These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Praise the Lord; And pass the Ammunition!!!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-10-21 18:40:15 UTC
So i had a recent idea to change how ammunition works.

My idea is to create one t1 ammo type for hybrids and lasers.


We'll take large multifrequency crystal as an example.

Currently, multifrequency unfitted is -50% range at 28 em and 20 therm.
Radio is +60% range at 16 EM and 8 therm.

On unfitted Tachyon T2 that is
Multi - 26.4 KM
Radio - 84.48 KM

[I'm not going to factor fall-off here cause i don't wanna do the math]

Now, if you consider the damage drop amount from one to the other - 43% roughly

This means you could take one crystal and make the optimal 26.4km when fitted t2, and make the fall-off roughly (without doing math) 90km or so...

Hybrid ammo would have two range types, with two damage profiles

Projectiles would also get T2 damage specific ammo, which would actually go a long way into fixing the complaints that have been expressed about arty.


it would work kinda like this.

Laser Crystals
T1 - Multifrequency Crystal (good name) - low cap usage, moderate range, moderate damage
Navy - Navy Multifrequency Crystal - moderate cap usage, moderate range, higher damage
T2 Short range - Coma Crystal - High cap usage, low range, high damage
T2 Long range - Collimation Crystal - low cap usage, long range, low damage (higher than Multi past certain point)

The other types of faction/ded space crystals would fall somewhere in that range.

To go along with this, t2 ammo/missiles would be fittable in t1 guns, with less effectiveness, much like t1 ammo in a t2 gun.

So, you have
Crystals - 1 t1 crystal, 2 t2 crystals
Hybrids - 4 t1 crystals - 2 short 2 long with different damage profiles I.E. Kin/therm or therm/kin - Same for t2 but with more range with less damage, or less range at more damage.
Missiles - stay the same - though I still feel precision and fury should have their ranges swapped
projectiles - 4 t1 - 1 for each damage type - 4 t2 - 1 for each damage type. (This is the one i'm not sure on).


Suggestions? Complaints? Likes? Did i miss something?
Feel free to comment
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#2 - 2013-10-21 19:31:18 UTC
I'm thinking that maybe this isn't the T1 ammo rework that we need - and that T1 projectile ammo already had a spectacular rework and doesn't need another. If anything, the other T1 ammo types should be rebalanced in the same basic style. Most of the laser crystals need a reason to use them and Hybrid ammo could use fewer range variations with more damage profile variations (that is, half of them should be therm-heavy and half should be kin-heavy).

Also, Scorch needs to be looked at since it's honestly kind of ridiculous.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-10-21 19:35:51 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I'm thinking that maybe this isn't the T1 ammo rework that we need - and that T1 projectile ammo already had a spectacular rework and doesn't need another. If anything, the other T1 ammo types should be rebalanced in the same basic style. Most of the laser crystals need a reason to use them and Hybrid ammo could use fewer range variations with more damage profile variations (that is, half of them should be therm-heavy and half should be kin-heavy).

Also, Scorch needs to be looked at since it's honestly kind of ridiculous.


I don't see much point in the different variations of ammo.

I mean, expecially with lasers, what difference does it make.

You can do as I expressed and give one ammo a set optimal and a long fall-off.
This essentially does what the ammo currently does.

Like I expressed with my crystal example.
You can take multifrequency and expand the fall-off so that you're hitting roughly the same damage amounts at the different ammo ranges.

Not to mention we could make t1 crystals consumable for a change.
BadSeamus
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-10-21 19:40:26 UTC
What problem are you trying to fix?

Are there gaps in the ammo range? Is ammo too powerful? Are some Ammo drawbacks to strong? or is it just there too many types of ammo for you to remember? Or the Ammo types don't fit in your neat OCD categories? Your suggesting a change, with no rationale, no problem. No way to judge if firstly your problem is valid and secondly if your solution fixes it.

So, no. its a terrible proposal as it stands.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#5 - 2013-10-21 19:47:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
(revising my initial response...)

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#6 - 2013-10-21 19:49:06 UTC
I'd still like to see half of the hybrid ammo be kin-heavy and half be therm-heavy, even if nothing else about it changes.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2013-10-21 20:08:04 UTC
BadSeamus wrote:
What problem are you trying to fix?

Are there gaps in the ammo range? Is ammo too powerful? Are some Ammo drawbacks to strong? or is it just there too many types of ammo for you to remember? Or the Ammo types don't fit in your neat OCD categories? Your suggesting a change, with no rationale, no problem. No way to judge if firstly your problem is valid and secondly if your solution fixes it.

