These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Large Energy Turrets

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
progodlegend
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#221 - 2013-04-14 22:45:43 UTC
Naso Aya wrote:
progodlegend wrote:
Naso Aya wrote:
I'm just being a devils advocate here. The changes help both the Abaddon and Apocalypse...but what would it take to make the Apoc viable, or at least worth the same amount to the Abaddon? From a capacitor/laser standpoint. Is it possible, or is the difference in dps/tank too much?



The apoc is becoming one of the new attack battleships, so it's an entirely different animal all together. With the new emphasis on speed though, one would think making the apoc more cap stable would only help the concept they are trying to adapt, by allowing it to run an MWD longer.


Not entirely, the Apoc has to find room somewhere between the Oracle and the Abaddon, yet have the price of the Abaddon. In my opinion, that's the hardest thing to justify from the changes so far.


It's got a tracking bonus and an optimal range bonus, so It's an entirely different ship than the abaddon or the oracle. It's not meant as a heavy brawler or high damage dealer, it's instead going to be better at anti-support, flexibility, etc. etc.
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2013-04-14 23:26:27 UTC
Trellion Yvetti wrote:
I don't understand how this helps at all?

You removed the 50% reducing bonus from the ships, and give us a built in 10-20% reduction?

why is everyone cheering?

These ships had cap issues with a 50% reduction...

These ships sucked when they had 5%/per lvl resists vs 4%/per lvl resist...

These ships sucked because of the still blairing and obvious flaw with active armor tanking, even vs active shield tanking...

I'm not tryin to be inflamatory, but can someone explain to me what your happy about?

I'm willing to bet if CCP imposed a new rule that you couldnt cross train into other races, so you had to pick only 1 races ships to fly, and current players could choose and get their other SP reimbursed.... not a single person whos been playing enough to understand the games mechanics would be flying an amarr ship.

Calm down, my friend, let me explain for you. That 50% hull bonus cap need reduction applied to all lasers fitted at once. This 10% or 20% reduction is per turret[/i/], so, in the case of a pulse Apoc with 8 turrets, [i]should come out to about the same (I'm not holding my breath it necessarily will, mind you, but waiting to test it out on sisi for myself)
progodlegend
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#223 - 2013-04-14 23:31:50 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Trellion Yvetti wrote:
I don't understand how this helps at all?

You removed the 50% reducing bonus from the ships, and give us a built in 10-20% reduction?

why is everyone cheering?

These ships had cap issues with a 50% reduction...

These ships sucked when they had 5%/per lvl resists vs 4%/per lvl resist...

These ships sucked because of the still blairing and obvious flaw with active armor tanking, even vs active shield tanking...

I'm not tryin to be inflamatory, but can someone explain to me what your happy about?

I'm willing to bet if CCP imposed a new rule that you couldnt cross train into other races, so you had to pick only 1 races ships to fly, and current players could choose and get their other SP reimbursed.... not a single person whos been playing enough to understand the games mechanics would be flying an amarr ship.

Calm down, my friend, let me explain for you. That 50% hull bonus cap need reduction applied to all lasers fitted at once. This 10% or 20% reduction is per turret[/i/], so, in the case of a pulse Apoc with 8 turrets, [i]should come out to about the same (I'm not holding my breath it necessarily will, mind you, but waiting to test it out on sisi for myself)


You are so wrong, it's mind numbing. This is what I was talking about earlier.

All lasers fitted at once? What does that even mean. But of the reductions work the same way, whether you consider them in a group or individually, that's why they use percentages and not whole numbers.
Neal Altol
What Shall We Call It
#224 - 2013-04-14 23:49:56 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Trellion Yvetti wrote:
I don't understand how this helps at all?

You removed the 50% reducing bonus from the ships, and give us a built in 10-20% reduction?

why is everyone cheering?

These ships had cap issues with a 50% reduction...

These ships sucked when they had 5%/per lvl resists vs 4%/per lvl resist...

These ships sucked because of the still blairing and obvious flaw with active armor tanking, even vs active shield tanking...

I'm not tryin to be inflamatory, but can someone explain to me what your happy about?

I'm willing to bet if CCP imposed a new rule that you couldnt cross train into other races, so you had to pick only 1 races ships to fly, and current players could choose and get their other SP reimbursed.... not a single person whos been playing enough to understand the games mechanics would be flying an amarr ship.

