These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing Polarized Guns
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#1 - 2016-01-27 19:07:54 UTC
The current design of the polarized guns makes for an all or nothing fitting choice because the first polarized gun removes 100% of your resists, leaving the remaining weapons penalty free. This creates a very niche market for polarized weapons.


Instead the guns should decrease your overall resists based off the percentage of polarized guns you are using compared to the number of hard points your hull has for that weapon system up to a maximum of 100% (Sorry but no negative resists).


Some Examples
wrote:

A Manticore decides to fit 1 Polarized Torpedo Launcher. The Manticore has 3 missile hardpoints, so his resists are reduced by 33%.

The Manticore has a friend that just loathes missiles, but loves flying a Manticore as well. So he fits 1 polarized autocannon on his Manticore. The Manticore has 2 turret hardpoints, so his resists are reduced by 50%.

These Manticores belong to a corporation that is too friendly to people who don’t understand how to fit a ship and they have a friend that decided to fit 1 Polarized Torpedo Launcher and 1 Polarized Autocannon. The Manticore has 3 missile hardpoints and 2 turret hard points, so his resists are reduced by 88%.

The Manticores go out and find a Typhoon that they want to kill. The Typhoon had decided to fit 6 Polarized Torpedo Launchers and 1 Polarized Autocannon. The Typhoon has 6 missile hard points and 6 turret hard points, so even though the overall percentage reduction would be -116.67% to his resists, they are capped at -100% so he has no resists.



This change would give people more fitting options as we could progressively turn our ships into glass cannons. It would also produce shinier killmaills as it would tempt people to fit a handful of these to their ships while fitting shiner ENAMs and Invulns to counter the reduced resists.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2016-01-27 20:05:42 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
The current design of the polarized guns makes for an all or nothing fitting choice because the first polarized gun removes 100% of your resists, leaving the remaining weapons penalty free. This creates a very niche market for polarized weapons.


Instead the guns should decrease your overall resists based off the percentage of polarized guns you are using compared to the number of hard points your hull has for that weapon system up to a maximum of 100% (Sorry but no negative resists).


Some Examples
wrote:

A Manticore decides to fit 1 Polarized Torpedo Launcher. The Manticore has 3 missile hardpoints, so his resists are reduced by 33%.

The Manticore has a friend that just loathes missiles, but loves flying a Manticore as well. So he fits 1 polarized autocannon on his Manticore. The Manticore has 2 turret hardpoints, so his resists are reduced by 50%.

These Manticores belong to a corporation that is too friendly to people who don’t understand how to fit a ship and they have a friend that decided to fit 1 Polarized Torpedo Launcher and 1 Polarized Autocannon. The Manticore has 3 missile hardpoints and 2 turret hard points, so his resists are reduced by 88%.

The Manticores go out and find a Typhoon that they want to kill. The Typhoon had decided to fit 6 Polarized Torpedo Launchers and 1 Polarized Autocannon. The Typhoon has 6 missile hard points and 6 turret hard points, so even though the overall percentage reduction would be -116.67% to his resists, they are capped at -100% so he has no resists.



This change would give people more fitting options as we could progressively turn our ships into glass cannons. It would also produce shinier killmaills as it would tempt people to fit a handful of these to their ships while fitting shiner ENAMs and Invulns to counter the reduced resists.


Who's gonna sacrifice the minimum of 12.5% of his resist (no ship has more than 8 turret\launcher) for only a fraction of that in firepower increase while not building a suicide/full glass cannon ship?
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#3 - 2016-01-27 20:14:35 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


Who's gonna sacrifice the minimum of 12.5% of his resist (no ship has more than 8 turret\launcher) for only a fraction of that in firepower increase while not building a suicide/full glass cannon ship?


Someone who has 12.5% more resists then the minimum standard. Assuming someone had 60% omni resist, it would reduce their resistance to 52.5%. Not to mention that fitting shinier hardeners will help bridge some of that gap.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2016-01-27 20:25:25 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:


Who's gonna sacrifice the minimum of 12.5% of his resist (no ship has more than 8 turret\launcher) for only a fraction of that in firepower increase while not building a suicide/full glass cannon ship?


Someone who has 12.5% more resists then the minimum standard. Assuming someone had 60% omni resist, it would reduce their resistance to 52.5%. Not to mention that fitting shinier hardeners will help bridge some of that gap.


From T2 to Estamel's Invuln, you gain a wooping 20%. That cover for a little bit more than 1 gun in a 8 gun config. At 5 guns you break even and under 5 guns you don't recoup even by going with top meta level. Shield is also pretty likely to be the top gain in % for going to officer meta since EANM gain about 8% over T2.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#5 - 2016-01-27 20:33:30 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

From T2 to Estamel's Invuln, you gain a wooping 20%. That cover for a little bit more than 1 gun in a 8 gun config. At 5 guns you break even and under 5 guns you don't recoup even by going with top meta level. Shield is also pretty likely to be the top gain in % for going to officer meta since EANM gain about 8% over T2.


I didn't say anything about making your ship shinier would make the 1 gun in a 8 gun config countering the drawback completely. However it would reduce the penalty.

It just seems silly that only the first gun you put on your ship has a penalty, with the rest of the guns being free to put on. It would be like requiring CPU and Powergrid from the first gun you put on your ship, but guns 2-8 don't have any fitting requirements.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
unidenify
Deaf Armada
Deaf and Daft
#6 - 2016-01-27 20:37:07 UTC
I guess it is easier for technical view point to make it all or nothing
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#7 - 2016-01-27 21:09:41 UTC
It's a fair trade off as things stand - elimination of damage resistances in exchange for a considerable bump in firepower.