So, no. its a terrible proposal as it stands.



It's probably more towards OCD.

However, what's the point of so many ammo types?
There are too many ammos, and their existance is redundant.

I mean, everything beyond the optimal of the shortest range ammo, is nothing more than a variation of that first ammo type at different ranges.

Lets break it down.

I'm going to add the 2 damage amounts together just for math purposes on T2 Tachyon.

Multifrequency - 26.4km - 48 damage
Gamma - 33km - 44 damage
XRay - 39.6km - 40 damage
Ultraviolet - 46.2km - 36 damage
Standard - 52.8km - 32 damage
Infrared - 63.36km - 28 damage
Microwave - 73.92km - 24 damage
Radio - 84.48 KM - 24 damage

Now, with some of these, the changes are made to an individual damage type as opposed to overall damage.
This expresses my point even more... There's too many ammo types, so in order to push for some kind of balance CCP has done some weird balance changes, such as Gamma having the same EM damage as Gamma, but gamma does 4 less thermal damage... WTF is the point in this??
The Only other change is reduction in cap usage.. how about we just balance a base cap usage instead?

What I'm expressing of one crystal with a long fall-off essentially covers this entire range, but instead of making up ammo types and weird balancing stats, it's all balanced around one crystal with t1.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#8 - 2013-10-21 20:10:44 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
I'm definitely opposed to the idea of being able to run lasers on hybrid turrets, missiles on projectile turrets, etc.


Where did that come from?
No one mentioned that....

they would all still have their designated ammo, just less of it.

hell, even if you did the same as Missiles and just made two range types, it would make way more sense than what currently exists among t1/faction/ded ammo now...
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#9 - 2013-10-21 20:32:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Joe Risalo wrote:
Where did that come from?
No one mentioned that....

"To go along with this, t2 ammo/missiles would be fittable in t1 guns, with less effectiveness, much like t1 ammo in a t2 gun."

I took this literally, but now presume you instead meant "t2 ammo/missiles would be loadable in t1 turrets/launchers (respectively)".

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-10-21 20:36:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Where did that come from?
No one mentioned that....

"To go along with this, t2 ammo/missiles would be fittable in t1 guns, with less effectiveness, much like t1 ammo in a t2 gun."

I took this literally, but now presume you meant "t2 ammo/missiles would be loadable in t1 turrets/launchers (respectively)".


Correct.

It would give more versatility to t1 weapons, and in the case of some weapon systems(mostly short range) would keep t2 weapons from being mandatory, such as with torp boats...(this is more in respect to pve rather than pvp)
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#11 - 2013-10-21 20:49:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Joe Risalo wrote:
Correct. It would give more versatility to t1 weapons, and in the case of some weapon systems(mostly short range) would keep t2 weapons from being mandatory, such as with torp boats...

OK, appreciate the clarification (thanks). Here is what I might suggest instead, somewhat related (using missiles as an example):

Option 1 (favorite)
1. Create a new (chargegroup) called "Faction Missile".
2. T1 launchers can only use T1 ammunition, Faction launchers can only use T1 and Faction ammunition, T2 launchers can use T1, T2 and Faction ammunition and Officer launchers can use any ammunition type (T1, T2 and Faction).

This actually gives a benefit to training to T2 or utilizing Faction weapons and encourages people to run more expensive fits. Now if this doesn't fit one's particular cup of tea, here's an alternate suggestion (again, using missiles):

Option 2
1. All launchers can use any ammunition, subject to the following.
2. T1 launchers can hold 100% T1, 50% Faction and 25% T2 ammunition; Faction launchers can hold 125% T1, 100% Faction and 50% T2 ammunition; T2 launchers can hold 125% T1, 100% T2 and 75% Faction ammunition; Officer launchers can hold 125% of all ammunition.

Basically the effectiveness doesn't change, just the amount of ammo you can carry per launcher. I'm inclined to go with the former option since T2, Faction and Officer launchers already have a bonus to ammunition carrying capability, and I loathe the idea of T1 weapons using anything but T1 ammunition (including Faction ammunition).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-10-21 21:09:51 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Correct. It would give more versatility to t1 weapons, and in the case of some weapon systems(mostly short range) would keep t2 weapons from being mandatory, such as with torp boats...

