These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion

Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#201 - 2014-12-01 07:05:20 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Milton Middleson wrote:
Quote:
Oh look, a good idea that doesn't involve power creep buffing. The non-phased plasma/fusion/emp ammo for projectiles are ridiculously pointless for autocannon usage.


The same change would utterly cripple ACs with close-range ammo. Ammo generally needs a rework, but this ain't it.


Not if they actually bothered to do it right when they rebalanced the ammo. It really is ridiculous how useless the high optimal ammo is considering how pathetically low the optimal is on ACs, not to mention the sheer level of DPS loss. It gets like half as much damage for 2km more optimal. I'll sure load that in a real hurry!

Now if they actually rebalanced the ammo (and at this time they completely went over ACs, of course) so that you had meaningful choices beyond which damage type you wanted, I'd be quite happy.


You aren't meant to be operating in optimal with it, its designed to be used in falloff.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#202 - 2014-12-01 07:11:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
Milton Middleson wrote:
Quote:
Oh look, a good idea that doesn't involve power creep buffing. The non-phased plasma/fusion/emp ammo for projectiles are ridiculously pointless for autocannon usage.


The same change would utterly cripple ACs with close-range ammo. Ammo generally needs a rework, but this ain't it.


Not if they actually bothered to do it right when they rebalanced the ammo. It really is ridiculous how useless the high optimal ammo is considering how pathetically low the optimal is on ACs, not to mention the sheer level of DPS loss. It gets like half as much damage for 2km more optimal. I'll sure load that in a real hurry!

Now if they actually rebalanced the ammo (and at this time they completely went over ACs, of course) so that you had meaningful choices beyond which damage type you wanted, I'd be quite happy.


You aren't meant to be operating in optimal with it, its designed to be used in falloff.

which is why the issues with it are so bad, as the inversion point for DPS on these ammo types are quite beyond the point where it is effective againt an armor tanked ship of the same size's passive shield regen.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#203 - 2014-12-01 07:18:10 UTC
James Baboli wrote:

which is why the issues with it are so bad, as the inversion point for DPS on these ammo types are quite beyond the point where it is effective againt an armor tanked ship of the same size's passive shield regen.


Rubbish.

This is about people flying ships badly then blaming the tools.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#204 - 2014-12-01 07:22:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

which is why the issues with it are so bad, as the inversion point for DPS on these ammo types are quite beyond the point where it is effective againt an armor tanked ship of the same size's passive shield regen.


Rubbish.

This is about people flying ships badly then blaming the tools.

No, this particularly part of the conversation is about the long rage ammo types being useless on ACs because of the ratio of range increase vs. damage loss, meaning that they never show higher DPS than the short range ammo, unless it is for tracking bonuses alone, which is usually better solved by a web or slingshot.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#205 - 2014-12-01 07:36:22 UTC
James Baboli wrote:

No, this particularly part of the conversation is about the long rage ammo types being useless on ACs because of the ratio of range increase vs. damage loss, meaning that they never show higher DPS than the short range ammo, unless it is for tracking bonuses alone, which is usually better solved by a web or slingshot.


More tracking always makes a difference even on webbed targets. As I said, people not using or understanding the tools well does not mean they are underpowered.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#206 - 2014-12-01 07:40:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

No, this particularly part of the conversation is about the long rage ammo types being useless on ACs because of the ratio of range increase vs. damage loss, meaning that they never show higher DPS than the short range ammo, unless it is for tracking bonuses alone, which is usually better solved by a web or slingshot.


More tracking always makes a difference even on webbed targets. As I said, people not using or understanding the tools well does not mean they are underpowered.

There is a point at which more tracking is irrelevent. size appropriate ACs against anything webbed will be close to this point if one excludes interceptors.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#207 - 2014-12-01 07:43:27 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
James Baboli wrote:

There is a point at which more tracking is irrelevent.


Not when faced with interceptors.


James Baboli wrote:

size appropriate ACs against anything webbed will be close to this point if one excludes interceptors.


But given that they are among the most common ships used in null we wont be excluding them.

The tracking bonus is great for fighting smaller ship classes than yourself.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#208 - 2014-12-01 08:32:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Syrias Bizniz
baltec1 wrote:
James Baboli wrote:

There is a point at which more tracking is irrelevent.


Not when faced with interceptors.


James Baboli wrote:

size appropriate ACs against anything webbed will be close to this point if one excludes interceptors.


But given that they are among the most common ships used in null we wont be excluding them.

The tracking bonus is great for fighting smaller ship classes than yourself.