Calm down, my friend, let me explain for you. That 50% hull bonus cap need reduction applied to all lasers fitted at once. This 10% or 20% reduction is per turret[/i/], so, in the case of a pulse Apoc with 8 turrets, [i]should come out to about the same (I'm not holding my breath it necessarily will, mind you, but waiting to test it out on sisi for myself)




the bonus was always on a per turret base. The hull bonus effected each turret individuality. Thus the old apoc ran 8 guns at the cost of 4 while now it will run 8 guns at the cost of 7.2 guns
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#225 - 2013-04-15 00:04:25 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
nice to see lasers getting some attention .. now how about the other weapon systems from top to bottom?

How about having a discussion at your round table about projectiles using cap? pretty please :P

projectiles should use hull , when they are shot they dmg their own ship , it is made of rust and garbage anyway ,
so if you shoot too much your ship will fall apart ,minmatar style !!!!

lmao, good one doll :)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2013-04-15 00:16:47 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Pelea Ming wrote:
Calm down, my friend, let me explain for you. That 50% hull bonus cap need reduction applied to all lasers fitted at once. This 10% or 20% reduction is per turret[/i/], so, in the case of a pulse Apoc with 8 turrets, [i]should come out to about the same (I'm not holding my breath it necessarily will, mind you, but waiting to test it out on sisi for myself)

No. Mathematically speaking whether it's applied per turret or to the entire rack is the exact same thing.

Ax + Bx + ... + Hx = (A + B + ... + H)x

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Regolis
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#227 - 2013-04-15 03:44:19 UTC
I posted about this earlier with the numbers ... basically the 350mm Rail uses half the power of the Dual Beam 1
this seems to be balance IMO

the Mega Beam 1 uses 3x the power of the 425mm Rail

Not only do the lasers require more fitting .. they also use way too much power ..

the Tachyon Beam 1 base is 95 power per gun ... a full rack base would be 760 power ...few ships if any
could maintain cap stability just from the guns draw let alone anything else on the ship...


Oh and though I am using the stats for the Tech 1 versions ... Tech 1 base and Tech 2 use the same power to fire

Now the Mega Beam 1 and the 425mm Rail have close to the same stats .. the differences are so minor as not to be considered ...

So why is it necessary that the Mega Beam requires that much more power to fire unless the ships were MEANT to have enormous
amounts of cap to support them.


And please don't bother trolling with the how can you compare different gun types crap again ... bring the guns up in game and look at them .. doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize something is seriously broken
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#228 - 2013-04-15 04:41:24 UTC
Regolis wrote:
I posted about this earlier with the numbers ... basically the 350mm Rail uses half the power of the Dual Beam 1
this seems to be balance IMO

the Mega Beam 1 uses 3x the power of the 425mm Rail

Not only do the lasers require more fitting .. they also use way too much power ..

the Tachyon Beam 1 base is 95 power per gun ... a full rack base would be 760 power ...few ships if any
could maintain cap stability just from the guns draw let alone anything else on the ship...


Oh and though I am using the stats for the Tech 1 versions ... Tech 1 base and Tech 2 use the same power to fire

Now the Mega Beam 1 and the 425mm Rail have close to the same stats .. the differences are so minor as not to be considered ...

So why is it necessary that the Mega Beam requires that much more power to fire unless the ships were MEANT to have enormous
amounts of cap to support them.


And please don't bother trolling with the how can you compare different gun types crap again ... bring the guns up in game and look at them .. doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize something is seriously broken


+1

To add...

The Mael also uses an 8T layout so we'll use that to compare, it's guns use ZERO cap and the ship has the SAME cap recharge as the Abaddon and only 5% total cap less. It also has the SAME powergrid as the Abaddon when the Abaddon's weapons use way more PG and it is supposedly supposed to fit in an armor tank somewhere in there while the Mael shield tanks and receives more CPU for it. Why on Earth does this make it passed a balance team's meeting table?
Anabella Rella
Gradient
Electus Matari
#229 - 2013-04-15 05:29:48 UTC
Minmatar pilots only have one decent BS left now (the Maelstrom) so, will you guys quit trying to convince CCP to nerf it?

When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#230 - 2013-04-15 05:41:32 UTC
Anabella Rella wrote:
Minmatar pilots only have one decent BS left now (the Maelstrom) so, will you guys quit trying to convince CCP to nerf it?

Quit this crap , the typhoon will be awesome too ,when missiles gets their fix.
Also the tempest inst bad ,just not better than the average bs,what minmatar got used to.
progodlegend
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2013-04-15 05:45:39 UTC
All this off topic posting is going to cause us to start spamming again. We stopped because the discussion was actually centered for a change and people were bringing good points up to the cap use issue.

