These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Blasters...how do you think they'll be balanced?

Author
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#1 - 2011-10-14 06:43:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Personally, I can see them moving them to have only very slightly shorter range than AC's, but with a much larger percentage of their range being optimal. Since more of their damage is optimal, they'd project damage better than AC's within their firing range, but are still technically a bit shorter on overall range, and still maybe not track as well, or at most on par. This would put thin in between lasers and AC's on most fronts.

From there, adjust fitting requirements, or the cpu/PG of hybrid ships, and see how it plays out. More balance changes to come afterwards of course, after the impact of the initial changes is seen.

What would your initial toe-in-the-water balance changes be?

thhief ghabmoef

Herman Klaus
Touched By Klaus
#2 - 2011-10-14 08:12:15 UTC
Someone suggested making Minny less agile but keeping their high speed and making blaster boats more agile (quicker) and buffing blaster tracking. I liked this.

TBH though this topic has been done to death a few posts below.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#3 - 2011-10-14 08:19:09 UTC
Changing minmatar that much just to balance blasters would throw quite a few other things out of whack, wouldn't it? I doubt we'll see such a large change, or at least not at first.

Also I seem to have missed the other thread....

thhief ghabmoef

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#4 - 2011-10-14 10:52:42 UTC
Things blaster needs to be changed so it works properly and without ship changes?

Massive tracking bonus on weapons: the shortest range weapon can't simply track properly in it's op range while having less issues in the fall off, you must admit this is kinda "stupid"

The shortest weapon system at BS size with 4km optimal range can't track an elephant under 1500M and the slightest lateral movement makes you loose a lot of the "EFT dps", another ridiculous point.

Imho the best thing to do about blasters is increase their optimal up to 13km at large size and 0km fall off, increase dmg modifier to make it spit nuclear warheads and that ******* weapon system should never have a single issue tracking in his full optimal from 0 to the 13km.

Ammo changes are needed, the single change about % kin or thermal for the same range/dmg type isn't enough, a third dmg type would be the most welcome even at a very small %.
T2 ammo needs serious revamp and get rid of the tracking penalty, hell you need a lot of training to use the worst ammo out there when faction one will overall be more effective, this is completely silly.

Fitting PG requirements lowered and cap use but maybe increase it significantly when overloaded if dmg modifier increased to nuclear warheads level.

Before touching the ships this would be a nice start, then go for the ships themselves and after that see if weapons still need something + or removal so they don't become tomorrow the omgfckingpowmobiles
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-10-14 11:00:02 UTC
CCP boosting something and it ending up balanced? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Solomar Espersei
Quality Assurance
#6 - 2011-10-14 12:37:56 UTC
I think the "can't choose your damage type" argument is overblown, just as it is with lazers. Both could be viewed as damage type=loads of DPS. One type of gun (blasters) pummels armor, the other pummels shields. I think that works fine and doesn't need to be tweaked in any way.

Range is the problem and it gets worse as you scale up. An argument could be made that blasters are working just fine on the frigates which are bonused for them. It's the cruiser hull and above where the train runs off the track. Simply change the range on blasters to be slightly less than the effective range of ACs and that should do it.

Rails OTOH simply need to do more DPS. I don't think it would be that big of a deal if they were nearly identical to Beams tbh.

Quality Assurance Recruiting intrepid explorers and BlOps/Cov Ops combat enthusiasts

Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2011-10-14 13:28:18 UTC
Tanya Powers wrote:
Things blaster needs to be changed so it works properly and without ship changes?

Massive tracking bonus on weapons: the shortest range weapon can't simply track properly in it's op range while having less issues in the fall off, you must admit this is kinda "stupid"

The shortest weapon system at BS size with 4km optimal range can't track an elephant under 1500M and the slightest lateral movement makes you loose a lot of the "EFT dps", another ridiculous point.

Imho the best thing to do about blasters is increase their optimal up to 13km at large size and 0km fall off, increase dmg modifier to make it spit nuclear warheads and that ******* weapon system should never have a single issue tracking in his full optimal from 0 to the 13km.

