These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proposal for 'multi-barrelled' turrets (example given)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cade Windstalker
#41 - 2015-04-10 06:39:15 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
I'd be reasonably on board with turret RLML/RHML analogies. Even if a few people do use the smallest size M/L turrets, it adds more interesting designs to the game and when they do tiericide on the turret sizes rather than just metacide, makes it easier for them since there are clear roles in each size class already.


This is more or less what I'm thinking the smallest size of Large turrets could be turned into. It seems to fit intuitively, involves minimal messing with existing weapons (except maybe the addition of some new ones to certain weapon groups) and gives these weapons a role beyond "well, I couldn't fit anything bigger..."

There are a lot of potential problems but I think we could turn this into a decent proposal to throw toward CCP and see about getting it at least taken into consideration.
Alexis Nightwish
#42 - 2015-04-16 17:14:21 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
I'm definitely in support of something like this, so long as the current dual/quad/etc. weapons are not replaced with what you propose. I can think of several fits right of the top of my head that use the smallest weapon for the ship simply because it's not feasible to fit the larger ones (typically heavily tanked fits, or fits for newbros who don't have the skills for the ultra tight fits that largest-in-class weapons typically require).

If the current 'dual' type weapons' stats were ported over into replacement weapons (eg: current dual 150mm rail stats given to a new 175mm rail), and new ones with you're proposed stats were added using the current, multi-barreled names and models, I'd support this 100%.

I can still remember my noobie days and reading the description of the multi-barreled guns which actually said they were two of the smaller sized guns together and thinking "Oh cool! These will be great against frigates in my missions!" then being confused when small ammo didn't go in them, and being disappointed when they didn't perform like I expected. Straight

Regarding lasers, since fast ammo swapping is their jam, maybe make them use an excessive amount of capacitor such that firing continuously for longer than other multi-barreled turrets' can would totally deep throat the ship's capacitor? And/Or giving them prop mod-levels of overheat damage?
I'm not certain why you would have an issue with them replacing the current crop?

Fittings are unchanged, Optimal/Falloff range are identical, alpha strike and sustained DPS are ever so marginally improved (5% and 4% respectively), while you get the big increase in peak DPS, at the expense of the reload.

Highlighed exactly why I would not want the current smalls to be replaced. High damage, long cooldown has it's place, but I do not want my options removed and replaced by something different. That's why I said I would want these new turret versions of RLMLs to be added to the line up, not replace existing weapons.




beakerax wrote:
I really like this idea.

Gabriel Karade wrote:
One area that you'd need to be careful with is the peak DPS and the penalties, say for example, for Dual Heavy Pulses; even if the cap usage was astronomical, I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties, hence why my initial thoughts were on crystal damage and a long reload.

I sort of prefer a long cooldown after x cycles to extra crystal damage, but I don't know if this is technically feasible.

I don't want to remove the benefit lasers have of crystal swapping. I think cap usage should be what's used. What if every time the turret fired it increased the cap usage like so:

BaseCapToFire * (1 + ((0.1 * shots^2) / 100)) = CurrentCapToFire

So the 5th shot would cost 102.5% cap, the 25th shot would cost 162.5% cap, and the 50th shot would cost 350% cap. Not firing would lower the 'shots' counter at a rate of 1 per non-overheated RoF. So if the turret's RoF was one shot every 2 seconds, then it would lose a 'shots' counter every 2 seconds it was not firing.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#43 - 2015-04-25 12:55:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Hello chaps,

Long delay, but I've finally had some chance to modify the spreadsheet to output more info. Can be found here:

http://www.filedropper.com/dt-proposalv2a

And in image format here:

http://eve-files.com/dl/273467

What this now shows, is two realistic fits, Megathron vs Rokh with the 'legacy' dual 250 II's vs the proposed. The Megathron has 2x MFS II with faction antimatter, the Rokh 3x MFS II with faction antimatter.

As you can see, while the 'peak' DPS on the Megathron (for example) looks quite high (801 dps), the sustained is lower than the current 'legacy' (309 vs 517 currently). The Rokh has a smaller gap between peak and sustained, due to the lack of a RoF bonus. Clip duration for the Megathron is 49 seconds, vs 78 seconds for the Rokh.

The last two columns now show the effective DPS at a cruiser target traveling at the velocity shown in column 'N'. Again, this shows that the peak DPS is significantly improved (320 dps vs 235 dps), while bumping up target transversal this is achievable at, from 178 m/sec, to 507 m/sec for the Megathron (at optimal range) vs 194 m/sec to 554 m/sec for the Rokh (at optimal range).

Thoughts?

My gut feeling is this is 'about right', when compared to for example, a Raven with RHML.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#44 - 2015-04-25 13:33:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

Highlighed exactly why I would not want the current smalls to be replaced. High damage, long cooldown has it's place, but I do not want my options removed and replaced by something different. That's why I said I would want these new turret versions of RLMLs to be added to the line up, not replace existing weapons.
I'm not quite sure where you feel this is removing an option though, could you explain where you see the current version of Dual-250's as a viable option? They have; less base DPS than the Cruiser version, less tracking, Battleship signature resolution, and none of the alpha strike benefits of the larger railguns. I'm really stuck for a good reason to keep them as is... What?

