These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Long range turret fitting requirements - still justified?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#21 - 2011-12-29 19:24:46 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
So I was bored and EFT-warrioring a bit to find something different to fly and since I find myself always using short range turrets over their long range variants, I decided I'd go for some long-range ship but inevitably found myself struggling with their fitting requirements.

It left me wondering if the quite substantial differences in LR fitting requirements are still justified in todays eve and if it wasn't in the best interest of diversity to lower them or even equalize them with SR requirements.

I understand the initial design decision, where range is supposed to be the tank, but since the introduction of quick on-grid probing, that idea has become a bit outdated and hence, snipers are nearly extinct (except for arties, which are mostly used for the alpha rather than their range).

So basically, LR turrets trade overall DPS and tracking for longer range damage projection and more alpha - in todays Eve, that sounds like a fair trade to me without gimping the rest of the fit.

I'm personally rather undecided on the issue, hence I'd appreciate some discussion.

(Oh - and I intentionally left the new Tier 3's out, as they're a bit of an outlier when it comes to this topic).


I believe that all long range turrets use to use to much fitting requirements to be useful. However, with the changes to rail-gun. All that's left is beam lasers, with regard to fitting requirement and usefulness. You know, without being forced to fly a Zealot. Pretty much speciality ships. As oppose to Minmatar and Gallente who are able to use long range turrets on so many ships.

I was also thinking all short range turrets should be nerfed in range. All under 12k. Forcing ships to use long range turrets. This would boost frigates. because of they would be able to sig tank. This would make all short range turrets more in-line with one another. I dont know, just throwing out ideas...
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#22 - 2011-12-29 19:32:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
m0cking bird wrote:
I was also thinking all short range turrets should be nerfed in range. All under 12k.

What would you buff on projectiles and lasers to compete with blaster damage if their range was nerfed?

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#23 - 2011-12-29 19:53:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Liang Nuren wrote:


I'm really at a loss as to how you can legitimately believe this and still push for a projectile nerf. You're basically asking for RDPS with a range tank + normal tank + likely some kind of speed tank. Frankly, at the ranges people are complaining about AC performance, people would be better off with Artillery and its **** tracking. It seems extremely dubious to argue for both positions simultaneously.

-Liang


I'm not asking for anything - just started a disussion about something I thought about today.

However, I don't see any problem with arguing for both.
Currently, you could take a standard AC nanocane fit, just lose the neuts and trade off a single shield rig for an ACR and there you go: Full set of T2 720 howitzers on a nanocane - I wouldn't be overly worried if that currently possible fit had 2 neuts/HMLs and 10% tank on top, especially after e.g. short range projectile ammo base damage would have been nerfed by about 10-15%.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2011-12-29 22:42:30 UTC
The fitting differences do tie in to more than just tradeoffs.
For example, with the hybrids now, Caldari fits favor rails which consume more powergrid, and can do this because their main tanking systems are more CPU than PWG heavy.

Gallente, by comparison, have much tighter PWG's because they have to fit the PWG heavy guns on top of armor tanking, which is notoriously PWG heavy, so their shorter-range Blasters come at a discount for this consideration.

If you fit a gallente ship with rails, you need to shift it's tank to shields, at which point you will run out of CPU. Otherwise, you run out of PWG fast. If you try a Blaster caldari ship, you wind up with more PWG than you know what to do with.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#25 - 2011-12-30 07:27:00 UTC
Fitting I understand, bigger guns to shoot further need more resources. but what I don't get is how bigger guns to shoot further don't do more damage, like how it is in our universe. Guess the physics of new Eden are different.

