These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dare i ask about Gallente/hybrid balancing?

First post
Author
Crunchmeister
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2011-09-21 19:09:32 UTC
Captain Brickwalle wrote:
It's almost as if there is a sort of mass amnesia regarding blasters during these arguments. Like no one remembers blasters too, have fall off and that, on bonused hull like gallente blaster boats, better fall off (relatively) than autocannons on most minmitar ships. With decent skills and null ammo a mega can project dps out to 40-50 km.

The next secret i: tracking enhancers > magnetic stabalizers. So if you have 3 lows upgrades you fit 2 TE and 1 magstab not 3magstab or not even 1te 2stab.

So in short the blasters aren't broken. The slowpoke ships with low CPU are the problem. I might even go so far as to suggest that t2 blaster amok have no tracking penalty or even boost it but apply some other affect like even MORE cap usage or affect the ship hull like t2 missiles.


Well, to hit past 25km with large blasters, you're using ammo that's about as deadly as someone throwing rocks at your ship. Compare that to an Amarr BS with pulse lasers and Scorch that can hit out WAY farther than that for way more damage. Yes, blasters do more theoretical damage, providing you're actually at optimal. Outside of optimal, it's hard to track stuff, and too far within optimal, you can't land a shot because it seems to be negative tracking. And I think there's a far too wide selection of hybrid ammo, really. Back in the days of the 200+ km sniper fleets, maybe. But now with the game mechanic changes, most of those ammo types are as obsolete as the platforms they're being fired from.

People were constantly telling me I was crazy. For a long time I didn't believe them, but after a while, I started to think they might be right.

But it turns out that they were all wrong. One of the voices in my head is a psychiatrist and he says I'm perfectly sane.

Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2011-09-21 20:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaru Ishiwara
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
...

But Gallente have really fallen too far in recent years. Our famous and beloved drone boats (Vexor, Myrm, Domi, Ishtar) are the only things left that have any respect at all, and that, not much. Our blasterboats, which used to be feared across the galaxy, are now laughing stocks.
Don't forget the Eos which got its kok chopped off along with the Myrm when their drone bandwidth values were hacked down to 75. No more dropping 5 Ogre IIs or sentries.

I remember starting off my EVE career as a Gallente pilot and getting into my first Myrmidon. I remember hearing about the feared damps of the Arazu. I recall tales of the Eos and how it owned. I thought that I had made an OK choice for my race. Big smile

I also remember when the Myrm's drone bay and [the Arazu's] damps were hit hard by the nerf bat. As clear as day, I recall asking why a race's specific bonuses were getting pared down. After all, what makes having races relevant while flying in space if everybody's ships are Milquetoast with little differentiation. So, I cross-trained amarr, caldari and minmatar because gallente were given the shaft. So much for my dreams of progressing into and having fun with the higher-level Gallente ships. Evil

As an aside, I also recall when the Falcon's range bonus was nerfed and questioned that game design decision, too. I recall bum-rushing Falcon pilots with interceptors and 9/10 times, the recon pilot would GTFO.

I am a believer in unique and powerful distinctions between races. Enable players to devise the means to remove "because of Falcon" from the equation. Do not nanny-state the game, but rather allow the sandbox nature to balance itself. EVE is filled with ingenious PvP minds who will make use of and find counters to racial specific bonuses with no intervention from CCP. Honest.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2011-09-21 21:04:55 UTC
Crunchmeister wrote:
CCP Zymurgist wrote:
Also CCP Soundwave mentioned in an interview at PAX this year that, "After Christmas, there will probably be some changes pushed out to fix this issue." In response to a question about Hybrids.


I don't like the word "probably". That's kind of a universal "get out of jail free" card when used in that context. If hybrids do get a buff, then CCP can claim they came through on their promise.

Or (the more likely scenario) a year from now, when we're still asking for some hybrid loving and someone claims CCP lied about fixing hybrids referencing Soundwave's quote at PAX, CCP can "honestly" reply that there were no promises made and they only said it was probable that they'd look into fixing hybrids.
This is par-for-the-course in business-speak. No publicly speaking business person talks in absolutes in order to be able to worm out of tough situations down the road. Just the way it is.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.

Holy One
Privat Party
#84 - 2011-09-22 11:12:24 UTC
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
IMHO it's not so much the hybrids, it's more the hulls. The guns themselves aren't that bad, it's more that with a lot of Gallente hulls, even with max skills it's harder than it is with other races to fit best T2 weapons AND a half-decent tank AND tackle, without really slowing the ship down to the point where its unable to apply all that dps except in highly situational circumstances. Perhaps rails just need a bit of a damage boost to bring them more in line with artys, and heavily rail-oriented Caldari hulls could be tweaked a bit too; but the real problem is that Gallente hulls haven't been updated to fit in with the nerfs and buffs that have happened to the other races' ships and weps over the years. They need a bit more PG and CPU now (although how to do that without making them FOTM for other weapon systems is tricky - perhaps they could have more PG and CPU efficiency only for hybrid fitting - like an "affinity" with hybrids or something).