Edit: I agree on the addition of new turrets where there are gaps in the current line-up's; for example there is no 'Dual 720mm Howitzer' or 'Dual 280mm Howitzer'

Alexis Nightwish wrote:

beakerax wrote:
I really like this idea.

Gabriel Karade wrote:
One area that you'd need to be careful with is the peak DPS and the penalties, say for example, for Dual Heavy Pulses; even if the cap usage was astronomical, I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties, hence why my initial thoughts were on crystal damage and a long reload.

I sort of prefer a long cooldown after x cycles to extra crystal damage, but I don't know if this is technically feasible.

I don't want to remove the benefit lasers have of crystal swapping. I think cap usage should be what's used. What if every time the turret fired it increased the cap usage like so:

BaseCapToFire * (1 + ((0.1 * shots^2) / 100)) = CurrentCapToFire

So the 5th shot would cost 102.5% cap, the 25th shot would cost 162.5% cap, and the 50th shot would cost 350% cap. Not firing would lower the 'shots' counter at a rate of 1 per non-overheated RoF. So if the turret's RoF was one shot every 2 seconds, then it would lose a 'shots' counter every 2 seconds it was not firing.

This is a neat idea, and would overcome the worry of feeding cap to the ship to overcome the penalty. Lasers still are a tricky one to solve, and I'm not sure which of the options would be the most viable.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#45 - 2015-04-26 19:46:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Gabriel Karade wrote:

Edit: I agree on the addition of new turrets where there are gaps in the current line-up's; for example there is no 'Dual 720mm Howitzer' or 'Dual 280mm Howitzer'


Triple.

Triple Howitzers. Blink

Gabriel Karade wrote:
One area that you'd need to be careful with is the peak DPS and the penalties, say for example, for Dual Heavy Pulses; even if the cap usage was astronomical, I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties, hence why my initial thoughts were on crystal damage and a long reload.


That would be glorious.

I've also came against the problem of Energy Turrets, if this whole system is going to be mirroring Rapid ML concept.

How about these turrets generating highslot Heat on activation with all the ensuing consequences? Heat increase rate can be calculated against the clip sizes of Projectiles and Hybrids of the same type.

But then heat dissipation would have to match the reload times of those systems. What?

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#46 - 2015-04-29 16:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
If it [the general approach being presented] could be implemented then yes, I think triple Howitzers would be delicious... Twisted

Mulling over things, still not certain on the best approach for lasers.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Alexis Nightwish
#47 - 2015-04-29 19:09:06 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

Highlighed exactly why I would not want the current smalls to be replaced. High damage, long cooldown has it's place, but I do not want my options removed and replaced by something different. That's why I said I would want these new turret versions of RLMLs to be added to the line up, not replace existing weapons.
I'm not quite sure where you feel this is removing an option though, could you explain where you see the current version of Dual-250's as a viable option? They have; less base DPS than the Cruiser version, less tracking, Battleship signature resolution, and none of the alpha strike benefits of the larger railguns. I'm really stuck for a good reason to keep them as is... What?

Edit: I agree on the addition of new turrets where there are gaps in the current line-up's; for example there is no 'Dual 720mm Howitzer' or 'Dual 280mm Howitzer'
True, the current 'dual-type' weapons aren't great. However there's no reason that the proposed turret versions of RMLs couldn't simply be added to the lineup.

Here's a fit I threw together that uses the smallest guns in the class because of fitting:
[Megathron, Smaller guns example]
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Large Armor Repairer II
Large Armor Repairer II
Explosive Plating II
Explosive Plating II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II

Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I

Dual 250mm Railgun II, Javelin L
Dual 250mm Railgun II, Javelin L
Dual 250mm Railgun II, Javelin L
Dual 250mm Railgun II, Javelin L
Dual 250mm Railgun II, Javelin L
Dual 250mm Railgun II, Javelin L
Dual 250mm Railgun II, Javelin L

Large Anti-Thermic Pump I
Large Anti-Kinetic Pump I
Large Hybrid Burst Aerator II



Again, my suggestion is to relabel the current 'Dual' weapons (in this case I would relabel the 'Dual 250mm Railgun II' to '300mm Railgun II'), keeping their stats, and then add in the new RML turret analogs with 'Dual' in their name and high burst, low DPS.

Just because a module isn't that great, it doesn't mean it's never used, nor does it mean that it should just be removed.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#48 - 2015-06-11 11:26:26 UTC
Gabriel Karade wrote:

I could still envisage the rise of 'TurboAbaddons' being fed by Guardians to sustain them, completely overcoming the penalties

+1 Supported.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#49 - 2015-07-19 12:42:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Still would like "Dual Heavy Ions" to get resurrected someday, but in RHML/RLML style...