Anecdotally, I believe that the situation you propose would likely be something only a new player would contemplate, and they probably wouldn't even be able to fit polarised weapons with their skillset.

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#8 - 2016-01-27 22:13:27 UTC
Bumblefck wrote:
It's a fair trade off as things stand - elimination of damage resistances in exchange for a considerable bump in firepower.


Anecdotally, I believe that the situation you propose would likely be something only a new player would contemplate, and they probably wouldn't even be able to fit polarised weapons with their skillset.


min-maxing, the bittervet disease Shocked
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#9 - 2016-01-28 07:00:07 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Bumblefck wrote:
It's a fair trade off as things stand - elimination of damage resistances in exchange for a considerable bump in firepower.


Anecdotally, I believe that the situation you propose would likely be something only a new player would contemplate, and they probably wouldn't even be able to fit polarised weapons with their skillset.


min-maxing, the bittervet disease Shocked


Actually, I thought I was min-maxing with my suggestion. For instance, in a certain PVE encounter if I know that the ship I'm currently in can tank 1500 DPS and I only have 500 incoming DPS, I can fit 2/3 of my guns as polarized.

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2016-01-28 07:37:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Who's gonna sacrifice the minimum of 12.5% of his resist (no ship has more than 8 turret\launcher) for only a fraction of that in firepower increase while not building a suicide/full glass cannon ship?

Tech 2 ships would have some interesting use for this in PVE, as they could use half polarized weapons and still have enough tank left, assuming they are taking advantage of their resist bonuses by going against rats that have that type of damage. Example: a Sleipnir armor-tanking Sansha rats could fit 2 armor repairers with no hardeners, fit 2 polarized autocannons and 3 non-polarized, still have enough defense to tank easily but also have 40% of the polarized damage bonus while still having slots for gyrostabilizers.



Hopelesshobo wrote:
Actually, I thought I was min-maxing with my suggestion. For instance, in a certain PVE encounter if I know that the ship I'm currently in can tank 1500 DPS and I only have 500 incoming DPS, I can fit 2/3 of my guns as polarized.

That's not how the math works though. For instance if you have 90% average resist to the incoming damage and can tank 1500 EHP per second, then fitting 2/3 polarized guns would cut your tank to 30% average resist or 214 EHP per second.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2016-01-28 11:21:02 UTC
Does anyone really use these? The small damage increase in exchange for no tank and increased costs hardly seems worth it.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#12 - 2016-01-28 11:31:23 UTC
Polarized guns were a good addition, just because they are niche doesn't mean they were bad, they certainly added diversity to the game. I don't think they need to be changed in any way.

Idea of polarized 1400 arties kinda gives me a hardon though.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2016-01-28 13:48:06 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Who's gonna sacrifice the minimum of 12.5% of his resist (no ship has more than 8 turret\launcher) for only a fraction of that in firepower increase while not building a suicide/full glass cannon ship?

Tech 2 ships would have some interesting use for this in PVE, as they could use half polarized weapons and still have enough tank left, assuming they are taking advantage of their resist bonuses by going against rats that have that type of damage. Example: a Sleipnir armor-tanking Sansha rats could fit 2 armor repairers with no hardeners, fit 2 polarized autocannons and 3 non-polarized, still have enough defense to tank easily but also have 40% of the polarized damage bonus while still having slots for gyrostabilizers.



Or fit all normal T2 guns and replace one of the armor rep with a gyro and not lose 40% of your resists...

Guns VS tracking disrupting enemies are also gonna be interesting...
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#14 - 2016-01-28 17:03:04 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

That's not how the math works though. For instance if you have 90% average resist to the incoming damage and can tank 1500 EHP per second, then fitting 2/3 polarized guns would cut your tank to 30% average resist or 214 EHP per second.


Lol yeah, my math was turned off at 2am...

Frostys Virpio wrote:


Or fit all normal T2 guns and replace one of the armor rep with a gyro and not lose 40% of your resists...

Guns VS tracking disrupting enemies are also gonna be interesting...


That depends on...
-How many Gyros you already have fitted
-If you actually need 40% of your resists
-If you fit dual armor rep on your ship

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#15 - 2016-01-28 17:15:57 UTC
Er... at least for the turrets, polarized don't have the same application stats as their T2 counterparts (Normal having longer range and worse tracking). This, alone, would probably preclude me from mixing them even with such a change.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#16 - 2016-01-28 17:24:16 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Does anyone really use these? The small damage increase in exchange for no tank and increased costs hardly seems worth it.


There are certain ships/fits that can take advantage of them, but its pretty rare. So far the ships that can make them work in PvP are:

Hookbill
Navy Aug

Others i'm testing out are the navy drake and maybe navy caracal (but its still pretty ******). But having 900 well applied dps from a navy drake with 36k EHP is pretty enticing. Least for murdering T3D's.

The hookbill is very strong though. About 315 dps using scourge rage missiles, good range control and enough HP to scram kite effectively.

You can see a PvP polarbill in action here or a pvp polar n.aug here

Otherwise, polarized fits are normally put on talos/oracle for structure bashing. Hi-sec mainly i believe.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2016-01-28 17:47:49 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:


Frostys Virpio wrote:


Or fit all normal T2 guns and replace one of the armor rep with a gyro and not lose 40% of your resists...

Guns VS tracking disrupting enemies are also gonna be interesting...


That depends on...
-How many Gyros you already have fitted
-If you actually need 40% of your resists
-If you fit dual armor rep on your ship


He has at most 3 gyro since he said the fit would have 2 armor repper.