To play devil's advocate, on the other hand, MMOS always seem to have an "IWIN" race and a race that's really hard to get the best out of. Some people thrive on a challenge, while others avoid it.

But Gallente have really fallen too far in recent years. Our famous and beloved drone boats (Vexor, Myrm, Domi, Ishtar) are the only things left that have any respect at all, and that, not much. Our blasterboats, which used to be feared across the galaxy, are now laughing stocks.


+1.

Please put the 'hull tanking race' bs to bed as well please.

:)

London
Center for Advanced Studies
#85 - 2011-09-22 12:07:09 UTC
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:
IMHO it's not so much the hybrids, it's more the hulls. The guns themselves aren't that bad, it's more that with a lot of Gallente hulls, even with max skills it's harder than it is with other races to fit best T2 weapons AND a half-decent tank AND tackle, without really slowing the ship down to the point where its unable to apply all that dps except in highly situational circumstances. Perhaps rails just need a bit of a damage boost to bring them more in line with artys, and heavily rail-oriented Caldari hulls could be tweaked a bit too; but the real problem is that Gallente hulls haven't been updated to fit in with the nerfs and buffs that have happened to the other races' ships and weps over the years. They need a bit more PG and CPU now (although how to do that without making them FOTM for other weapon systems is tricky - perhaps they could have more PG and CPU efficiency only for hybrid fitting - like an "affinity" with hybrids or something).

To play devil's advocate, on the other hand, MMOS always seem to have an "IWIN" race and a race that's really hard to get the best out of. Some people thrive on a challenge, while others avoid it.

But Gallente have really fallen too far in recent years. Our famous and beloved drone boats (Vexor, Myrm, Domi, Ishtar) are the only things left that have any respect at all, and that, not much. Our blasterboats, which used to be feared across the galaxy, are now laughing stocks.


Devs, please note this down... quoted for truthiness.

tika te
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2011-09-22 12:45:14 UTC
hey ccp: "the hybrids affair" is not some kind of optional-problem-fix-somwhere-in-distant-future!!! you should really take a clooser look on weapons AND hulls; do it NOW, not "probably" during next year!
srsly - how difficult can it be?
we're asking you to change some NUMBERS in the database - there is no need to call for the art department on this one....
Willl Adama
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#87 - 2011-09-22 13:00:26 UTC
I like blasters

Hi

Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2011-09-22 15:59:39 UTC
Willl Adama wrote:
I like blasters


I like sci-fi TV shows. But that doesn't change the fact that they struggle to compete with other shows and more often fail.

Don't ban me, bro!

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#89 - 2011-09-22 17:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Joelleaveek wrote:
So with all this Dev attention in GD today, i though maybe it would be a good time to ask if a Gallente and/or hybrid turret fix is being planned for the near term. I think many Gallente agree that some kind of fix is needed here.



I really don't think Gallente is that broken. Nor the Hybrids that out of power. They're just not "modern" with the current state of EVE warfare. Blasters tear **** up still - fact.

You just need to get nice and close :)


I'd say the answer to blasters is changing the ammo much like the changes to autocannons was to just fix the ammo.



Turret ammos have 4 qualities that matter -

Range (Optimal and Falloff)
Tracking
Damage Amount
Damage Type
(Signature Resolution is a minor quality)

I'd say break the ammo's down into Range Tracking and Damage specialties rather than damage TYPE specialties.



So if Autocannons has ammos that are:

Long
Medium
Short

With specializations in the damage TYPE


I'd say that Gallente Ammos should have the following modifications instead of 9 ammos that do the same thing with 10% changes in range:

Format :
RANGE - Perks

Long - High Tracking, Penalized Damage
Long - Low Tracking, Bonus Damage
Long - Middle Tracking/Damage

Medium - High Tracking, Penalized Damage
Medium - Low Tracking, Bonus Damage
Medium - Middle Tracking/Damage

Short - High Tracking, Penalized Damage
Short - Low Tracking, Bonus Damage
Short - Middle Tracking/Damage



So, you can end up with all doing thermal-kinetic damage, then have a high tracking version that gives you a damage penalty from the base damage for that range, and low tracking ammo with a higher damage commitment.