You're both right.

Tracking is good. This is why depleted Uranium and Titanium Sabot are good choices if you fight smaller ships. The dps loss is ususally mitigated by actually hitting that thing.
However, the non-t2 Long-Range ammo of projectile weapons gives 5% tracking (less than the med range ammo mentioned earlier) and more optimal range, which is - as baltec pointed out already - not what an autocannon operates in.
So, your 2.5 or what it is base range of autocannons gets increased by a few hundred meters, while the falloff stays the same. You lose tons of dps for a few hundred meters of optimum, which will affect your dmg projection in the single-digit percent range.


Or in short: Projectile Long Range ammo suxx. Donkeyballs. Not having tested it i dare to say that the short-range ammo has more dps on higher ranges than the long range ammo, at least when looking at autocannons, and in the case of arties it's probably similar.


Voting for a combined falloff and optimal modifier on Projectile Ammo.
Or maybe split Projectile weapon ammo in 3 categories:

AC ammo, the current PP, EMP, Fusion, with -75% optimal and +25% falloff
Arty ammo, the current long range variants, that actually have the same base-dmg values, but come with a +100% optimal, -50% falloff modifier
ALlround ammo, the current Depleted & Sabot, giving a tracking bonus and no bonus / malus to Falloff & optimal.

I actually think this could already place projectiles in a better spot than they are now and make them more competitive among other weapon systems.


Edit:
Other interesting side-effects:
Optimal-Bonused Minmatar hulls could opt to use 'Arty ammo' on Autocannons, thus being able to fight in Optimum range in short ranged engagements, probably up to 10km in the case of Medium Projectiles.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#209 - 2014-12-01 14:10:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


You aren't meant to be operating in optimal with it, its designed to be used in falloff.

As I said, I'll sure be loading that ammo that gives me +60% optimal range and +5% tracking at the cost of over half my DPS in a real hurry.

The +20% tracking actually has a place, even though it does about 2/3rds the damage of the close range, but the long range is completely useless on autocannons.

I understand that this is one of the cases where you have two weapon systems using the same ammo that don't share characteristics exactly, so you've got ammo that is can be used to... some benefit on one while being completely useless on the other, but where does that leave autocannons in regards to long range ammo options?

Considering Barrage is the only "long range" ammo option for autocannons, that means that all your ammo choices are: best damage type at the time, and what you happen to be shooting with regards to tracking. There's no range component in ammo selection unless you have T2 guns with Barrage. There's no "gee, this target is near the edge of my falloff. Maybe I should switch to the long range faction ammo" option.

Of course, in fairness this at least leaves autocannons with 5 potentially viable ammo types at T1 and only 3 completely useless ones. That means they're already doing better than Hybrids and Lasers in that sense.

Syrias Bizniz wrote:

Or in short: Projectile Long Range ammo suxx. Donkeyballs. Not having tested it i dare to say that the short-range ammo has more dps on higher ranges than the long range ammo, at least when looking at autocannons, and in the case of arties it's probably similar.

I'm pretty sure it's even better to use the close/midrange ammo on arty as well given the typical ranges of <150km and the fact that it has about 63% of the DPS of midrange ammo and 42% of the DPS of short range ammo and the relatively low optimal and high falloff of arty.

At least at large size. If you're trying to use medium or small arty beyond short range ammo point, you're better off using rails.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#210 - 2014-12-01 17:31:13 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


You aren't meant to be operating in optimal with it, its designed to be used in falloff.

As I said, I'll sure be loading that ammo that gives me +60% optimal range and +5% tracking at the cost of over half my DPS in a real hurry.

The +20% tracking actually has a place, even though it does about 2/3rds the damage of the close range, but the long range is completely useless on autocannons.

I understand that this is one of the cases where you have two weapon systems using the same ammo that don't share characteristics exactly, so you've got ammo that is can be used to... some benefit on one while being completely useless on the other, but where does that leave autocannons in regards to long range ammo options?

Considering Barrage is the only "long range" ammo option for autocannons, that means that all your ammo choices are: best damage type at the time, and what you happen to be shooting with regards to tracking. There's no range component in ammo selection unless you have T2 guns with Barrage. There's no "gee, this target is near the edge of my falloff. Maybe I should switch to the long range faction ammo" option.

Of course, in fairness this at least leaves autocannons with 5 potentially viable ammo types at T1 and only 3 completely useless ones. That means they're already doing better than Hybrids and Lasers in that sense.