Ammo changes are needed, the single change about % kin or thermal for the same range/dmg type isn't enough, a third dmg type would be the most welcome even at a very small %.
T2 ammo needs serious revamp and get rid of the tracking penalty, hell you need a lot of training to use the worst ammo out there when faction one will overall be more effective, this is completely silly.

Fitting PG requirements lowered and cap use but maybe increase it significantly when overloaded if dmg modifier increased to nuclear warheads level.

Before touching the ships this would be a nice start, then go for the ships themselves and after that see if weapons still need something + or removal so they don't become tomorrow the omgfckingpowmobiles
I like your ideas. wouldn't mind cutting the range further if damage boosted tho.

[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

Skarned
Inroads
#8 - 2011-10-14 13:42:34 UTC
I'd like to see Blaster range remain unchanged - it would be a mistake to change the attribute that makes blasters unique. They should, however, be compensated for it with much greater effective damage. A little bit less mass or more agility on their ships wouldn't hurt either, but they don't need much.
Alec Freeman
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2011-10-14 13:57:06 UTC
Its CCP. They know nothing of a gentle touch.

Blasters will be given 100km range, do 500 dps per large gun and will be able to track frigates at under 1km. and then everyone will cry until other guns are brought in line with them.
TriadSte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-10-14 15:06:05 UTC
Blasters need better tracking with a boost to range also. I believe that the Gallente race is a race which can be kited easily [ship depending] so I also believe that the Gallente ships needs some form of speed/agility buff too.

Gallente have always been the 4th best race in applying DPS effectively, Im very happy this is about to change.
mama guru
Yazatas.
#11 - 2011-10-14 16:00:16 UTC
The most needed gallente changes have always been something along these lines:

1) Ship agility improvement and mass reduction (applies to cruiser and above)

2) Improved blaster tracking

3) Lower fitting requirements on hybrids was implemented before and might be needed again.


I also think that Gallente blaster boats should have one or two of theirutility highslots removed in favour of more midslots. That would kind of fit their niche a bit more and make them more appealing to active tanking and ECCM which is what Gallente has always been best at. Utility highs and overall slot flexability is a minmatar thing imo, it fits the Hurricane perfectly for example. But not the Deimos or Megathron.

EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's too hard you are too weak.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#12 - 2011-10-14 16:48:53 UTC
ok this is ghey i cant link a thread cuss its html...Evil

please see a thread called gallente love in features and ideas discussion for hybrid boost discussion

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

JackStraw56
Run Like an Antelope
#13 - 2011-10-14 16:59:02 UTC
I'd like to see blasters stay the shortest range weapon, but the range should be given some increase.

The tracking also needs to be the highest of all guns since they are meant to operate at the closest range. It doesn't make sense for autocannons to have longer range and similar tracking.

The damage is already good on blasters, a very slight boost may be ok, but I'd rather see the range and tracking bumped up first.
Neo Rainhart
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#14 - 2011-10-14 17:11:51 UTC
No I don't think super soakers should be boosted. Just start selling them with different nozzles oh wai...
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2011-10-14 19:16:51 UTC
Solomar Espersei wrote:
I think the "can't choose your damage type" argument is overblown, just as it is with lazers. Both could be viewed as damage type=loads of DPS. One type of gun (blasters) pummels armor, the other pummels shields. I think that works fine and doesn't need to be tweaked in any way..



Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

PvE is easy enough that even if you're blitzing with a max skilled dedicated ship, you really aren't gaining much time.

PvP everyone buffer tanks anyway, and you will rarely encounter a resist hole big enough to actually exploit. And even if they do, how would you know?
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#16 - 2011-10-14 19:28:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Solomar Espersei wrote:
I think the "can't choose your damage type" argument is overblown, just as it is with lazers. Both could be viewed as damage type=loads of DPS. One type of gun (blasters) pummels armor, the other pummels shields. I think that works fine and doesn't need to be tweaked in any way..



Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

PvE is easy enough that even if you're blitzing with a max skilled dedicated ship, you really aren't gaining much time.

