These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Gallente (+Some Caldari Lovin)

First post
Author
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#41 - 2011-10-07 23:24:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Active armour tanking is not viable for modern PvP.
http://exo.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=9353757

Blaster tracking, without 90% webs, has meant that within optimal range, during realistic conditions, pilots will rarely do full damage. The tracking increase (as well as the VERY MINOR range increase on neutrons) compensate for this.

If it were up to me, I'd forsake blasters (minor buffs) whilst creating and expanding upon drones, as the gallentean primary weapon. Drones enable pilots to compete at the ranges other races enjoy, whilst doing it in a completely different way. However, this process was not done in isolation, we still have people who believe (beyond turning blasters into pulse lasers) that they could be good again... Well maybe.

So I focused on tracking, ship speed/agility and some of the penalties armour fits provide in the hope blaster piloting could become more fun.

No, I don't see the value of enabling blasters to to easily hit ships of a smaller size class (engaging at 0km in a small ship is already suicidal).

No, increasing the optimal range of blasters would be the final nail in the coffin as far as diversity is concerned.

Yes, I agree you can't just increase the DPS of Gallente ships and expect them to kick the **** out of crap. I've replaced my Vindicator with a Proteus, mostly because it gets 900dps, with 170k ehp at nearly 1200ms.



Re: Rails. Ultra long range is potentially something we could bring back as a niche rails dominate, but it would take a whole load of testing and i'm not 100% convinced I've nailed it tbh. With tracking... Not unless you want to intentionally nerf Beams. And with some of the ship changes, rails will be easier to fit on most gallente blasterships... Maybe caldari ones could use the same grid and speed treatment?



Beyond the Hybrid Weapon changes, there are no boosts to the Taranis or Enyo. (I wouldn't personally mind the Enyo getting the Ares, high slot to mid slot treatment, but few really believe either of them are broken)



Re: Active tanking bonuses. Gallente and Minmatar are about even, Compared to Caldari and Amarr however, there ****. Hyperion vs Abaddon is a sorry tail of one of Tuxfords lesser moments. Whilst the Maelstrom is only saved by capless turrets (tanks 2% more than a rokh!!! Wooooo.)

The problem is however, solo active tanking and, the activities most of us use our ships for n PvP have become incompatible, the niche has strunk, and resistance bonus ships are so many times more useful. (Don't need modules to receive a bonus, receives more EHP, more efficient at being remote repaired.) It's probably the biggest issue as survivability by far, determines what ships are popular (from nano, dramiels, to drakes, damnations, tengus etc etc.)

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

m0cking bird
Doomheim
#42 - 2011-10-07 23:56:02 UTC
Decided to contribute instead of just critique ....


Proxyyyy's Changes (slight increases that will increase the close range pvp viabilty of blasters)


T2 Blaster Turret (After All requisite Lvl 5 Skills Applied)
-
Minus 20% - Hybrid Turret Activation

15% increase - Optimal
30% increase - Falloff
10% Increase - Tracking

Minus 15% - Signature Resolution

12.5% increase - Damage Modifier
Minus 11% - Duration

Gallente Cruisers/Destroyers/Frigates (T2) (Base, Blanket Increase)
-
Minus 10% - CPU

15% Increase - PowerGrid

25% increase - Structure

Base inertia or mass should be modified in some way as to increase agility of all gallente ships. Making gallente ships the most agile (faster align time and turn rate etc) bla bla bal.

Stasis Webifier 2
-
I also think stasis webifier 2 Optimal, should Increase from 10,000m - 12,500. Keeping 30% increase in range, when overloading. This is a broad boost to armor ships effectiveness, when engaging ships with higher velocity (solo). Increasing the margin for error for a Cynabal for example.

Heat/Thermodynamics = tracking increase for all turrets (just makes sense)
-
Another idea I had was a change or addendum to the current heat mechanics. Over Heated turrets should also have a increase in tracking along with increasing turret rate of fire. Currently that's not the case.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#43 - 2011-10-07 23:58:47 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
Also, active armor tanking is very viable, but like everything in life and this game. Their are limits... That loss mail proves nothing! I also agree that resist are welcomed replacement, instead of a repair or boost bonus. Pretty much results in the same thing, but resistance is more useful in fleet combat...