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 
Tak McMonagle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2011-12-30 13:27:35 UTC
I'm not sure if lowering the fitting requirements is the best way to do it. I think the issue comes from the fact that the short range non-blaster weapons have such long ranges, giving very little reason to bother with long range guns. I'm not saying make all short range weapons play in blaster range, just make the ranges a bit more reasonable. Nerfing barrage and scorch to null's overall range bonus is an idea. Lasers would probably have to be adjusted a little to compensate for the scorch nerf.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#27 - 2011-12-30 13:30:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
Tak McMonagle wrote:
Nerfing barrage and scorch to null's overall range bonus is an idea
Since this was already stated once in this thread, I'll repeat the question I asked but didn't get answered:

If you nerf autocannons and pulse lasers down to blaster range, how would you buff autocannons and pulse lasers to make them competitive with blasters' superior damage and tracking? Would you just increase the damage and tracking of autocannons and pulse lasers, or would you also nerf blaster damage and tracking? And wouldn't this just make all 3 weapon systems the same?

EDIT: And if all 3 short range turrets performed the same, why should I use any turret other then the one with the lowest fitting requirements, zero cap consumption, and unlimited damage type selection?

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Tak McMonagle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2011-12-30 13:58:15 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Tak McMonagle wrote:
Nerfing barrage and scorch to null's overall range bonus is an idea
Since this was already stated once in this thread, I'll repeat the question I asked but didn't get answered:

If you nerf autocannons and pulse lasers down to blaster range, how would you buff autocannons and pulse lasers to make them competitive with blasters' superior damage and tracking? Would you just increase the damage and tracking of autocannons and pulse lasers, or would you also nerf blaster damage and tracking? And wouldn't this just make all 3 weapon systems the same?

EDIT: And if all 3 short range turrets performed the same, why should I use any turret other then the one with the lowest fitting requirements, zero cap consumption, and unlimited damage type selection?


Actually, your question was in response to someone wanting to nerf AC's and pulses range to under 12k, which is a bit rediculous. I understand where your question is justified there.

Right now(this is all with no bonuses and no TEs/TCs BTW), a blaster with null has about the same range as an AC with EMP/Fusion/PP(which is already almost twice as far as AM). Then you add Barrage and with the current numbers the range dwarfs blasters, and starts to reach arty ranges. For Pulses, their only saving grace is scorch, which I think should be nerfed as they fill the role beams are supposed to better, as they do more dps at most usable ranges, can be swiched to MF for close ranges, better tracking, and none of the fitting headaches beams bring. If scorch gets nerfed, pulses are going to have to get boosted somehow to let them compete with ACs and blasters.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#29 - 2011-12-30 14:02:48 UTC
Tak McMonagle wrote:
Actually, your question was in response to someone wanting to nerf AC's and pulses range to under 12k, which is a bit rediculous. I understand where your question is justified there.

Right now(this is all with no bonuses and no TEs/TCs BTW), a blaster with null has about the same range as an AC with EMP/Fusion/PP(which is already almost twice as far as AM). Then you add Barrage and with the current numbers the range dwarfs blasters, and starts to reach arty ranges. For Pulses, their only saving grace is scorch, which I think should be nerfed as they fill the role beams are supposed to better, as they do more dps at most usable ranges, can be swiched to MF for close ranges, better tracking, and none of the fitting headaches beams bring. If scorch gets nerfed, pulses are going to have to get boosted somehow to let them compete with ACs and blasters.

Ok, I get what you're saying, but I'm still curious...if the ranges of barrage and scorch are nerfed, how would you buff autocannons and pulses to compensate? I get what you're trying to do... you're trying to make blasters more competitive by forcing people closer to blaster range, or gimping their fits with longer range guns, but I'm sure you see how absurd forcing all close range weapons closer to the overwhelming damage and tracking of blasters would be without some serious buffs to autocannons and pulses. So what would those buffs be?

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2011-12-30 14:28:52 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Tak McMonagle wrote:
Actually, your question was in response to someone wanting to nerf AC's and pulses range to under 12k, which is a bit rediculous. I understand where your question is justified there.

Right now(this is all with no bonuses and no TEs/TCs BTW), a blaster with null has about the same range as an AC with EMP/Fusion/PP(which is already almost twice as far as AM). Then you add Barrage and with the current numbers the range dwarfs blasters, and starts to reach arty ranges. For Pulses, their only saving grace is scorch, which I think should be nerfed as they fill the role beams are supposed to better, as they do more dps at most usable ranges, can be swiched to MF for close ranges, better tracking, and none of the fitting headaches beams bring. If scorch gets nerfed, pulses are going to have to get boosted somehow to let them compete with ACs and blasters.

