These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev Stated Hybird goals.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
#1 - 2011-11-30 05:56:14 UTC
Dev goals for Hybirds were stated as this

'The goal is to make them better at what they already do, not to change their roles.'

Well Hybirds are not FoTM of the month or any thing like that. Ya they still suck.

But they did meet there openly stated goals for Hybirds at this time.

I think the Hybird fix stinks but only becouse the Goal stinked to start with. The goal should have been to make them competive with other Turrnets so as to be a heart braking desire to be forced to pick ether Projectile/Lazer/Hybirds becouse there all so good.

Were still at Projectiles being OP and Lazers being well balanced and Hybirds being ether why bother training or wish I had though skill points back.

Feel free to post how you all feel about it.





Is it a rock point a lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship point a lazer at it and profit. I dont see any problems here.
Joe Cheap
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-11-30 06:22:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Cheap
I feel that Blasters are simply great right now. They are what they were supposed to be: facemelting dps.

less powergrid/ cpu requirements means that with some smart fit you can have a great dps with a reasonable tank (mostly passive shield tank)

-less cap usage means that you can still shot with your turrets, run your tackle plus web even if neuted (depoends how much hard)

-more dps and tracking menas that you can hit and melt stuff quite well

The rest of the problems are from ships bonus and armor tanking (passive or active) that s a bit broken, not from blasters



Btw Rails still sucks
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2011-11-30 07:49:11 UTC
blaster are ok on ships that they worked on before the patch: vigilant, vindi, proteus, mega.

blasters suck on most ships. medium rails suck on all ships. blaster dps has not changed significantly.
Songbird
#4 - 2011-11-30 10:50:18 UTC
Blasters even better now on frigates, unless of course you get kited.

The stated goal unfortunately will keep medium and large blaster boats from fleet engagements but still good for very small gang and solo work.

All guns shouldn't be the same or else eve will get boring. There always will be the best and blasters are now the best in bumping range.
Ancy Denaries
Frontier Venture
#5 - 2011-11-30 12:12:49 UTC
Rip Minner wrote:
...other Turrnets...

Of all that rant, this was what I saw. Dude...how?

"Shoot at anything that moves. If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later."

"Do not be too positive. The light at the end of the tunnel could be a train." - Franz Kafka
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-11-30 12:18:12 UTC
Joe Cheap wrote:
I feel that Blasters are simply great right now. They are what they were supposed to be: facemelting dps.

less powergrid/ cpu requirements means that with some smart fit you can have a great dps with a reasonable tank (mostly passive shield tank)

-less cap usage means that you can still shot with your turrets, run your tackle plus web even if neuted (depoends how much hard)

-more dps and tracking menas that you can hit and melt stuff quite well

The rest of the problems are from ships bonus and armor tanking (passive or active) that s a bit broken, not from blasters



Btw Rails still sucks



as far as I can see, there is still no reason why you should pick blasters over AC's or pulses.


AC boats are still more mobile and can deal damage farther than blasters (no need to commit as deep as blasters)
pulse boats still deal comparable damage at much bigger ranges.


sure blasters do a bit more damage and track a bit better, but the other options are still better since you sacrifice a marginal damage advantage for other things like superior range or superior mobility.

small blaster ships were already ok before the patch and these were the only ones that got good.

[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
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#7 - 2011-11-30 13:13:38 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
As you may have noticed, I have been afk for the last week or so.
I am back at work now and will try to address the concerns that have been expressed while I was away.

As Soundwave and Affinity have explained for me in my absence, the cutoff date for changes that make it into the Crucible expansion has already passed (and had already passed when I went away).

As it turned out, I only had time to do one extra pass on the changes after they hit SISI. These changes (to the changes) were based on your feedback from this thread. There were many other suggestions here that I would love to do, but didn't have enough time to do them properly for this release. In the future, I will make sure that I have more time to make changes based on your feedback. The feedback that you was posted after the cutoff is far from worthless. I've read every single post and written down notes for future reference.

What we have now is a start. After Crucible come out, I will definitely be doing further balancing.
Here are some of the things relating to hybrid ships that we will be looking further into in the coming weeks/months:

* Further tweaking of individual ships.
* Tech II ammo needs a better look at, especially Null-Scorch-Barrage.
* Active tanking vs passive tanking. And by extension, armor tanking vs shield tanking.
* Small and Medium Webifier drones.
* Give tech I hybrid ammo variations for each range, like projectile ammo. Maybe the same for lasers.
* Something to help blaster ships get into range. There are several good suggestions on how to do this; Webifier range bonus, MWD speed bonus, change the armor rig penalty, increase base speed or even a new type of module. We might do some of them, all of them or something completely different.

p.s. I have also updated the OP with the final list of changes.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#8 - 2011-11-30 14:02:59 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:
As you may have noticed, I have been afk for the last week or so.
I am back at work now and will try to address the concerns that have been expressed while I was away.

As Soundwave and Affinity have explained for me in my absence, the cutoff date for changes that make it into the Crucible expansion has already passed (and had already passed when I went away).

As it turned out, I only had time to do one extra pass on the changes after they hit SISI. These changes (to the changes) were based on your feedback from this thread. There were many other suggestions here that I would love to do, but didn't have enough time to do them properly for this release. In the future, I will make sure that I have more time to make changes based on your feedback. The feedback that you was posted after the cutoff is far from worthless. I've read every single post and written down notes for future reference.

What we have now is a start. After Crucible come out, I will definitely be doing further balancing.
Here are some of the things relating to hybrid ships that we will be looking further into in the coming weeks/months:

* Further tweaking of individual ships.
* Tech II ammo needs a better look at, especially Null-Scorch-Barrage.
* Active tanking vs passive tanking. And by extension, armor tanking vs shield tanking.
* Small and Medium Webifier drones.
* Give tech I hybrid ammo variations for each range, like projectile ammo. Maybe the same for lasers.
* Something to help blaster ships get into range. There are several good suggestions on how to do this; Webifier range bonus, MWD speed bonus, change the armor rig penalty, increase base speed or even a new type of module. We might do some of them, all of them or something completely different.

p.s. I have also updated the OP with the final list of changes.



This.

No they're not fine, and if you guys really think it is then post your killboards and show us how good your blaster ships are without minmatar ships pointing webbing and shooting at those doing 75% of the job for you.

Ho w8, they were not bad at gates station undocks and gank miners, now they're good ad station games, gates and gank miners.

Indeed blasters are overpowered and rails fotom....