So, let's say you were fighting at "medium" range - you could load up your Medium Low Tracking, Bonus Damage ammo that would do almost as much damage as the base damage as shorter range ammo, but instead you would lose a lot of tracking to make up for that - but you do get more range which helps alleviate the "Blasters have too short range" issue, you'd be able to do almost "short range" damage at "medium" range but you'd not be able to hit targets as well.


Reposting this to the Features Idea

Where I am.

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#90 - 2011-09-22 17:53:57 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
Joelleaveek wrote:
So with all this Dev attention in GD today, i though maybe it would be a good time to ask if a Gallente and/or hybrid turret fix is being planned for the near term. I think many Gallente agree that some kind of fix is needed here.



I really don't think Gallente is that broken. Nor the Hybrids that out of power. They're just not "modern" with the current state of EVE warfare. Blasters tear **** up still - fact.

You just need to get nice and close :)


While this is true - blasters are effective against same-size ships once you've got into range - there are some caveats to add.

The first one is the one of getting into range. Putting the shortest-range turrets on slow, armoured hulls makes little sense, especially when their competitors are in fast shield boats with lots of room for gyros and TEs.

Second, "same-size ship". Pulse and ACs have the ability to apply DPS to smaller ships by trading range for transversal. Blasters are the only turret that has neither the range nor tracking to effectively do this. This is not justificable.

Third, and possibly most importantly, Pulse and ACs are also capable of tearing **** up at close range, but also have the med-range option, which begs the question "Why use a blasterboat?" Blasters need a much greater applied damage advantage over ACs and Pulse at blasters' optimal. Why do ACs, which are supposed to be used in falloff (hence the AC-boats' high speeds) deserve tracking that is often superior to blasters? Why should ACs have selectable damage types to increase their applied damage in the small-scale engagements that blasterboats are designed for?

Sure, you can increase the applied damage advantage of blasters, relative to ACs and Pulse, by increasing blaster damage and tracking. But I feel that the magnitude of the boost necessary to give blasters the advantage that they deserve close up would be deeply problematic, and we should also look at the other half of the problem, meaning reducing Pulse and AC applied damage close up. This might entail looking at reducing Pulse and AC tracking, and possible AC base damage too.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2011-09-22 18:09:53 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
Joelleaveek wrote:
So with all this Dev attention in GD today, i though maybe it would be a good time to ask if a Gallente and/or hybrid turret fix is being planned for the near term. I think many Gallente agree that some kind of fix is needed here.



I really don't think Gallente is that broken. Nor the Hybrids that out of power. They're just not "modern" with the current state of EVE warfare. Blasters tear **** up still - fact.

You just need to get nice and close :)


While this is true - blasters are effective against same-size ships once you've got into range - there are some caveats to add.

The first one is the one of getting into range. Putting the shortest-range turrets on slow, armoured hulls makes little sense, especially when their competitors are in fast shield boats with lots of room for gyros and TEs.

Second, "same-size ship". Pulse and ACs have the ability to apply DPS to smaller ships by trading range for transversal. Blasters are the only turret that has neither the range nor tracking to effectively do this. This is not justificable.

Third, and possibly most importantly, Pulse and ACs are also capable of tearing **** up at close range, but also have the med-range option, which begs the question "Why use a blasterboat?" Blasters need a much greater applied damage advantage over ACs and Pulse at blasters' optimal. Why do ACs, which are supposed to be used in falloff (hence the AC-boats' high speeds) deserve tracking that is often superior to blasters? Why should ACs have selectable damage types to increase their applied damage in the small-scale engagements that blasterboats are designed for?

Sure, you can increase the applied damage advantage of blasters, relative to ACs and Pulse, by increasing blaster damage and tracking. But I feel that the magnitude of the boost necessary to give blasters the advantage that they deserve close up would be deeply problematic, and we should also look at the other half of the problem, meaning reducing Pulse and AC applied damage close up. This might entail looking at reducing Pulse and AC tracking, and possible AC base damage too.



nerfing one thing to balance another sounds like half-assed fix tbhUgh

as I constantly say however, a damage boost to (medium and large) blasters should be accompanied by several other changes in the guns and ships themselves, like cutting their optimal and falloff even further and increasing ship mobility.

in blasters, the damage projection vehicle should be, imho, the ship itself and for that blasters should be even shorter range but much more damaging.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Chronix Beebelbrox
#92 - 2011-09-22 19:38:44 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
Joelleaveek wrote:
They still have the best raw DPS, the problem is applying that DPS to the target.


Well, throw a tracking computer on there, then.