Ok, I get what you're saying, but I'm still curious...if the ranges of barrage and scorch are nerfed, how would you buff autocannons and pulses to compensate? I get what you're trying to do... you're trying to make blasters more competitive by forcing people closer to blaster range, or gimping their fits with longer range guns, but I'm sure you see how absurd forcing all close range weapons closer to the overwhelming damage and tracking of blasters would be without some serious buffs to autocannons and pulses. So what would those buffs be?



I don't really think they need to be compensated per se. Pulses with a bit more tracking so everything isn't under their guns constantly or maybe a cap boost . The issue is that two of the short range turrets are crowding out ALL of the long range turrets AND blasters above small gang engagements.

One would think that this is an obvious flaw and that numbers would have been tweeked a while ago.


Making the on grid warp range 200km or 250km would go a LONG way into making fleet engagements more dynamic as well as providing an actual role for long range turrets. OR chop down the range on the short range turrets so that they are actually short range. Seriously I have a Tornado that hits for 70km with barrage with 2 TEs

But as long as the long range T2 ammo stay as they are you aren't going to see a resurgence in rails and beams.

To fair, the few guys that do have capped out rail skills are loving the Naga, but that is because the hulls bonus allows it to do some decent damage with either antimatter or T2 damage from medium long to stupid range. They just don't take a hit so well.
Tak McMonagle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#31 - 2011-12-30 14:29:56 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Tak McMonagle wrote:
Actually, your question was in response to someone wanting to nerf AC's and pulses range to under 12k, which is a bit rediculous. I understand where your question is justified there.

Right now(this is all with no bonuses and no TEs/TCs BTW), a blaster with null has about the same range as an AC with EMP/Fusion/PP(which is already almost twice as far as AM). Then you add Barrage and with the current numbers the range dwarfs blasters, and starts to reach arty ranges. For Pulses, their only saving grace is scorch, which I think should be nerfed as they fill the role beams are supposed to better, as they do more dps at most usable ranges, can be swiched to MF for close ranges, better tracking, and none of the fitting headaches beams bring. If scorch gets nerfed, pulses are going to have to get boosted somehow to let them compete with ACs and blasters.

Ok, I get what you're saying, but I'm still curious...if the ranges of barrage and scorch are nerfed, how would you buff autocannons and pulses to compensate? I get what you're trying to do... you're trying to make blasters more competitive by forcing people closer to blaster range, or gimping their fits with longer range guns, but I'm sure you see how absurd forcing all close range weapons closer to the overwhelming damage and tracking of blasters would be without some serious buffs to autocannons and pulses. So what would those buffs be?


You obviously don't know what I'm trying to say if you think this is about blasters. I guess I should have just left them out of it huh?Roll The issue is that scorch is taking beams' place in laser fleets due to its rediculous range, 45+10 w/mega pulse all 5's no bonuses, compaired to 30+20 w/mega beams(INMF). The pulse have better tracking, and only 4 less dps/turret AND beams cost ~800 more power grid/turret. With tachs(INMF), you get 33+25 with slightly 8 more dps/turret than pules(scorch), but it will cost you over 1200 power grid/turret. The issue with barrage isn't that big of a deal. nerfing it a little will just make arties more useful in a gang enviornment that isn't station/gate camping.

Your point is still valid though, especially to pulses as blasters can already compete with them pretty well(in a fight, not in a fleet). AC's won't need to be adjusted as a whole as like I already said: Unbonused, AC's with emp has the same range as blasters with null. If you want numbers, nerf barrage to 30% more Falloff, and Scorch to +30% optimal, which gives them about the same overall range bonus as null, and giving long range guns an actual range advantage.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#32 - 2011-12-30 14:32:24 UTC
Onictus wrote:
I don't really think they need to be compensated per se. Pulses with a bit more tracking so everything isn't under their guns constantly or maybe a cap boost
Then, quite simply, there would be no reason to use any short range gun other then blasters. So basically, that idea doesn't work imo.

