These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Polarized weaponry (affectionately known as glass cannons)

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#221 - 2014-10-23 15:39:19 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
An even more clearn example why this idea is HORRIBLE.

You get Pulse laser of this variant. It stilld oes LESS.. and a LOT LESS damage than a NORMAL blaster.

So WHY IN HELL woudl you do that? Why not just use a normal blaster and KEEP your resists?


Not only this proposal is an extreme niche target.. it also has an extremely niche envelope..


ONLY BLASTERS on structures. NOthing else....

Blasters use ammo? I dunno about you, but I much prefer using lasers for structure grinds if the target resist profile allows it. And I say this being able to use T2 large hybrids but not T2 large lasers. (Training them up soon-ish.)

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#222 - 2014-10-23 15:41:56 UTC
Dear CCP, rather than "blighted", use the prefix "Full Power To" and have them only activatable by voice command.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#223 - 2014-10-23 15:56:17 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Dear CCP, rather than "blighted", use the prefix "Full Power To" and have them only activatable by voice command.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead? Twisted

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#224 - 2014-10-23 15:59:53 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead? Twisted

With blighted ships, this will probably be an ideal strategy.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#225 - 2014-10-23 16:03:57 UTC
Is anyone able to post the ammunition capacity of the blighted torpedo launcher?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#226 - 2014-10-23 16:07:08 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Michael Pawlicki wrote:
Everyone is shouting these suck. This current version of Blighteds suck. This is the V.1 Alpha test of em. This isnt final.



The whole CONCEPT sucks. Why Because foregoing ALL your defense for more dps is relevant on only 2 scenarios.

Suicide ganking (great.. as if the catalysis was not OP enough on that role) or shoting structures.

In other words a boost to 2 of the least liked mechanics ...

that is why people say it sux...





This about sums it up. And structure bash a far reach really in terms of real practical application.

Short ranged weapon system. 0 resists. Mix in even half assed counter bomber wings or a MR or LR defence fleet and its convenient its the traditional holiday season. This could tie into the turkey shooting season for the US thanksgiving kick off to x-mas season nicely.

And just not seeing refit ops on carriers and depots going smoothly for a say 100 BS fleet. Be kind of annoying to refit to "classic" weapons every time local spiked an understatement lol. I see that being a massive fuster cluck tbh.

Not even seeing pve use here either. Even for bastioned marauders. Its bene is a mix of reps and resists. Not sure how that equation will work out when half of it is just wiped out. Even versus NPC.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#227 - 2014-10-23 16:23:36 UTC  |  Edited by: War Kitten
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Is anyone able to post the ammunition capacity of the blighted torpedo launcher?


It was the same, 2.0 capacity.

http://funkyimg.com/i/Ne91.png

Image courtesy of Kadesh Priestess from an earlier post.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Kamii OhnoKazii
Valentius Corporation
Valentius Corporation Alliance
#228 - 2014-10-23 16:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Kamii OhnoKazii
Burneddi wrote:
Desert Ice78 wrote:
I assume the only purpose for these weapons are hi-sec ganks?

They are too expensive for that.


LIES!!!... there is no such thing as too expensive for the "honorable concords" - you sir are mistake... give it time, and the application of the player base and soon we shall shower the heaves with the blappery of ...er... "blighted" weaponry... um... ok....

... About that name... Blighted? - really, that is the best we can do? they sound sick or ill, not terrifying.

past tense: blighted; past participle: blighted
infect (plants or a planted area) with blight; subject (an urban area) to neglect; spoil, harm, or destroy.
"the scandal blighted the careers of several leading politicians" - not feeling it with this term

How about:
Vengeance... punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.

synonyms: revenge, retribution, retaliation, payback, requital, reprisal, satisfaction,

cause severe and extensive damage to.
"fears that a war could ravage their country"
synonyms: lay waste, devastate, ruin, destroy, wreak havoc on, leave desolate; More noun

plural noun: ravages; noun: ravage
the severely damaging or destructive effects of something.

There you see just in a couple min and Google:

Vengeance Weapons
Devastator Weapons
Ravage Weapons
Havoc Weapons <- works for me.

...couple more:
Kaiten "The Heaven Shaker"
Bushido
Strike <--- another good one
Grim
Dire
Vicious
horrific
malicious
rancorous
vitriolic
lethal
cataclysmic <-- another good one.
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#229 - 2014-10-23 16:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
I know CCP wants these weapons to be priced in the same ball park as their faction versions. But how can they be sure how much they will cost? If the demand for these weapons is lower than than their faction counter parts, but take the same effort or luck to acquire, then they will be cheaper than their faction equivalents will they not?

There is going to have to be some demand to drive up the cost, or they are going to have to be very rare in my opinion to keep their prices as high as CCP wants them to be. I have a feeling that CCP is going to botch this supply and demand balance, at least in the beginning.

But time will tell.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#230 - 2014-10-23 16:51:09 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
It was the same, 2.0 capacity.

Appreciated, thanks. I guess that makes sense (since it's essentially a T2 variant), it just means less overall DPS because the increased rate of fire isn't offset by an increase in ammunition capacity.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#231 - 2014-10-23 17:00:00 UTC
Can Faction as well as T2 ammunition be used in the blighted weapons?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#232 - 2014-10-23 17:07:57 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Can Faction as well as T2 ammunition be used in the blighted weapons?


Same image as before, it shows two charge groups, Torpedo and Advanced Torpedo.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Wolfgang Achari
Morior Invictus.
#233 - 2014-10-23 17:12:29 UTC
To toss in my two cents, I would call them nullified weapons. Though, I could see some potential confusion since it's also used for the T3 subsystem.