I'm trained up to T2 large hybrids so you'd expect me to be backing any kind of Gallente 'balancing', but i just don't see how they're as broken as everyone claims.


a sad testament to you
Kumq uat
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2011-09-22 20:15:17 UTC
I have always envisioned blasters in Eve to be like shotguns. They are not so much these days unfortunatly.
Chronix Beebelbrox
#94 - 2011-09-23 04:54:27 UTC
Tobias Sjodin wrote:
I love the "probably" in that sentence.


+1
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
#95 - 2011-09-23 06:28:59 UTC
Just chiming in my support. Fix Hybrids. As a Gallente pilot I'm flying Caldari T1 ships with T1 equipment and I'm more competative than flying T2 Gallente Ships with T2 weapons. That's pathetic and screams emergency, in fact, this should have been the reason for the emergency summit not this BS about NEX store!

The reality of Eve is that, if you don't love it like it is today, you should probobly go ahead and unsub. 

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#96 - 2011-09-23 06:58:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Gypsio III wrote:

While this is true - blasters are effective against same-size ships once you've got into range - there are some caveats to add.

The first one is the one of getting into range. Putting the shortest-range turrets on slow, armoured hulls makes little sense, especially when their competitors are in fast shield boats with lots of room for gyros and TEs.


I hardly call Drakes fast. :) But, Gallente aren't that much faster.


Gypsio III wrote:

Second, "same-size ship". Pulse and ACs have the ability to apply DPS to smaller ships by trading range for transversal. Blasters are the only turret that has neither the range nor tracking to effectively do this. This is not justificable.


Blasters have as good, sometimes better tracking than Autocannons. Tracking is really less of an issue for them on average.


Dual 425MM Autocannon II
0.057 rad/sec

Electron Blaster Cannon II
0.05 rad/sec

Ion Blaster Cannon II
0.046 rad/sec

Neutron Blaster Cannon II
0.0433 rad/sec

800MM Repeating Artillery II
0.0432 rad/sec


Gypsio III wrote:

Why should ACs have selectable damage types to increase their applied damage in the small-scale engagements that blasterboats are designed for?


I'm not sure Blaster boats were specifically designed for small-scale engagements. I think they were designed to follow a general template of being "between" Autocannons and Lasers in terms of range. Not favoring optimal or falloff more.

Autocannons were really second rate until the ammo changes because the "best" ammo was EM for maximum damage, and the other options cost you some damage for range that you really didn't care for in the first place.

My idea takes the same premise, do you really care about catering your ammo to -40% range rather than -50% range? Do you really think to yourself after a fight, "Man, if I loaded that -40% range ammo I would've won it?"

So throw that out, bring in a more realistic ammo layout that works on the strengths and weaknesses of Blasters.

I'd say the biggest disadvantage to Blasters is their fitting requirements on the high end. They should be reduced by like 15% in powergrid requirements to ease up on your ability to actually fit some of the heavier blasters on your ships. Combined with the ammo idea I'm presenting I think it would work. I do agree with someone above who wrote that "Why add the penalty, just get to the good stuff."

I do agree with that to some degree, but Blasters really do solid damage and I think there needs to be a balancing between not overpowering the Blasters and making a single answer solution to everything, otherwise you end up with the "Escalation war" between the different turret types. Although Blasters may be the lesser favored at the moment, I would say that their main weakness is their range - and getting people options to improve their potential at different ranges would translate well - offsetting tracking or range versus damage seems to make sense in terms of getting the blasters into a viable solution that people will see as unique and effective.

Where I am.

DarkAegix
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#97 - 2011-09-23 07:30:25 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:

Gypsio III wrote:

Second, "same-size ship". Pulse and ACs have the ability to apply DPS to smaller ships by trading range for transversal. Blasters are the only turret that has neither the range nor tracking to effectively do this. This is not justificable.


Blasters have as good, sometimes better tracking than Autocannons. Tracking is really less of an issue for them on average.


Dual 425MM Autocannon II
0.057 rad/sec

Electron Blaster Cannon II
0.05 rad/sec

Ion Blaster Cannon II
0.046 rad/sec

Neutron Blaster Cannon II
0.0433 rad/sec

800MM Repeating Artillery II
0.0432 rad/sec


IIRC, there are only 2 times when a blaster has higher tracking than the same sized autocannon.
TWO.
And each time, the amount is minuscule. Something like .002%.
Furthermore, autocannons have a much higher effective tracking. They can operate at ranges far beyond blaster range, and yet have a higher base tracking.