Onictus wrote:
Seriously I have a Tornado that hits for 70km with barrage with 2 TEs
Obvious complaints about the TE buff aside, that's a seriously gimped fit that can't take more then a hit or two and has 0 ability to hold enemies on field.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#33 - 2011-12-30 14:33:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
Tak McMonagle wrote:
The issue is that scorch is taking beams' place in laser fleets due to its rediculous range, 45+10 w/mega pulse all 5's no bonuses, compaired to 30+20 w/mega beams(INMF).
You're comparing pulses with long range ammo to beams with short range ammo. Yes, there is overlap on lasers. Pulses get excellent range balanced by their high fitting requirements, heavy cap usage, and poor tracking. They also go on the slowest ships in the game, making kiting with scorched mega pulses impossible, unlike 800mm autocannons.

What is the beam range with Aurora? What is the pulse range with conflag?

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Tak McMonagle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2011-12-30 14:58:47 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Tak McMonagle wrote:
The issue is that scorch is taking beams' place in laser fleets due to its rediculous range, 45+10 w/mega pulse all 5's no bonuses, compaired to 30+20 w/mega beams(INMF).
You're comparing pulses with long range ammo to beams with short range ammo. Yes, there is overlap on lasers. Pulses get excellent range balanced by their high fitting requirements, heavy cap usage, and poor tracking. They also go on the slowest ships in the game, making kiting with scorched mega pulses impossible, unlike 800mm autocannons.

What is the beam range with Aurora? What is the pulse range with conflag?


I'm comparing them because they fill similar roles. The way things are right now nobody is going to be sniping, the damage sucks and you'll get probed. There's a reason beams aren't used. It's probably because some people actually compared the pros and cons of beams and pulses(you know, thought a little outside the box instead of being ignorant) and realized that you can take a bunch of BS w/pules and scorch, INMF, and maybe conflag to cover anything you may need to do in a fleet outside of alphaing someone. Do you have any uses for a beam fleet?

It's silly that you try to blast me for compairing short range and long range guns in a thread dedicated to the balance between them.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#35 - 2011-12-30 15:06:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahz Niverrah
Tak McMonagle wrote:
I'm comparing them because they fill similar roles. The way things are right now nobody is going to be sniping, the damage sucks and you'll get probed. There's a reason beams aren't used. It's probably because some people actually compared the pros and cons of beams and pulses(you know, thought a little outside the box instead of being ignorant) and realized that you can take a bunch of BS w/pules and scorch, INMF, and maybe conflag to cover anything you may need to do in a fleet outside of alphaing someone. Do you have any uses for a beam fleet?
I don't know why you're getting so mad.

The suggestion of the OP was to make long range guns more useable by lowering fitting requirements. Your suggestion is to make 2 of the 3 short range guns less useable. I think the OP's suggestion was good, and yours is bad. If you disagree, fine.

Tak McMonagle wrote:
It's silly that you try to blast me for compairing short range and long range guns in a thread dedicated to the balance between them.
I wasn't "blasting" you. I was trying to point out the obvious flaw in your argument. It had nothing to do with the fact that you were comparing short and long range guns, but more to do with the fact that you were purposely comparing them with ammunition that illustrated your point, while ignoring the long range ammunition of the long range guns. If beams were limited to multifreq, you're right.. there would be no reason to use them. Luckily, there is other ammo for them.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Tak McMonagle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2011-12-30 15:26:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tak McMonagle
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Tak McMonagle wrote:
I'm comparing them because they fill similar roles. The way things are right now nobody is going to be sniping, the damage sucks and you'll get probed. There's a reason beams aren't used. It's probably because some people actually compared the pros and cons of beams and pulses(you know, thought a little outside the box instead of being ignorant) and realized that you can take a bunch of BS w/pules and scorch, INMF, and maybe conflag to cover anything you may need to do in a fleet outside of alphaing someone. Do you have any uses for a beam fleet?
I don't know why you're getting so mad.

The suggestion of the OP was to make long range guns more useable by lowering fitting requirements. Your suggestion is to make 2 of the 3 short range guns less useable. I think the OP's suggestion was good, and yours is bad. If you disagree, fine.