Also, a Vindicater is not optimal for active tanking. You could put the same amount of dead-space on a Dominix and get the same performance, when it comes to tank. Same with the Nightmare and shield tanking. It has not bonuses for active shield tanking. Kronos would have been a better example or Hyperion with same dead-space pimp. Still the tank on that Vindicater is a bit much...
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#44 - 2011-10-08 00:01:56 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
Also, active armor tanking is very viable, but like everything in life and this game. Their are limits... That loss mail proves nothing!

All the metrics (killboards, fittings etc) show that active tanking is pointless in the modern game, sure it might be ok in 1v1, but that's an ever diminishing part of eve. For a better explanation:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=127437#post127437

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

m0cking bird
Doomheim
#45 - 2011-10-08 00:06:17 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
m0cking bird wrote:
Also, active armor tanking is very viable, but like everything in life and this game. Their are limits... That loss mail proves nothing!

All the metrics (killboards, fittings etc) show that active tanking is pointless in the modern game, sure it might be ok in 1v1, but that's an ever diminishing part of eve. For a better explanation:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=127437#post127437



Dude, I don't need to read it or see it in a video. I've flown active armor and still do. Not to mention I know so many pilots that do. Not arguing with you on this one. Believe what you want.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#46 - 2011-10-08 00:20:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Noob corp alt...
Makes a claim...
Unwilling even to consider listening to arguments against.
Is unable to support his own claim it with any reasoning beyond "I still do it and I know people who do."
Dismisses argument.

Given survivability and suitability for gangs is probably the biggest issue (imo) with Gallente. If it were all about the DPS, everyone would be flying Serpentis ships instead of what they do fly (high ehp/resist sponges) with damage projection. Whatever you do (probably v small highsec warfare vs people who don't know any better) won't change much, however the changes I've made address the opportunity cost of active tanking by increasing it's viability in other spheres.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#47 - 2011-10-08 00:32:51 UTC
Eve kills top 20:
Generated from 2011-10-1 to 2011-10-08

1 Drake 42466
2 Hurricane 27855
3 Abaddon 14210
4 Maelstrom 13956
5 Armageddon 7406
6 Tempest 6844
7 Scimitar 5428
8 Zealot 4863
9 Dramiel 4607
10 Rapier 3596
11 Sabre 3574
12 Hound 3517
13 Tengu 3501
14 Cynabal 3395
15 Rifter 3295
16 Manticore 3210
17 Harbinger 2952
18 Vagabond 2856
19 Purifier 2718
20 Lachesis 2628


At least we're still on there... Right?

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

m0cking bird
Doomheim
#48 - 2011-10-08 00:36:30 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Noob corp alt...
Makes a claim...
Unwilling even to consider listening to arguments against.
Is unable to support his own claim it with any reasoning beyond "I still do it and I know people who do."
Dismisses argument.

Given survivability and suitability for gangs is probably the biggest issue (imo) with Gallente. If it were all about the DPS, everyone would be flying Serpentis ships instead of what they do fly (high ehp/resist sponges) with damage projection. Whatever you do (probably v small highsec warfare vs people who don't know any better) won't change much, however the changes I've made address the opportunity cost of active tanking by increasing it's viability in other spheres.



This noob corp alt is skilled in the art of losing spaceships. Also, my last post was in no way ment to sway you one way or another. Was to agree to disagree etc. The importance of your argument only goes so far on the forums. What matters to me is the people I pvp with against or are bros in-game. Most that solo pvp.

Most don't see it your way. I use active armor tanking over active shield tanking. Mainly because it provides the benefits of shield tanking without having to use crystals. Meaning I'm able to solo in 0.0 without having to worry about losing expensive implants when I explode.

Most shield tanked ships are terrible without a crystal set (bar claymore). Often needing crystals to compete with active armor. My only issues with active armor tanking is lack of instant repairing. You have to wait till the end of the duration etc.