Syrias Bizniz wrote:

Or in short: Projectile Long Range ammo suxx. Donkeyballs. Not having tested it i dare to say that the short-range ammo has more dps on higher ranges than the long range ammo, at least when looking at autocannons, and in the case of arties it's probably similar.

I'm pretty sure it's even better to use the close/midrange ammo on arty as well given the typical ranges of <150km and the fact that it has about 63% of the DPS of midrange ammo and 42% of the DPS of short range ammo and the relatively low optimal and high falloff of arty.

At least at large size. If you're trying to use medium or small arty beyond short range ammo point, you're better off using rails.


Unless youre flying a muninn. I use titanium sabot almost exclusively on the muninn due to the hull's optimal and tracking bonus. With sabot you get a 50km optimal and with my fit i think .07 tracking with 720s.. Very fun to volley frigs. But muninn has an identity crisis right now. Its an armor ship, but performs way better as a shield fit. Just cant tackle anything. I would to see the muninn have 5 mids and lose some lows tbh. It doesnt have a tank bonus so i dont see the harm.

But thats sort of off topic to acs. Id like to see barrage falloff increased, suppose you could leave tracking where it is. Someone mentioned Barrage doing omni damage. That would be interesting, but would put it in the same position as scorch. No one would touch the other ammo afterwards.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#211 - 2014-12-01 18:05:31 UTC
After using Barrage on a Loki and a Vaga, I have to say that is seems pretty lacking. I've tried to make it work but there really doesn't seem to be any reason to use it over Hail or RF Phased Plasma. The falloff increase is too little, and the damage decrease is way too much, kinda like Hams vs Heavies (not cause but effect).
How to fix it? I don't know. I think the best thing to do would be a significant (no piddly little 2-3% changes) increase in falloff with a corresponding decrease in falloff bonuses to hulls to prevent stupidity. Then give Barrage a slight damage increase (probably on the order of 5-10%) and drop it onto SiSi. That's just off the top of my head though.

As for the arty situation, all I have to say is good luck filling your turret slots with meaningful arty and having anything left something as inconsequential as tank, prop, tackle.... I'm not saying it can't be done, not saying it isn't being done, but it reminds me of fitting some of the smaller Caldari hulls.

Overall, I think medium projectiles in particular, and possibly arty overall, could use some looking at and love. Would be great if they did the same for missiles too, but that's just me wishing... I would like to see some of the, perceived, power creep in Gallente hulls reined back a bit while they bring the other weapons and races into Rhea. They made a big deal about Eve being in it's second decade, but some of the weapons still feel like first decade crud, I'm looking at you HML's and AC ammo.

As always, this is off the top of my head and is solely my opinion as of the last 5 minutes. Smile
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#212 - 2014-12-01 18:23:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
i like the approach to the pulse laser changes and could be used here too..

Projectiles
- add the 15% falloff to the base guns
- increase ROF by 12.5%
- reduce damage by 5%

barrage
- reduce bonus to 35% falloff increase


Hail
- change reduced falloff penalty to 15%
- change reduced optimal range penalty to 35%
- change reduced tracking penalty to 20%

T1 ammos
- change optimal range bonus's to 30% falloff

reduce ammo reload times to projectiles to 3 seconds

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Nodire Hermetz
Diplomatie Rapide
Wreckflix and chill
#213 - 2014-12-01 18:48:46 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
After using Barrage on a Loki and a Vaga, I have to say that is seems pretty lacking. I've tried to make it work but there really doesn't seem to be any reason to use it over Hail or RF Phased Plasma. The falloff increase is too little, and the damage decrease is way too much, kinda like Hams vs Heavies (not cause but effect).
How to fix it? I don't know. I think the best thing to do would be a significant (no piddly little 2-3% changes) increase in falloff with a corresponding decrease in falloff bonuses to hulls to prevent stupidity. Then give Barrage a slight damage increase (probably on the order of 5-10%) and drop it onto SiSi. That's just off the top of my head though.

As for the arty situation, all I have to say is good luck filling your turret slots with meaningful arty and having anything left something as inconsequential as tank, prop, tackle.... I'm not saying it can't be done, not saying it isn't being done, but it reminds me of fitting some of the smaller Caldari hulls.

Overall, I think medium projectiles in particular, and possibly arty overall, could use some looking at and love. Would be great if they did the same for missiles too, but that's just me wishing... I would like to see some of the, perceived, power creep in Gallente hulls reined back a bit while they bring the other weapons and races into Rhea. They made a big deal about Eve being in it's second decade, but some of the weapons still feel like first decade crud, I'm looking at you HML's and AC ammo.

