qualify as MID range.
The problems don't ONLY rely on falloff though. It is the ability for them to literally run circles around a blasterboat while having no risk of being caught. In any engagement between like skilled pilots in the same class of Minmatar and Gallente ship, the Minmatar pilot is the one that controls the engagement completely. They can decide to point and kill or just warp off with literally no risk to themselves. I will ask the RP crowd to step in for a moment and answer this: With the **** poor showing Gallente ships have, how the hell can the Federation POSSIBLY maintain an Empire? It would be like Apollo astronauts vs Xwings.

This is what irks me. No one can say that I am stating anything inaccurate. Even CCP Devs. They know the problem. They know the extent. I know that they really do not expect these minor changes to have any real impact on the balance of flown vessels.
The really sad part is, is that we all saw it coming as they nerfed speed and buffed projectiles and added armor rigs and buffed projectile ammo and took away 30 percent of off web strength and did all the little things that add up to a big F--- you to Blaster boats. Pilots told them... "This is going to gimp us. This is going to hurt is. Your killing us. Please stop. Please stop." The plea's fell on deaf ears and the sheep were placated with "Noooo... this isn't going to gimp you. This is good for everyone."
Thats how we got to this point. So endeth my rant.

edit: I keep thinking to things to add to my rant.