I only use active shield tanking for extreme cases and pretty much only on the battleship level.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#49 - 2011-10-08 01:12:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
This isn't about shields vs armor. It's about how on some ships I can have more armor than I have the cap charges to rep. It's about how unless your flighing against total scrubs, whatever tank you have can be easily dealt with. It's about the fit in fittings active tank has on your performance.


It's about how for most of us, active tanking is incompatible with the gangs we fly in and ineffective against the gangs we fly against. You in your neut-less 1-1 utopia may be immune but for the majority of us, having active tanking focused ships (gallente and minmatar) is crippling us in the modern game, and it's time for a debate on what to do about it.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

m0cking bird
Doomheim
#50 - 2011-10-08 01:32:19 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
This isn't about shields vs armor. It's about how on some ships I can have more armor than I have the cap charges to rep. It's about how unless your flighing against total scrubs, whatever tank you have can be easily dealt with. It's about the fit in fittings active tank has on your performance.


It's about how for most of us, active tanking is incompatible with the gangs we fly in and ineffective against the gangs we fly against. You in your neut-less 1-1 utopia may be immune but for the majority of us, having active tanking focused ships (gallente and minmatar) is crippling us in the modern game, and it's time for a debate on what to do about it.



I don't use active tanked ships for a 1 v 1's lol. In fact it's for the exact opposite. Anyways, I already knew this was a waste of time since you don't know what you're on about. Active tanking is not something I use in fleet engagements either (or at least not often).

Mainly for solo pvp, which is what I do and what Gallente ships excel @. Anyways, done with the subject of active tanking (shield or amour). Tracking is also not an issue. Provided you're tracking a ship of the same class or above.

Optimal and falloff of blasters need to be looked @ and a way to make it easier for pilots to catch ships with higher velocity. That is where a increase in stasis webifier 2 range will come in or a large increase in falloff and optimal....


-proxyyyy
Merkwurkdigliebe
Vigrior
#51 - 2011-10-08 02:55:17 UTC
So I just read some of the (proposed?) changes coming up, and saw 'Hybrid weapon balancing' and nearly shat myself. I thought maybe they were planning to nerf hybrids, which would pretty much mean the end of my EVE experience.

The most important aspect of all this is that w/ Gallente there is an expectation that 'Your damage is your tank' .

I agree with mocking bird that nobody active tanks armor for pvp except for very rare exceptions (a small rep on a glass cannon deimos or phobos isnt unheard of). That said, hybrid damage doesn't really do you any good if you cant get rounds on target.

Every since the nano nerf Gallente has been a joke. There's not a single class of ship you can point to and say 'Gallente is the best for those' .. And even before then tracking was a problem. Make Gallente ships a lotmore agile, a hair faster, a lot better at tracking, and for god sakes, get rid of the dead zone between rail and blaster ranges.

Making drones stronger doesn't really help the situation. Drones can be killed, and every race has drone boats besides.

Even if you have your own ideas about how to improve Gallente ships, one thing is certain:

THE DEVS NEED TO MAKE GALLENTE SUCK LESS

P.S. Are they really buffing the Nighthawk? Really? C'mon dev's.. show the frenchies some love..
Cpt Fina
Perkone
Caldari State
#52 - 2011-10-08 04:56:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Fina
m0cking bird wrote:

Optimal and falloff of blasters need to be looked @ and a way to make it easier for pilots to catch ships with higher velocity. That is where a increase in stasis webifier 2 range will come in or a large increase in falloff and optimal....

-proxyyyy



I'm afraid that some of your suggested blaster changes might infringe on the ACs roleof high tracking and long range damage projection. I'd rather fly with a gimped weaponsystem than having CCP water them down untill we can't tell the difference between the races.
I would personally just prefer small damage and tracking increases in conjunction with a change to blasterboats abiliy to actually get within blaster-range. I strongly believe that the highest DPS weaponsystem should be heavily limited in its effective range... they might even need a nerf to optimal or falloff.