As always, this is off the top of my head and is solely my opinion as of the last 5 minutes. Smile



I was more thinking about giving pre-TE nerf stats to all projectile weapon
Minmatar hull and projo ammo was the "Winmatar" because of it
We get the TE nerf because CCP says
Quote:
The strength of TEs has been one of the reasons for Minmatar dominance in recent years, as well as contributing to the relative strength of shield tanking over armor tanking by inflating the value of non-tank low slots.

Local Armor Rep have been buff in all ways (no more velocity penalty , more regen , more versatility with the anci rep armor)
All Other weapon plateforme have been buff in all ways (Beam , RailsGuns , Blaster and Null Ammo , Pulse and Scorch Ammo)

The Scorch and Pulse weapon rebalance for Rhea can be applyed in the same ways for autocannon , they are completely under-the-ground , and no-one who say they are fine doesn't fly ship with autocanon in fact to speaking of it seriously...
Nodire Hermetz
Diplomatie Rapide
Wreckflix and chill
#214 - 2014-12-02 08:04:45 UTC
Bumpinity
Badman Lasermouse
Run and Gun Mercenary Corps
#215 - 2014-12-02 15:53:02 UTC
Eleven pages and I still can't get any love from the devs... Thanks for the bumps guys.

-Badman

scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#216 - 2014-12-02 16:42:33 UTC
Nodire, not all weapons systems have been buffed as you say. I don't know much about lasers, less than I know about hybrids, but I am willing to agree that it appears like lasers could use love. Also, missiles have been pretty much in the same place for years. Cruise missile buff after HML nerf, RLML burst wipes frig fleets but LMLs get a damage nerf. I dare say that missiles, overall and in general, have been in need of reworking for quite a while. This is not a thread about missiles, but I wanted to respond to your "all weapon systems" part.
As for the sugfestion of tweaking ammo like they did with crystals, I can agree with the general idea. I havent fully thought out all the details but it looks good. Save for the 3 second reload time, as a missile pilot seeing that it does not make me happy. Lasers would be insta-reload, hybrids are 5s (I think?), and missiles are at a full 10s. Unless you are enjoying the fun inducing 35s rapid reload. If this change came at the same time as a close look at missiles though, I think it might be interesting.
Posted from my phone before a final, so thoughts might be incomplete. Bear with me folks Big smile
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#217 - 2014-12-04 02:24:56 UTC
Badman Lasermouse wrote:
Eleven pages and I still can't get any love from the devs... Thanks for the bumps guys.


And thanks for creating this topic :p.

More Fall Off pls.
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#218 - 2014-12-04 04:33:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tusker Crazinski
just a thought, make them RLMLs of the turret world,

buff the absolute **** out of their DPS and falloff or tracking at the cost of a 30-40 second reload on a shallow mag.

ammunition selection has to be thought out in advance, if you fail to apply your damage before reload you're likely to die in a hilarious fire.

The only limiting factor to projectile being able to shoot is ammunition, it think that should play more of a balancing role instead of making them unfittable like arty or flat out **** like ACs

I don't know, I think this would give minmatar the hit and run skirmish aesthetic that is drowned out by ASB monster tanks ATM.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#219 - 2014-12-04 12:23:58 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
just a thought, make them RLMLs of the turret world,

buff the absolute **** out of their DPS and falloff or tracking at the cost of a 30-40 second reload on a shallow mag.

ammunition selection has to be thought out in advance, if you fail to apply your damage before reload you're likely to die in a hilarious fire.

The only limiting factor to projectile being able to shoot is ammunition, it think that should play more of a balancing role instead of making them unfittable like arty or flat out **** like ACs

I don't know, I think this would give minmatar the hit and run skirmish aesthetic that is drowned out by ASB monster tanks ATM.


i could buy them having higher ROF than blasters, which would be odd them having the best alpha and the ROF between the 2 weapons systems of minmatar. it would probably suit autocannons , wild inaccurate dps but plenty of it upto decent ranges compared to the accurate but short range firepower of blasters , and the projection of lasers which need a tracking buff mind.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Aiyshimin
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#220 - 2014-12-04 13:08:49 UTC
Give projectiles the 5 sec ammo change time (10 seconds is not just slow compared to blasters, but it's too long for current PVP meta, all ships are faster now), increase falloff slightly and improve the damage profiles of projectile ammo, make them more focused on one damage type, and get completely rid of the ones with 3 damage types. Meanwhile cut some range from Null.

Also, nerf links.