Stay on topic please.
Naso Aya
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#232 - 2013-04-15 06:06:20 UTC
Maybe if adjusting cap use of lasers by such a major degree isn't "possible" for whatever reason, maybe decreasing the cap penalty from the short-range laser crystals/standard crystals could also be used as a patch fix till the entire system can be re-examined? It's almost counter-intuitive, if ranged weapons are in general supposed to be harder to fit, that the short range laser crystals require more cap than the long range crystals. It'd be fairly easy to give a significant reduction through the crystals, though I don't know how easy of a change that would actually be. It'd allow scorch to actually have a downside, compared to other crystals.
Mr Noo
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#233 - 2013-04-15 07:54:30 UTC
progodlegend wrote:


Bump.

To update this I'm going to point out the problem with Amarr battleship guns using more numbers and maths.

Using all level 5 skills, a Neutron blaster II uses 2.2 cap per second (shooting antimatter), while a Mega Pulse Laser II (shooting multifrequency) uses 6.5 cap per second. That's essentially 3x as much. With the proposed 10% reduction in cap use, they will be using 5.85 cap per second. On an abaddon, a full rack of pulse lasers shooting either multifrequency or scorch (the only two crystals they use) will still take up 46 cap per second after the proposed changes. Shooting just it's guns, WITH NO OTHER MODULES ON. If that Abaddon has an MWD fit (giving it a -25% reduction in cap, a standard fitting choice though) the cap on that abaddon will last for 3 minutes 14 seconds. How long does it last now? 2 minute and 42 seconds. Congratulations, you have given a ship 35 extra seconds of just using it's guns, not counting any other active modules.

The cap requirements for amarr battleship guns are absurd, and are not fixable by just a 10% reduction in pulse lasers. The change needs to be significant. A realistic change would be bringing the cap requirement for mega pulse lasers down to just above double the neutron blaster requirement (which would take up 4.4 cap per second with all level 5 skills instead of 6.5 cap per second). If i'm correct, that means bringing the base cap requirement for pulse lasers down from 40 to 25 cap, or a 37.5% reduction. I know that sounds like a massive reduction, but the amount of cap used is still huge, as with a rack of 8 guns, it still will take 35 cap per second to just run it's guns, which is a good bit more than it's natural recharge. But at least, with decent cap booster management you can fight for longer than 5 minutes.

tl;dr:

To sum up both posts. The cap requirement changes for battleship sized lasers are pathetic and don't do anything. Amarr battleships suck because they either need a -10% cap reduction bonus to function(a wasted bonus, basically any ship with this bonus only gets one real bonus), or they need to make massive fitting decisions to reduce cap need for their guns. Specifically I'm focusing on pulse lasers, as they are the most used guns for Amarr. You need to have a significant reduction in the cap need for Pulse lasers, 37.5% is my recommendation, because it brings mega pulse lasers to just above double the cap requirement of Neutron blasters, which is their closest cousin. Anything less than 35% is basically not a change at all.


Do you remember dev blog "Hybrid weapon and Tech II ammo balancing"?

Quote:
Hybrid Turrets
Reduced Capacitor usage:
All hybrid turrets: -30% capacitor use


-30% cap use for ALL hybrid turrets.

Why you don't wont to change laser turrets the same way?
Trellion Yvetti
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#234 - 2013-04-15 08:08:52 UTC
I think we're missing the obvious and simplest solution.

once upon a time amarr weapons where balaneced cause they had an advantage for all these drawbacks.. just return the advantage.

increase the damage of all beam weapons by 10% and 20% for pulse, BAM, they are good again, (This one change could have saved all that wasted time trying to replace the laser use cap bonus on amarr ships, and would have made the player base happier.) 10-20% damage increase too much? don't forget if you cap drain the amarr ship, it won't be firing its guns AT ALL. unlike blasters which will still get off a cycle here and there as it naturally recharges. If you bring the proper weapon to the fight, you have the advantage.

Minmatar use no cap, caldari(missiles) use no cap, Gallente(blasters) use for little cap per shot, so a cap draining isnt as massive of a disadvantage as for amarr. I really have to wonder why the one race most vulnerable is the race that uses cap draining, and the other races that would benefit most from using cap draining on their enemies, doesnt? (but this is a discussin for another threat)

The best solution is the simplest solution.