I do however agree on that active tanking have its place in Eve and and I believe that people who claim otherwise might have a limited scope of the type of PvP they engage in – for all intents and purposes, active tanking becomes less and less viable the larger the size of the battle is – and we shouldn't forget that most peoples eperience with PvP is in gang.s That's probably why we get some people with PvP experience proclaiming the death of active tanking (because in their world of blobbing - it is true) while others with more diverse experience claim otherwise.

That said - the viability of active tanked armor ships are very situational and fragile in comparison to plating the ship and might need to be looked at if we want more than just a minority within the PvP community to consider it viable.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2011-10-08 05:08:26 UTC
Some good points, but I may be alone in hoping the changes are not so substantial, I would prefer moderate balancing rather than a complete overhaul with further balancing in the summer if required, I believe it is just too short a time to test and balance such substantial changes.

Realistically what I expect is an improvement in the fitting requirements of Hybrids, most of my fits include a ACR as it is and if this rig slot can be freed up hopefully with enough power grid left over for a Hybrid rig to boost performance then thats a double win for me.

I also expect an ammo balance; you are almost always better using Antimatter (except for Null and Spike for range) at any range, if further cap and tracking bonuses were introduced for the longer range ammo then pilot could choose between low DPS good hits or in your face Antimatter DPS.

Javelin is terrible and needs changing.
Sloppyslug
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2011-10-08 19:33:53 UTC
Great post. The unbalances really need to be brought to CCP attention, they needed nerfed slightly at the start but were nerfed far too much, now almost unplayable in modern eve warefare situations.
Sigion
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2011-10-09 22:04:15 UTC
Proteus Drone fit also needs 125MBs Drone Bandwidth... :)
Doesn't make all that much sense that the Ishtar spits out more DPS...
Largo Usagi
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#56 - 2011-10-09 23:23:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Largo Usagi
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Battlecriuser Tiericide
Tier 1 Battlecruisers are amongst some of the least used ships in the game. Thoroughly outclassed by their tier 2 counterparts, although the costing significantly less, in Eve roles and performance are the deciding factors determining ship usage.
- Battlecriusers effectively become tier 2 in performance - requiring the level 1 skill to be trained with Hitpoints, Sensor strength, slot numbers, cost and in some cases fittings normalised.


And Finally…

Roden
Because split weapons are bad...
- Missile Hardpoints increased on Eris by 2, Lachesis increased by 1
- Eris loses a highslot in exchange for a mid (Ares style), receives more cpu
- See "Combat: Blasters" for changes to the Phobos.



There's a strong sense of synergy with each of the changes, from assault warfare links, to the rig changes, each of the suggestions tries to complement Gallente piloting play style. This list of change is also one that tries not to shy away from any of the existentialist issues affecting the game. I make no apologies for it as I doubt most would be satisfied until those changes were in place.


http://killboard.sregginwaffe.com/?a=kill_related&kll_id=413

In before BC aren't used in high sec, but no one cares, because when people are complaining about the PvP reliance of a ship they are using them in low sec or null sec. Please research something before you post and make yourself look like a fool. I understand you may have been trying to make a point but it was wrong. So scratch your remark the T1 BC's are overshadowed by their T2 brothers because the fact is a good fleet only needs 1 or 2 Command Ships (In case you didn't know what a T2 BC was called). Hiding in the back of a fleet and pushing bonuses is something you don't need in mass quantities. If you need to see any other fleet comps just go browse through some corp or alliance KB that lives in null sec and you will see what people are using.

scimis/maelstroms > lachesis/scorpion > huginn/(heavy) dictors > (insta) arty canes/drakes with tp > inties/frigs

I see no command ships being requested here and this is for the majority of the CFC fleets. Cost effectiveness is the determining factor in whether a ship is used in eve not how well it can do the job. Obviously you have a disconnect on how rational people think that at the marginal cost, this is also a basic concept. Especially coming from a corporation that tends to loose T3's alot so your idea of cheap and effective are very skewed.

Also Gallente can tank very well, as already brought up they are just impotent in the form dealing damage because hybrid weapons suck in almost all situations being their one shortcoming.