PvP everyone buffer tanks anyway, and you will rarely encounter a resist hole big enough to actually exploit. And even if they do, how would you know?


True this, and if you do find a significant hole it's going to be either EM or EXP...both of which can also easily be the highest. I'd take Kin/Therm over most of the other types any day. It does kind a suck when firing that at a t2 ship with kin/therm resist bonuses though....


As far as the tracking goes, I'm not sure AC's should be below blasters, really. They've always seemed like a quick and nimble weapon, whereas blasters are more like a shotgun or something. Though, it'd be nice to see them upgraded to a tactical shotgun over an old SxS, if you get me. Giving some extra agility to hybrid ships would be nice, though we'll have to bear in mind what that will change when you fit them with rails, yeah? You can't look at a ship and go "oh, that's for blasters" or "oh, that's for railguns", because people will want to use both. Try to force it and you end up with the Hyperion...

thhief ghabmoef

Goose99
#17 - 2011-10-14 21:00:59 UTC
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Solomar Espersei wrote:
I think the "can't choose your damage type" argument is overblown, just as it is with lazers. Both could be viewed as damage type=loads of DPS. One type of gun (blasters) pummels armor, the other pummels shields. I think that works fine and doesn't need to be tweaked in any way..



Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.

PvE is easy enough that even if you're blitzing with a max skilled dedicated ship, you really aren't gaining much time.

PvP everyone buffer tanks anyway, and you will rarely encounter a resist hole big enough to actually exploit. And even if they do, how would you know?


True this, and if you do find a significant hole it's going to be either EM or EXP...both of which can also easily be the highest. I'd take Kin/Therm over most of the other types any day. It does kind a suck when firing that at a t2 ship with kin/therm resist bonuses though....


As far as the tracking goes, I'm not sure AC's should be below blasters, really. They've always seemed like a quick and nimble weapon, whereas blasters are more like a shotgun or something. Though, it'd be nice to see them upgraded to a tactical shotgun over an old SxS, if you get me. Giving some extra agility to hybrid ships would be nice, though we'll have to bear in mind what that will change when you fit them with rails, yeah? You can't look at a ship and go "oh, that's for blasters" or "oh, that's for railguns", because people will want to use both. Try to force it and you end up with the Hyperion...


Minimatar t2/3 has high EM shields resist. That said, EM/exp is definitely better than Kin/thermal. Every single ship, t1-t3, shield or armor, has decent kin/thermal resists. Add in enam/invulnerability, and it gets high. With EM/exp, it finds a resist hole at least some of the times, with kin/thermal, there won't be a hole in any competent fit.
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#18 - 2011-10-14 22:38:25 UTC
Goose99 wrote:


Minimatar t2/3 has high EM shields resist. That said, EM/exp is definitely better than Kin/thermal. Every single ship, t1-t3, shield or armor, has decent kin/thermal resists. Add in enam/invulnerability, and it gets high. With EM/exp, it finds a resist hole at least some of the times, with kin/thermal, there won't be a hole in any competent fit.

EM/Exp would be nice if you could get both of them at once...though it's true that minmatar and caldari can just change ammo. But while Kin/Therm never sees the huge em holes in shields or exp holes in armor, it never sees the huge em resists in armor or exp resists in shields, either. Perhaps it comes down to preference but I like that level of consistency.

thhief ghabmoef

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#19 - 2011-10-15 01:09:53 UTC
I have no idea how blasters are going to be balanced.

Less falloff, more optimal perhaps? That would help a little as would reducing their cap use and power grid requirements.
Tallianna Avenkarde
Pyre of Gods
#20 - 2011-10-15 05:08:57 UTC
Herman Klaus wrote:
Someone suggested making Minny less agile but keeping their high speed and making blaster boats more agile (quicker) and buffing blaster tracking. I liked this.

TBH though this topic has been done to death a few posts below.



I actually believe exactly the opposite.

To me Minnie are like rally cars, fast agile little killers that flitter around at kiting range.
Gallente should be top fuel dragsters. Fast in a straight line, but easily danced around.

And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell. Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell.

12Next page