For the weapons themselves though. Why not just make them a normal drop, but rarer than meta 4, or a drop for sites? I don't really see to many people using these weapons if they're as expensive as their faction counterparts. Unless they do (and can apply) stupid amounts of damage. Otherwise, the no resists make this an extremely niche weapon.
Callisto Helix
Adhocracy Incorporated
Adhocracy
#234 - 2014-10-23 17:38:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Callisto Helix
The downsides of these things are far too severe to justify their use for anything other than POS/POCO bashes. Even if their cost was the same as T2, I doubt they would see much use beyond suicide ganking.

In order to really be a glass cannon, the increase in damage has to be at least somewhat proportional to the loss in tank, and in their current form they are horribly off balance.

For example (not exactly apples to apples, but you get the idea): in Diablo III the Wizard class has a passive ability called Glass Cannon that has right idea for +DPS/-Tank balance.

Glass Cannon wrote:
Increase all damage done by 15%, but decrease Armor and resistances by 10%.


If these weapons are going to completely eliminate resists on the ship using them, the damage increase should be in the 50-200% range. 5-17% is far too low unless the resistance penalty is significantly reduced.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#235 - 2014-10-23 17:53:34 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
An even more clearn example why this idea is HORRIBLE.

You get Pulse laser of this variant. It stilld oes LESS.. and a LOT LESS damage than a NORMAL blaster.

So WHY IN HELL woudl you do that? Why not just use a normal blaster and KEEP your resists?


Not only this proposal is an extreme niche target.. it also has an extremely niche envelope..


ONLY BLASTERS on structures. NOthing else....

Blasters use ammo? I dunno about you, but I much prefer using lasers for structure grinds if the target resist profile allows it. And I say this being able to use T2 large hybrids but not T2 large lasers. (Training them up soon-ish.)



If you are too poor for payign ammunition than you will not buy those weapons. I do not use and would kick from fleet people using T1 ammo even. Use VOID on BLASTERS or GTFO ( on the type of operation where your small subcapital fleet is the killing factor, for large alliances your subcapitals are irrelevant compared to the supers DPS)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2014-10-23 17:55:09 UTC
Callisto Helix wrote:
The downsides of these things are far too severe to justify their use for anything other than POS/POCO bashes. Even if their cost was the same as T2, I doubt they would see much use beyond suicide ganking.

In order to really be a glass cannon, the increase in damage has to be at least somewhat proportional to the loss in tank, and in their current form they are horribly off balance.

For example (not exactly apples to apples, but you get the idea): in Diablo III the Wizard class has a passive ability called Glass Cannon that has right idea for +DPS/-Tank balance.

Glass Cannon wrote:
Increase all damage done by 15%, but decrease Armor and resistances by 10%.


If these weapons are going to completely eliminate resists on the ship using them, the damage increase should be in the 50-200% range. 5-17% is far too low unless the resistance penalty is significantly reduced.



That is just extreme minmaxing and would be BAD for game.

THe resists shoudl NOT vanish.

The resists should get something like 25% nerf for a 15% damage increase.

ANYTHING that makes zero resist will be USELESS in some scenario and OP in the others. and NEVER anythign in between.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Cant tell Ifserious
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#237 - 2014-10-23 18:10:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Cant tell Ifserious
The use of these weapons with their current stats and price can't be justified.

You sacrifice: Lots of ISK, all of your tank, 25% optimal, 50% falloff
You gain: ~15% DPS, ~10% tracking

You can't brawl because 0 tank
You can't kite because crappy range
You can't snipe effectively because crappy range
You can't gank because high price

so whats the catch?

Also the name should be "HYPER" 800mm auto cannon .....etc imo
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#238 - 2014-10-23 18:33:21 UTC
Cant tell Ifserious wrote:
The use of these weapons with their current stats and price can't be justified.

You sacrifice: Lots of ISK, all of your tank, 25% optimal, 50% falloff
You gain: ~15% DPS, ~10% tracking

You can't brawl because 0 tank
You can't kite because crappy range
You can't snipe effectively because crappy range
You can't gank because high price

so whats the catch?

Also the name should be "HYPER" 800mm auto cannon .....etc imo



And the worse is not that. The worse part is.. that blight AC that gimped your ship.. still does LESS dps with WORSE projection than a normal T2 blaster.


HOW IN HELL CCP you think ANYONE is stupid enough to use that? Why in hell anyone would use that blighted AC when a normal T2 blaster will be superior in EVERYTHING?


The only weapons that anyoen woudl use blighted will be blasters to kill POCOS in high sec. For everythign else, there are better options.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
scimichar
Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
#239 - 2014-10-23 18:40:55 UTC
Michael Pawlicki wrote:
Everyone is shouting these suck. This current version of Blighteds suck. This is the V.1 Alpha test of em. This isnt final.



CCP has a history of releasing stuff in the "V.1 Alpha" state then not coming back to it for years.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#240 - 2014-10-23 18:44:51 UTC
Cant tell Ifserious wrote:
The use of these weapons on existing ships with their current stats and price can't be justified.

You sacrifice: Lots of ISK, all of your tank, 25% optimal, 50% falloff
You gain: ~15% DPS, ~10% tracking

You can't brawl because 0 tank
You can't kite because crappy range
You can't snipe effectively because crappy range
You can't gank because high price

so whats the catch?

Also the name should be "HYPER" 800mm auto cannon .....etc imo

Fixed that for you. I'd suggest waiting until we see that these T3 destroyers bring before passing final judgement. Maybe they have bonuses cancelling the penalty of these weapons? If that's the case, they'd be awesome.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs