These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#261 - 2014-10-24 06:20:51 UTC
Given they seem to require 'thermonuclear charges' to build, I think 'irradiated' might be better than 'blighted' :)

The damage increase isn't exactly awe inspiring, given the vulnerability of ships fitting these things. A base thorax went from 278 to 309 dps. You can use layering membranes, plates, shield extenders etc to counter the effect to some degree so perhaps this has been taken into account. In this case, the degree of damage increase is kinda 'meh' and these strike me as being quite gimmicky, especially given the high price ccp have spoken about. Very niche. They seem to be quite functional on sisi.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#262 - 2014-10-24 08:51:58 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
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.



because you gonna fit 800mm in a destroyer?

Peope daydreamign that these weaons are for a specific ship class. WAKE UP. They are of all types and ALL sizes. They are not made to a specific type of ship.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#263 - 2014-10-24 08:53:37 UTC
Scrap the Idea CCP. USe that time in something more useful and that can be balanced.

The whole idea is flawed from start. And would be useful ONLY for blasters shooting structures.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Keith Planck
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#264 - 2014-10-24 08:59:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Keith Planck
Found a super unqiue idea for the new 'name redacted' weapons on reddit:

"from CyborgTriceratops via /r/Eve/ sent 56 minutes ago
show parent
I think something like 'every X% of resistance is transfered into 1% DPS increase.' You would then still tank set your ship, but the blighted weapons would turn their damage based on the resistance set."


So basically having blighted weapons on your ship would convert resistances into dps. Theoritically turning things like invulns into DPS mods. (although utility mods will still often be better)

A baseline could be T1 ships which get ~240 total resistances. So if you wanted T1 ships to get 20% dps with blighted guns, you'd give a 1% dps increase every 12% resistances eaten by the blight weapons.

A vargur with a damage control and an invuln gets ~823 total resistances. Which would be a 69% dps increase.

Even if you put 2 pithum-c invulns, an A-type enam, and a damage control, you'd stil only get a 78% dps increace.
While a 1600 dps vargur does sound scary, they will be extremely vulnerable having no resistances.

Basically ships would scale anywhere between 20% dps increase (T1 resistances no damage mods) and 87% dps increase (100% shield and armor resistances with 60% hull resistances) with 100% dps increase being if you had 100% shield hull and armor resistances.

Would love to hear what you guys think about it o7

P.S. while I don't hate blighted, looking at other eve items that drain power from one area to the other (shield power relays, flux coils, capacitor power relays) I'm going to throw out 'Relay' guns as my name suggestion.

♞
Challus Mercer
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#265 - 2014-10-24 09:07:11 UTC
In my opinion the most intersting alternative idea for such guns (was already offered here before) is to make this guns not only decrease your own resists to zero but to ignore the enemy resists as well. It would give this guns a very nice and uique role of active tank breakers, because they would wreck any ship with low HP in seconds, which is the case for active tank users. On the other hand this weapons would suck against plated or shield extended setups, which makes them pretty balanced in general - very good benefit but huge tradeoff as well.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#266 - 2014-10-24 09:31:35 UTC
You know... it would be simpler and more elegant if those blighted weapons inflicted damage on the carrier ship rather than affect something totally unrelated such as resistence.

FAI: "Cursed Laser"

In "normal" mode, it does T2 damage with no side effects (but for a faction price tag). Yet on "overheat", it does 50% more damage and 10% of that damage will hit back your ship, bypassing all resists. As the damage emanates from the weapon, it would be spread as 50% to hull, 30% to armor and 20% to shields.

So let's say that your battery does 1000 DPS in normal mode -on "cursed overheat" it would do 1500 DPS and would inflict 150 DPS on your ship, shared as 75 DPS to hull, 45 DPS to armor and 30 DPS to shield. Numbers of course could be tweaked for balance.

That "cursed overheat" would allow a ship to go kamikaze and sacrifice its tank / hull for the ability to kill the enemy faster, even if the last shot could kill both the attacker and the target.

The "cursed overheat" also would allow greater tactical flexibility (FAI, by making hull tanking a serious option Lol) and, as I said, being damaged by overpowering your weapons makes more sense than a magical gun which removes your resists just because ~design~. Ugh
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#267 - 2014-10-24 09:38:16 UTC
"Rewired"

True Sansha Rewired Small Gatling Pulse Laser
True Sansha Small Rewired Gatling Pulse Laser
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#268 - 2014-10-24 09:39:37 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Given they seem to require 'thermonuclear charges' to build, I think 'irradiated' might be better than 'blighted' :)

The damage increase isn't exactly awe inspiring, given the vulnerability of ships fitting these things. A base thorax went from 278 to 309 dps. You can use layering membranes, plates, shield extenders etc to counter the effect to some degree so perhaps this has been taken into account. In this case, the degree of damage increase is kinda 'meh' and these strike me as being quite gimmicky, especially given the high price ccp have spoken about. Very niche. They seem to be quite functional on sisi.


That's better than my idea in terms of lore and continuity.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#269 - 2014-10-24 09:59:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
Keith Planck wrote:
stuff


I like the idea of trading defenses for offenses as those guns are supposed to. Trading all your defenses (besides not being shot hue) for a laughable dps increase with questionable application is just not worth it

Edit: And damn that price, I don't feel like paying a premium several times the ship's value just to put a *most certainly disposable*-sticker on the windshield.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#270 - 2014-10-24 10:17:26 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Scrap the Idea CCP. USe that time in something more useful and that can be balanced.

The whole idea is flawed from start. And would be useful ONLY for blasters shooting structures.

I have to agree with this. I can see what you're going for, but I don't think it's a productive use of time when there are so many other things to work on.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#271 - 2014-10-24 11:21:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
I have to agree with what some people are saying......


This idea is flawed from conception.

The ample amount of time spent on this project should be restrained and the amount of time spent on renaming and rebalancing all the meta modules should be upgraded.

'Cause, you know, you get the naming system of those completely wrong too! The idea of the way meta modules are going to be needs to be thoroughly thought through too instead of the "over a couple of drinks" meeting you seemed to have in the first place.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#272 - 2014-10-24 11:51:08 UTC
I feel blighted...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Malou Hashur
Enterprise Holdings
#273 - 2014-10-24 12:43:20 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Just to reassure you we're still here.

The naming convention is being looked at, when we have a good candidate we will update the thread with that info.


Probably the same guy that came up with the idea of " Ample Light Missile Launcher"

God help us

CCP Philosophy ==>>

  1. If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it and break something else.

  2. Ignore all Forum comments that raise issues and concerns about our "features", and bring said "features" in anyway.
Hicksimus
Torgue
#274 - 2014-10-24 13:50:48 UTC
These weapons are competing with the door for worst addition ever.

Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#275 - 2014-10-24 16:40:51 UTC
Hicksimus wrote:
These weapons are competing with the door for worst addition ever.


At least when you use the door, it retains its resistances to opening.

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#276 - 2014-10-24 17:07:24 UTC
Regarding my thoughts on Blighted Weapons and T3 Destroyers: I really have no evidence to back my thoughts that the two were meant to be coupled other than the timing of their release. Mostly, its driven by a desire to believe that CCP isn't so completely far gone that they would introduce something so remarkably underwhelming without some way to actually take advantage of it.

Time will tell.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#277 - 2014-10-24 18:38:37 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Regarding my thoughts on Blighted Weapons and T3 Destroyers: I really have no evidence to back my thoughts that the two were meant to be coupled other than the timing of their release. Mostly, its driven by a desire to believe that CCP isn't so completely far gone that they would introduce something so remarkably underwhelming without some way to actually take advantage of it.

Time will tell.


Guns: Phoebe, T3 dessies: Rhea.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#278 - 2014-10-24 18:54:04 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Guns: Phoebe, T3 dessies: Rhea.

Perhaps blind faith would have been a better term, LOL!

(Yes, this just goes to further emphasize how badly I'm grasping at straws here trying to make sense of things.)

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Bluespot85
What IU Doing
Brothers of Tangra
#279 - 2014-10-24 20:51:25 UTC
Blighted.....really!!!!

How about something simple like T3?

That way you can say your fullfilling your promises from OVER 10 YEARS AGO.

Or maybe just go for Hillmars neuton cannon of bullshit-does what it says on the tin.
Rossarii
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#280 - 2014-10-24 21:22:02 UTC
Dear lord, I hope this is a troll by CCP.


Also, what we need:
A new type of ECM Jamming module: Would jam 10% more effective, and would emit a loud vuvuzela sound.

Imagine a falcon fleet with these.

I think I have a semi.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQXBrZrPME First vid of my solo* failures.