I must be an angry typer, because I'm not mad. I've never been good at putting my thoughts in words though so....

I stand on the other side(obviously). I don't think lowering the fitting requirements is going to fix beams(maybe tachs), and to a lesser extent arties. If beams had the same fitting requirements, would you use them, everything else unchanged? I doin't see any benefits.

Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Tak McMonagle wrote:
It's silly that you try to blast me for compairing short range and long range guns in a thread dedicated to the balance between them.
I wasn't "blasting" you. I was trying to point out the obvious flaw in your argument. It had nothing to do with the fact that you were comparing short and long range guns, but more to do with the fact that you were purposely comparing them with ammunition that illustrated your point, while ignoring the long range ammunition of the long range guns. If beams were limited to multifreq, you're right.. there would be no reason to use them. Luckily, there is other ammo for them.


I'm not saying there isn't other ammo, I'm saying that most of the other ammo is useless. The damage is too low to compensate that you don't keep your range advantage for long. The short range guns can already cover anything within the useable long range, and the ability to deal with a shorter range threat without other support, allowing more of your pilots to fly the main fleet unit. This is the reason I don't understand why you're arguing that we can use long range ammo, because for all practical purposes, we can't.

If you go down to the gang level, you still have to deal with your oponent only needing to deal with the tackle to escape, and he gets plenty of time as youre DPS is so low.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#37 - 2011-12-30 15:33:47 UTC
Tak McMonagle wrote:
I must be an angry typer, because I'm not mad. I've never been good at putting my thoughts in words though so....
Sorry then. My mistake.

Tak McMonagle wrote:
I stand on the other side(obviously). I don't think lowering the fitting requirements is going to fix beams(maybe tachs), and to a lesser extent arties. If beams had the same fitting requirements, would you use them, everything else unchanged? I doin't see any benefits.
I use beams now, buy very very rarely. If the fitting requirements were lowered to be in line with pulses, I would use them much more frequently, but still probably use pulses more then 50% of the time due to superior damage and tracking. Right now I only use large beams, and if the fitting reqs were changed I suspect that would still be the case.

Tak McMonagle wrote:
I'm not saying there isn't other ammo, I'm saying that most of the other ammo is useless. The damage is too low to compensate that you don't keep your range advantage for long. The short range guns can already cover anything within the useable long range, and the ability to deal with a shorter range threat without other support, allowing more of your pilots to fly the main fleet unit. This is the reason I don't understand why you're arguing that we can use long range ammo, because for all practical purposes, we can't.
This is a fair point. I suspect shortening the range of autocannons and pulses wouldn't change this dynamic, however. The damage of short range weapons makes them so appealing that I think players would probably just deal with the shorter range and still only use long range weapons in the same limited roles they use them now.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2011-12-30 15:35:21 UTC
Kahz Niverrah wrote:
Onictus wrote:
I don't really think they need to be compensated per se. Pulses with a bit more tracking so everything isn't under their guns constantly or maybe a cap boost
Then, quite simply, there would be no reason to use any short range gun other then blasters. So basically, that idea doesn't work imo.

Onictus wrote:
Seriously I have a Tornado that hits for 70km with barrage with 2 TEs
Obvious complaints about the TE buff aside, that's a seriously gimped fit that can't take more then a hit or two and has 0 ability to hold enemies on field.



Its got close to 50k EHP and the speed to keep its desired range.

Since said desired range is WELL outside T2 point range why bother. None of the tier 3s are solo boats, trying to jam them into the roll is simply doing it wrong.
Kahz Niverrah
Distinguished Johnsons
#39 - 2011-12-30 15:38:48 UTC
Onictus wrote:
None of the tier 3s are solo boats, trying to jam them into the roll is simply doing it wrong.
I agree. All the tier 3s are certainly very different then anything else we have. If anything, I think their presence on the battlefield will encourage the use of long range weapons.

I don't always post on the forums, but when I do, I post with my main.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2011-12-30 15:40:10 UTC
Maybe do this only to beams/rails as arties are already good enough.
Previous page123Next page