OK, appreciate the clarification (thanks). Here is what I might suggest instead, somewhat related (using missiles as an example):

Option 1 (favorite)
1. Create a new (chargegroup) called "Faction Missile".
2. T1 launchers can only use T1 ammunition, Faction launchers can only use T1 and Faction ammunition, T2 launchers can use T1, T2 and Faction ammunition and Officer launchers can use any ammunition type (T1, T2 and Faction).

This actually gives a benefit to training to T2 or utilizing Faction weapons and encourages people to run more expensive fits. Now if this doesn't fit one's particular cup of tea, here's an alternate suggestion (again, using missiles):

Option 2
1. All launchers can use any ammunition, subject to the following.
2. T1 launchers can hold 100% T1, 50% Faction and 25% T2 ammunition; Faction launchers can hold 125% T1, 100% Faction and 50% T2 ammunition; T2 launchers can hold 125% T1, 100% T2 and 75% Faction ammunition; Officer launchers can hold 125% of all ammunition.

Basically the effectiveness doesn't change, just the amount of ammo you can carry per launcher. I'm inclined to go with the former option since T2, Faction and Officer launchers already have a bonus to ammunition carrying capability, and I loathe the idea of T1 weapons using anything but T1 ammunition (including Faction ammunition).



Hmm.. Interesting concept, but my theory was that you would get less range/damage/effectiveness with t2 ammo in t1 guns than in t2 guns.
It also brings up a point that was brought up a long while back that mentioned faction/ded/officer ammo/missiles being more effective in their related faction/ded/officer turrets/launchers.

However, the point of my topic is mostly focused on how there are too many ammunition types.

To add to that, I would like to also propose a crystal with different damage profile, I.E. therm/em as opposed to em/therm.

If you gave two range t1 ammos with 2 damage profiles per, you would have 4 types of t1 ammo for lasers and hybrids, 4 types of projectile damage profiles, giving the one ammo goes from short to full long range (making more sense with the massive fall-off, and 4 damage types of t1 missiles.
Let me lay it out a bit

Lasers
t1
Short range - em/therm or therm/em
Long range - em/therm or therm/em
T2
Same short and long range layouts, but with different aspects, such as range, cap usage, and damage output

Hybrids
Basically the same aspect as lasers, but kin/therm or therm/kin

Missiles
Stay as they are now, however, I still feel long range launchers should have their ranges for fury and precision swapped.

Projectiles
T1 - 4 damage profiles - one round goes from close range optimal to long range fall-off..
T2 - 4 damage profiles - choice of long range or short range ammo. Essentially like they are now, but with damage selection

It would be pretty cool to have this...
You could probably do something different with lasers to make them different from hybrids, such as giving hybrids the long and short range ammo, and allowing lasers to dial their range selection to short or long with the turret, as opposed to the crystal.
This would actually fit how light actually works... You would be required to have the lasers deactivated in order to dial for short or long range.


This would also go a long way to help projectiles(arty mostly) in that they wouldn't have to change ammo types, and could have the same tracking at all ranges...
It would make up for the drawbacks that many people complain about with projectiles.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#13 - 2013-10-21 21:19:15 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Hmm.. Interesting concept, but my theory was that you would get less range/damage/effectiveness with t2 ammo in t1 guns than in t2 guns.
It also brings up a point that was brought up a long while back that mentioned faction/ded/officer ammo/missiles being more effective in their related faction/ded/officer turrets/launchers.

However, the point of my topic is mostly focused on how there are too many ammunition types.

To add to that, I would like to also propose a crystal with different damage profile, I.E. therm/em as opposed to em/therm.

If you gave two range t1 ammos with 2 damage profiles per, you would have 4 types of t1 ammo for lasers and hybrids, 4 types of projectile damage profiles, giving the one ammo goes from short to full long range (making more sense with the massive fall-off, and 4 damage types of t1 missiles.
Let me lay it out a bit

Lasers
t1
Short range - em/therm or therm/em
Long range - em/therm or therm/em
T2
Same short and long range layouts, but with different aspects, such as range, cap usage, and damage output

Hybrids
Basically the same aspect as lasers, but kin/therm or therm/kin

Missiles
Stay as they are now, however, I still feel long range launchers should have their ranges for fury and precision swapped.

Projectiles
T1 - 4 damage profiles - one round goes from close range optimal to long range fall-off..
T2 - 4 damage profiles - choice of long range or short range ammo. Essentially like they are now, but with damage selection

It would be pretty cool to have this...
You could probably do something different with lasers to make them different from hybrids, such as giving hybrids the long and short range ammo, and allowing lasers to dial their range selection to short or long with the turret, as opposed to the crystal.
This would actually fit how light actually works... You would be required to have the lasers deactivated in order to dial for short or long range.

