These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Move Skill-Related Weapon Bonuses to Modules

Author
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#1 - 2015-09-26 12:20:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Currently, racial Spaceship Command skills don't provide any bonuses themselves. Instead, their benefit is from the bonuses on their associated hulls that the skills allow you to fly. This is a very flexible way of applying bonuses as it allows CCP to balance ships in a nearly unlimited manner which provides for great variety.

Unlike the system with Spaceship Command skills and spacehip hulls, all weapon-specific skills do exactly the same thing: they add 5% damage to their associated weapon (or 2% if it's a T2 weapon skill). This provides far less opportunity for balancing or variety.

My proposal is simple: handle weapon-specific skills and weapon modules in exactly the same manner as Spaceship Command skills and spacehip hulls.

CURRENT

Small Hybrid Turret: +5% damage to small hybrid turret per level
Small Railgun Specialization: +2% damage to small turrets requiring Small Railgun Specialization

PROPOSED (For example only)

Small Hybrid Turret: no effect
Small Railgun Specialization: no effect

75mm Railgun I: +7.5% Tracking per level of Small Hybrid Turret
125mm Railgun I: +5% Damage per level of Small Hybrid Turret
150mm Railgun I: +10% Optimal Range per level of Small Hybrid Turret

75mm Railgun II: +7.5% Tracking per level of Small Hybrid Turret, +2.5% damage per level of Small Railgun Specialization
125mm Railgun II: +5% Damage per level of Small Hybrid Turret, +5% Optimal Range per level of Small Railgun Specialization
150mm Railgun II: +10% Optimal Range per level of Small Hybrid Turret, +2.5% Damage per level of Small Railgun Specialization

(EDIT: I meant for spec bonuses to be half of regular ones. This has been fixed.)

So what you get instead of a simple linear progression of all three turrets just getting more damage is a variable progression where each turret gets better at one specific thing with the basic skill, and something else (or maybe even the same thing) with the T2 skill. You could get into some really interesting stuff with projectiles in particular, granting damage bonuses to smaller artillery (250mm, 650mm, and 1200mm) but RoF bonsues to larger ones (280mm, 720mm, 1400mm) in order to maintain Alpha parity, falloff and tracking bonuses to ACs to finally let them reach out and touch someone, etc.

Really, this could open up weapon balancing in a whole new way. And, just to be clear, it would require a great deal of rebalancing, both of base stats and bonuses for each weapon. I'm not even going to attempt such an endeavor here.

This would not impact in any way the general Gunnery and Missile Launcher support skills (Rapid Firing, Missile Projection, etc.) as they apply to all weapons of a given type. The only things that would change would be weapon-specific skills and their associated modules.

Thoughts?

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2015-09-26 13:14:15 UTC
It is an interesting concept, but in the end the ships are given bonuses to more or less lock the ship into a specific weapon platform. T2 ships even more so as they often times get locked into a sub category of a weapon system.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#3 - 2015-09-26 14:31:27 UTC
It didn't really bother me when the ships were tiered, except that few shiplines actually unlock a new ship with each level.

Now? I could see going the opposite route and adding something to the ship skills, which would benefit Pirate hulls in interesting ways.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#4 - 2015-09-26 15:35:04 UTC
That is interesting and new. I do have some concerns though. When you change turrets or guns in general like that what becomes of the ships that want to fit them but can't because of other mods that need the powergrid for the larger guns or don't need the bonus of the smaller guns?

Wouldn't that lock most ships into one-trick ponies?

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#5 - 2015-09-26 16:15:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
elitatwo wrote:
When you change turrets or guns in general like that what becomes of the ships that want to fit them but can't because of other mods that need the powergrid for the larger guns or don't need the bonus of the smaller guns?

Wouldn't that lock most ships into one-trick ponies?

This is a real possibility for some ships, Minmatar gunboats come to mind first and foremost. Look at the Stabber: given its current fitting stats, it's almost entirely limited to ACs. This means that whatever bonuses the hull gets would have to be compatible with ACs (they already are) and that the different bonuses for ACs would also have to blend well with the hull. So, pulling this out of my...hat:

Dual 180mm Autocannon I: +7.5% Tracking per level of Small Projectile Turret
220mm Vulcan Autocannon I: +5% Damage per level of Small Projectile Turret
425mm Autocannon I: +10% Falloff per level of Small Projectile Turret

Dual 180mm Autocannon II: +7.5% Tracking per level of Small Projectile Turret, +2.5% damage per level of Small Autocannon Specialization
220mm Vulcan Autocannon II: +5% Damage per level of Small Projectile Turret, +5% Falloff per level of Small Autocannon Specialization
425mm Autocannon II: +10% Falloff per level of Small Projectile Turret, +2.5% Damage per level of Small Autocannon Specialization

So, you could go for application with 180s at the cost of DPS and range, but have plenty of room left for tank, max damage with 220s at the expense of range or tracking with some room for tank, or go for a kiting fit that leaves you with little room for tank. (Also, I realized that I got my OP wrong. I meant for the specialization skills to only give half bonuses, not full bonuses. I've updated it.)