....and don't forget the triple Howitzers Twisted

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#50 - 2015-07-19 14:12:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
They should receive the hull bonus for large weapons ...

2x 250mm Railguns in one mounting is essentially a large turret using medium ammunition loads.
It should have similar usage characteristics to a medium weapon, Range, Damage & Tracking etc, but fitting needs that are closer to a single mount large turret.

These things are already in the DB, but they see very little use. an overhaul is long overdue.
Which includes changing the charge size down from Large, to Medium.
FireFrenzy
Cynosural Samurai
#51 - 2015-07-20 12:22:14 UTC
my main question after skimming the first post is if i weld 2 railguns (or whatever) together how does that not give me the same magazine size on the guns, hell how does that not give me DOUBLE the magazine size i mean 1 30 round clip plus another 30 round clip should make 60 rounds surely...

increased reload times sure that makes sense double those but still...
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#52 - 2015-07-20 17:42:09 UTC
Basically, it's just a handy parameter to be able to use for balancing the sustained vs peak DPS.

In 'fluff' terms?

Because its not quite as simple as 'welding together' two identical medium weapons; more cooling coils required to support extra heat being generated in the ammo hopper, more servo's and actuators required to move bulkier turret due to Battleship-grade armour plating, all the above taking up more space... etc etc....Blink

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#53 - 2015-07-20 17:54:04 UTC
I think this is a common idea that I have had often myself. So I will give you a +1.

However; I'm not a big fan of the 'long reload' - I think it has its flavor. But there could be different ways to balance this. (I just think its a boring mechanic to replicate, it works for missiles to a degree - but would like to see a difference for turrets).
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#54 - 2015-07-25 11:06:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Well, with lasers you would need to do something different to long reload; idea's proposed in this thread have included crystal damage, cap usage 'ramp up', through to overheat, so there are still options to explore.

Overheating (requiring a cool-down period) could be a potential candidate for providing differences in peak vs sustained DPS, for all three turret types.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2015-07-25 17:09:49 UTC
I've propsed similar before(as have many others) and the idea is nice in theory but a pain to balancebin practice. The only way I could see it work is to replace one or 2 high slots with multiple small guns (not medium) much like the secondary armament on a modern battlship/battlecruiser. However here you run into the problem that in EvE a BS isn't supposed to be a good anti-frigate platform without sacrificing tank (mids for web/scram and lows for DDA's to boost the unbonused small drones.

Maybe a better solution would be a mid or lo slot module that is BS/BC class only that boosts small drones ehp and damage. Then the pilot must sacrifice more than a few dps to get a frigate defence boost
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#56 - 2015-07-26 10:08:55 UTC
Well, it has worked well with Rapid Heavy/Rapid Light Launchers - both of those see extensive use, providing decent setup options, so I believe it has strong potential on non-missile platforms.

I agree balancing is always delicate, but I think even the initial 'stab' at a revised 'Dual 250mm railgun' (or introducing new turrets - lets not forget the Triple Howitzers....Twisted ) shows there's no immediate show-stoppers to the general approach. Energy turrets would need some work, but again, already some good suggestions made here by others.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#57 - 2015-07-26 19:36:58 UTC
Initially I thought a good way of handling this with lasers was to give them a secondary ammo capacity for boosters. That has a few problems though, not least of which is that I don't think it's conceptually possible in the engine.

The thought I have is to create a module that takes cap boosters as ammo, and when active alters laser turrets to increase ROF and tracking, reduce signature resolution, and lower cap requirement to offset the ROF bonus. It should also reduce the range of the turrets significantly.

Then you can balance this with the reload on that module. You could conceivably use this for any turrets type, assuming allowing the use of smaller weapons are a goal needed in game.
Protovarious
The Neocom Network
#58 - 2015-08-06 09:36:34 UTC
This was an excellent topic for our quickfire round on The Tinfoil Factory Episode 3! I have to say it was very well received by our panel.

http://theneocom.com/2015/08/06/the-tinfoil-factory-episode-3-walking-in-stations/

Co-host of The Neocom Podcast - http://www.TheNeocom.com

Eve Community Blogger - The Eve Editorial - http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com

Twitter: @Proto_Eve
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#59 - 2015-08-07 17:19:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
Thank you! I enjoyed your discussions on where to go with Avatar based gameplay, interesting thoughts ("stab them til they give up"...? Pirate)

General update: I've fixed the download link for the spreadsheet (image from Eve-files remains extant) - it shouldn't expire now, hope people can download and iterate with the numbers themselves for further discussion.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#60 - 2015-08-07 17:25:48 UTC
"the BS size multibarrel turrets do less damage than their cruiser sized counterparts with no significant benefit to compensate"

REALLY!!!!

So BS level tank is, "no significant benefit in compensation"?

Why not think that through a bit and get back to us with less ridiculous base assumptions.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.