This would also go a long way to help projectiles(arty mostly) in that they wouldn't have to change ammo types, and could have the same tracking at all ranges...
It would make up for the drawbacks that many people complain about with projectiles.

Sure, let's run with your idea. Since the whole benefit to Faction or T2 ammunition is primarily damage, tracking or ability to hit - for simplicity I would just slash the falloff range (guns) or flight time (missiles). I'd leave optimal and velocity alone. I'd then apply (part of) my suggestion as follows:

• T1 weapons: T1 ammunition, 100%; Faction ammunition, 75%; T2 ammunition - na
• Faction weapons: T1 ammunition, 100%; Faction ammunition, 100%; T2 ammunition, 75%
• T2 weapons: T1 ammunition, 125%; T2 ammunition, 100%; Faction ammunition, 75%
• Officer weapons: T1/T2/Faction ammunition, 125%

Thoughts?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-10-21 21:39:42 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
• T2 weapons: T1 ammunition, 125%; T2 ammunition, 100%; Faction ammunition, 75%
• Officer weapons: T1/T2/Faction ammunition, 125%

Thoughts?


125% towards t1 ammo on t2 guns would make t1 more effective than t2 ammo.


So, I would think it's more like this.

T1 - T1 ammo 100% - Faction 100% - Ded/officer 100% - T2 ammo 100%
Faction - T1 ammo 95% - Faction 105% - Ded/officer 100% - T2 ammo 90%
T2 - t1 ammo 100% - Faction 100% - Ded/officer 100% - T2 ammo 100%
Ded/Officer - T1 ammo 95% - Faction 100% - Ded/officer 110% - T2 ammo 90%

This means that T1 competes with all damage types, but at 100%, t2 still performs better.
Faction guns perform better with faction ammo, but slightly, and under performs with t1 and t2
Ded/officer outperforms with ded/officer by a good amount, but under performs with t1 and t2.

Basically, the best performance you'll get is with ded/officer ammo and weapons (officer performing better naturally), but would not have the same performance with t2 selection ammo.
Faction would perform better with faction ammo than any other
T1 and t2 would have the most versatility, t2 more so due to natural bonuses from skills and weapon systems.

The numbers wouldn't be significantly different, but this is actually to keep them more balanced, instead of making officer straight OP.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#15 - 2013-10-21 21:52:23 UTC
>2 damage profiles
>kin/therm and therm/kin

You mean one damage profile, with the exact same sort of variation that you already have between ammo types (AFAIK, some T1 ammo deals more thermal damage than kinetic, and vice versa, already, making this change not even a change).

It also sounds like you want to give Minmatar T2 ammunition with fully selectable damage types.

Alright. I'll agree to that if you decouple Caldari from being locked into kinetic missile damage. At all tech levels. Furthermore, being able to use T2 ammunition in T1 guns for less effectiveness seems like a huge waste of money.

Nothing in here addresses real issues, and would really just generate new ones that we'd need more balance passes to solve.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#16 - 2013-10-21 22:31:26 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
125% towards t1 ammo on t2 guns would make t1 more effective than t2 ammo.

So, I would think it's more like this.

T1 - T1 ammo 100% - Faction 100% - Ded/officer 100% - T2 ammo 100%
Faction - T1 ammo 95% - Faction 105% - Ded/officer 100% - T2 ammo 90%
T2 - t1 ammo 100% - Faction 100% - Ded/officer 100% - T2 ammo 100%
Ded/Officer - T1 ammo 95% - Faction 100% - Ded/officer 110% - T2 ammo 90%

This means that T1 competes with all damage types, but at 100%, t2 still performs better.
Faction guns perform better with faction ammo, but slightly, and under performs with t1 and t2
Ded/officer outperforms with ded/officer by a good amount, but under performs with t1 and t2.

Basically, the best performance you'll get is with ded/officer ammo and weapons (officer performing better naturally), but would not have the same performance with t2 selection ammo.
Faction would perform better with faction ammo than any other
T1 and t2 would have the most versatility, t2 more so due to natural bonuses from skills and weapon systems.

The numbers wouldn't be significantly different, but this is actually to keep them more balanced, instead of making officer straight OP.

Good point. Except the Deadspace ammunition is so prohibitively expensive I don't think anyone can afford to use it. Us regular folk, anyway. I still like the idea of just removing Faction ammunition from T1 weapons and adding T2 ammunition to Officer weapons. Call me simple.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.