Getting this right would take a whole lotta work, but I think the flexibility that would come along with it could be worth the effort.

Also keep in mind that I realize that CCP is doing about a dozen different other balancing acts right now. This is definitely more of a "future" idea, not something to be done in the short term.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#6 - 2015-09-26 16:38:34 UTC
Interesting idea.

By the way, the largest medium autocannons are 425mm, not 440mm.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#7 - 2015-09-26 17:28:36 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
By the way, the largest medium autocannons are 425mm, not 440mm.

Bah. Math fail. Fixed.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#8 - 2015-09-27 02:20:43 UTC
Hate it, hate it a lot.

Damage is generic it helps no matter how you set up your ship. I like to use non-standard setups and damage bonuses are generic enough that it allows me a lot of flexibility in ship set ups, your idea strips that away.

What if i want a 75mm railgun that is actually set up to do what railguns do best and that is kill from range, you are forcing a tracking bonus on me i dont need, while cutting my dps and not giving my what i want which is more optimal.

Yes, the irony of talking about my non-standard set ups then arguing about railguns needing optimal is not lost on me.



What if i want to see how 'close combat' i can get witha 125mm Railgun II. It comes baked in with more optimal than im interested in and you're forcing more down my throat that i'll never use since the base amount is already too much for my experimental 'close combat', build and you're costing me dps since i lost +damage in favor of optimal cant even use.


You think you are adding options but really you are taking them away.

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

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#9 - 2015-09-27 05:50:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
elitatwo wrote:
That is interesting and new. I do have some concerns though. When you change turrets or guns in general like that what becomes of the ships that want to fit them but can't because of other mods that need the powergrid for the larger guns or don't need the bonus of the smaller guns?

Wouldn't that lock most ships into one-trick ponies?



This really. Worst case looking at say AF, I already one trick pony these with prerigged combos. But I get some slack in gun changes. Case of minmatar I am only locked in with maybe fitting rig(s) for arty. This, I'd see having several prerigs in the hanger for the guns on them.


Other concern is it may bring up more gun/missile hate arguments. As well....missiles don't get sizes in class. I'd see the turrets users lining up for the whine fest as missile users basically get all bonuses put on to the only one they have (any class). HML or HAM....this at mediums is our only choice as an example. SR or lr, no "bore size" to vary that choice in a subgroup.


Where as the turret users now have to pick and choose. I'd see some gripes from this. As some turret users seem to think its all sunshine, rainbows, lollipops and ice cream on the missile side of the house even now. Me...I say they need to put down the wtf they are smoking as its making grass look green when its anything but really.

And what would suck is missile users would be the ones bitched at. And not even our faults....we get 1 size per class type. regardless of if we don't even like it. I tbh would like to see several "sizes" of missile launcher per class. edit: smaller sizes affecting something about the missile calc for better damage application. with the granted caveat raw damage goes down a little.

I like with my projectiles if I drop down to say 125 II's I get tracking over running 200. Adds complexity to the system.
Missiles for LR, hmmm, shall I fit HML II or....HML II for pvp. As, well, while I am sure when popped I could say at least I made some guy(s) much richer on the kill with CN launchers...I am not that nice a guy.

And all I get is ROF from this which to me does not work out in the end as well as it does for turrets imo.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2015-09-27 07:01:18 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Getting this right would take a whole lotta work, but I think the flexibility that would come along with it could be worth the effort.

Also keep in mind that I realize that CCP is doing about a dozen different other balancing acts right now. This is definitely more of a "future" idea, not something to be done in the short term.

I like the overall thought of emphasizing the differences between the weapon types. You're right though, this is pretty much a 'never gonna happen' idea, as the balancing act is simply enormous.

Consider just from your own examples:
- Why would I ever want to have a T1/Meta4 gun? That extra T2 bonus is even bigger than the ones they already get.
- I know these are just mock-ups, but it shows the difficulty of the project in that the 125mm rail looks like the optimal choice. Rails usually have Optimal to spare, so the huge damage bonus looks like the best choice in 90% of situations.
- The remaining 10% won't even be in Rails. Assuming the bonuses were the same type for the Blasters, you'd probably be able to go for a Neutron Blaster (w/ optimal per level) instead of a 75mm Rail.

And then there's the factor of what happens with Tiericide. Right now the Meta modules are generally a flat +X% to everything on their way to Meta4/T2. The plan though is that the new weapons get their own specializations (range, ammo capacity, tracking, etc). So you may end up with a lot of 'vendor trash' options when certain meta types just don't mesh well with their weapon size. And that compounds with the 125mm issue from earlier. None of the Meta levels are going to be +damage, so you can just choose the +range or +tracking Meta as needed to replicate the 75mm & 150mm bonuses.

So in the end, I like the idea. But you would basically need to redo the entire weapon set (with Teiricide) yourself and present the entire spreadsheet to CCP with comprehensive theory crafting to even try to get it done within the next decade. Sad