Also there was an announcement for balancing of hybrid weapons so time to stop speculating changes and pray the CCP does this right, and stop daydreaming that this is going to be 2007 all over again. Gallente need to fit into fleet compisitions not be solo PvP gods causing every one to fly Gallente because they are not the most OP race in the game. More likely than not hybrid weapons will get a buff but a buff short of being useful and you will have to wait another 6 months for CCP to alter them again.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=2428

TL;DR

Trashing scrub for implying that BC's are underpowered and overshadowed and less used than their T2 counterpart. Also the quote from eve kill the top 2 are BC's.

There is a buff coming to Hybrid weapons that should fix the majority of Gallente issues so this shouldn't be a major sticking point. And armor tanking is not broken, nor is active tanking so there shouldn't be a complaint there either.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#57 - 2011-10-09 23:37:03 UTC
ITT someone fails to comprehend the difference between the words "tier", and "tech".

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#58 - 2011-10-10 02:01:31 UTC
OP seems to have put a lot of effort into this, which is good. So I will endeavor not to troll. However, I don't understand why these changes are being suggested other than the rather nonspecific goal of "upgrade and modernize". Could you provide a point-by-point analysis of the problems and proposed solutions? Example: why increase drone bays/bandwidth? What will this accomplish?

My viewpoint:
Blasters: Have short optimal and falloff, thus requiring the ship to get in close. Best tracking in the game because close range turrets must have great tracking or they'll never hit. Autocannons can hit farther out due to long falloff, and have good tracking as well. Pulse lasers have long optimal and short falloff, and not such great tracking.

So if you want to increase the effectiveness of blasters, they need a boost that will result in more damage being applied at longer range. This can be accomplished by increasing just about any stat. Increase tracking and they will hit more frequently at closer ranges, which is not quite what we want. Increase optimal or falloff and they will hit more frequently at longer ranges, which is better. Increase RoF and they will hit more frequently at all ranges but use more ammo and cap. Increase damage multipliers and they will hit harder when they hit. Nice for longer range, but runs the risk of being OP at close range.

I kind of like the idea of an all-or-nothing weapon system that either misses or r4pes face. There really isn't anything else in game like that. I think it also fits the Gallente mindset.

Another change that can be made is to buff the ships that are meant to carry blasters so that they can be more effective. Perhaps these blaster boats should be more mobile than their drone-carrying bretheren.

Rails: Longest range in game. Crappy damage and tracking. Sniping means nothing if you don't do damage. Either increase RoF or damage.

Buffing RoF, as above, means more ammo and cap consumed, but also better dps. Its a decent tradeoff. I thing this would fit into the overall sceme of weapons just fine. We don't want to duplicate artillery with high alpha and low RoF.

OP suggested global changes to probing, warp distances, and maximum locking range to mitigate the problem of combat probing snipers and warping on top of them. Changes that have such far-reaching impact should not be used to correct game balance or tactical disadvantages.

The only one of these I would support is a change to the minimum distance to warp. This would give all long-range ships that distance buffer they really need while still being within effective range.

The tactic of probing snipers is a valid one and should not be mitigated by global probing changes. BS have large drone bays for a reason. Use them. Rolling safes/firing points. Split your groups. Adjust tactics.

Snipers are also typically glass cannons. Perhaps dedicated sniping ships should also be more mobile. Purpose driven design, CCP. Not this looks cool lets try it.

I would support not losing control of drones when warping on grid. That would be nice.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Skinae
Hello Kitty Hug Patrol
#59 - 2011-10-10 16:03:22 UTC
I like all of these ideas and think they would be fantastic changes.

However reducing myrmidon power grid would scrap the triple rep fit (my favorite ship to fly for solo work).

Also the onieros needs a serious overhaul (when comparing it to the scimitar).

Bonafide Film House a Bozeman Video Production Company and Montana Wedding Video Company

X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#60 - 2011-10-10 16:19:07 UTC
Just let my medium blasters **** frigs that come too close. Frigs can already point me at 20km with near immunity (blasters suck at max point range), and they can outrun my drones forever (and pop them one by one too). Frigs should therefore die if they get too close.