Ion Blaster Cannon II, antimatter
3.75km + 10km range
0.0575 tracking

Dual 650mm Repeating Artillery II, fusion
2.7km + 22km range
0.0621 tracking

Max ranges (optimal + 2 falloff)
Blaster: 23.75km
Auto: 46.7km

The auto has 1.966x longer range
The auto has 1.08x better tracking

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#98 - 2011-09-23 08:54:14 UTC
Quote:
nerfing one thing to balance another sounds like half-assed fix tbh


When projectiles got boosted, there was a school of thought that this would cause serious problems with hybrids and a better idea would be to nerf lasers a bit. This school of thought has been proven correct. Perpetual boosting when nerfing would be more intelligent has lead to powercreep and is directly responsible for the current problem of AC-boats being about as good as blasterboats at being blasterboats. So, which is half-arsed?

Quote:
Blasters have as good, sometimes better tracking than Autocannons. Tracking is really less of an issue for them on average.


As pointed out, ACs operate at greater ranges than blasters, even before considering the ease of fitting TEs on respective hulls. The range advantage is (one reason) why a Hurricane has the tracking to blat an incoming tackler out of the sky, while the blasterboat can't, because it first doesn't have the range, then it doesn't have the tracking.

Quote:
I'm not sure Blaster boats were specifically designed for small-scale engagements. I think they were designed to follow a general template of being "between" Autocannons and Lasers in terms of range. Not favoring optimal or falloff more.


Yeah, "design" may the wrong word. What I'm trying to say is something along the lines of that the weapons with the shortest ranges - i.e., blasters - are the least useful in large-scale combat, because of lack of range,meaning that their best environment should be small-scale combat, where you have time to get to optimal without the target being volleyed by artillery or nuked by Scorch. Certainly blasters should be at least competitive with ACs in that realm, and arguably more so, given their lower range and the requirement to go inside web range in a blasterboat entails significant risk.

Your ammo idea is interesting but I haven't had time to think about it properly.
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2011-09-23 10:15:24 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
Joelleaveek wrote:
So with all this Dev attention in GD today, i though maybe it would be a good time to ask if a Gallente and/or hybrid turret fix is being planned for the near term. I think many Gallente agree that some kind of fix is needed here.



I really don't think Gallente is that broken. Nor the Hybrids that out of power. They're just not "modern" with the current state of EVE warfare. Blasters tear **** up still - fact.

You just need to get nice and close :)


While this is true - blasters are effective against same-size ships once you've got into range - there are some caveats to add.

The first one is the one of getting into range. Putting the shortest-range turrets on slow, armoured hulls makes little sense, especially when their competitors are in fast shield boats with lots of room for gyros and TEs.

Second, "same-size ship". Pulse and ACs have the ability to apply DPS to smaller ships by trading range for transversal. Blasters are the only turret that has neither the range nor tracking to effectively do this. This is not justificable.

Third, and possibly most importantly, Pulse and ACs are also capable of tearing **** up at close range, but also have the med-range option, which begs the question "Why use a blasterboat?" Blasters need a much greater applied damage advantage over ACs and Pulse at blasters' optimal. Why do ACs, which are supposed to be used in falloff (hence the AC-boats' high speeds) deserve tracking that is often superior to blasters? Why should ACs have selectable damage types to increase their applied damage in the small-scale engagements that blasterboats are designed for?

Sure, you can increase the applied damage advantage of blasters, relative to ACs and Pulse, by increasing blaster damage and tracking. But I feel that the magnitude of the boost necessary to give blasters the advantage that they deserve close up would be deeply problematic, and we should also look at the other half of the problem, meaning reducing Pulse and AC applied damage close up. This might entail looking at reducing Pulse and AC tracking, and possible AC base damage too.



nerfing one thing to balance another sounds like half-assed fix tbhUgh

as I constantly say however, a damage boost to (medium and large) blasters should be accompanied by several other changes in the guns and ships themselves, like cutting their optimal and falloff even further and increasing ship mobility.

in blasters, the damage projection vehicle should be, imho, the ship itself and for that blasters should be even shorter range but much more damaging.


The formula calculating your chance to hit involves not only tracking, but range as well. With even lesser range, wouldn´t you end up with a mathematical impossibility to apply full damage? Meaning that the much more damaging part would be impossible too.

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.

Zey Nadar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2011-09-23 10:35:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Zey Nadar
Gypsio III wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, "design" may the wrong word. What I'm trying to say is something along the lines of that the weapons with the shortest ranges - i.e., blasters - are the least useful in large-scale combat


That is precisely where they are the LEAST useful. Because in largescale combat most targets will be out of your range and due to high amount of firepower flying around, you wont have time to reach the targets either before they are dead, or you are dead. Can you at least attempt to talk from your personal experience?

In small scale combat, Im not even going to start..