So now instead of trying to balance the cap use, and balance the fittings, balance the dps and rebalance the ships the weapon goes on.

you just fixed the dps and everything is good, you could even put that 10% cap bonus for lasers thing back on amarr ships, cause the weapons are worth it now. lasers use up your cap super fast, but you have burst DPS,

Lasers have huge fitting requirements causing you to sacrifice tank to fit the "proper" weapon to your ship, but hey, you have DPS.

Amarr ships are slow and not particularly thickly tanked(which I thought was supose to be a halmark of amarr ships), but they have a powerful and effective weapon system.

Conflag reduces your tracking, which sucks, but it does massive damage now, so use it spefically for that double webbed and scrammed BS thats ez to hit.

Lasers do EM damage, which is pretty consistently heavily tanked for, cause minmatar can also use EM damage(some how a solid projectile is an EM weapon) But you have good dps.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#235 - 2013-04-15 09:34:40 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Mr Noo wrote:
Do you remember dev blog "Hybrid weapon and Tech II ammo balancing"?

Quote:
Hybrid Turrets
Reduced Capacitor usage:
All hybrid turrets: -30% capacitor use


-30% cap use for ALL hybrid turrets.

Why you don't wont to change laser turrets the same way?

http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-crucible-1

Indeed, they changed hybrid turrets in this way, and there never was a ship bonus to capacitor use of hybrid weapons just to make these ships viable IIRC. However CCP is removing a 10% per level bonus to capacitor use on ships that sorely needed that bonus (and even with the full bonus they STILL sucked up capacitor) and after removing this bonus they're giving us a measly 10% for pulse and 20% for beams?

I call bullshit. Lasers are a pitiful weapon in their current state and they really need to be balanced more vigorously, not overly cautious like you're doing now.

Also tachyons either need a CPU use reduction or preferably the Apocalypse needs more CPU. The Oracle in response to the energy turret changes needs some nerfs to capacitor, PG, and CPU.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#236 - 2013-04-15 09:47:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Amarr pilots askings for less cap consumption on lasers while gallente pilots ask for more range on blasters in the gallente BS thread.

If CCP listened everyone, we would have one ship with customizable models, and weapons would all be the same with different graphics....

PS : also, about tachyon turrets, please, stop whining about them. 425mm railguns are balanced with Mega Beams ; if tachyon were as easy as 425mm railguns to use, they would be insanely OP.
Ayla Crenshaw
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2013-04-15 09:59:00 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Amarr pilots askings for less cap consumption on lasers while gallente pilots ask for more range on blasters in the gallente BS thread.

If CCP listened everyone, we would have one ship with customizable models, and weapons would all be the same with different graphics....

PS : also, about tachyon turrets, please, stop whining about them. 425mm railguns are balanced with Mega Beams ; if tachyon were as easy as 425mm railguns to use, they would be insanely OP.


Actually we're asking for the same cap consumption on lasers, since they are taking away the cap use bonuses... I'd be fine with the current, measly reduction if we got a damage boost in the trade.

An interesting note here is that any mechanic that prevents players from, you know, playing, is bad design. Changes to prevent that have been present virtually everywhere; from D&D 3.5ed nerfing paralysis and hold spells, to Leage of Legends tiptoeing around stuns... how it's relevant to current situation? Amarr is the only race in the game that doesn't need external stimuli to not being able to fire continually due to lack of goddamned capacitor. And don't even mention ammo, our advanced crystals burn out; also, how many fights are over because one side ran out of ammo? Average cargohold can squeeze enough shells to keep firing for hours. Amarr BS caps out in 4 minutes. By itself.

I somewhat agree regarding tachyons, it's still unacceptable to not be able to fit a full rack of a weapon type on Battleship without fitting mods when a BattleCRUISER manages it.
Scaugh
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#238 - 2013-04-15 10:10:01 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
For anyone who wishes this change was more exhaustive - part of what was nice about this solution is that it doesn't disrupt any future efforts to look at energy weapons as a whole. That said, the near near future does not contain such a rework, so any suggestions about crystals or other large problems related to the weapon probably won't have a huge effect on our plans for Odyssey.

Hope that for now this makes life a bit more comfortable until we do have the time to come back and look at the whole thing.


I'd simply like an easier way of seeing the precentage damaged on my crystals .
lil'sis Mena
Grim Determination
Manifest Destiny.
#239 - 2013-04-15 11:05:14 UTC
progodlegend wrote:
progodlegend wrote:
Not enough with the battleship guns. Currently the massive cap need for these guns is keeping amarr battleships from being used again. Amarr already suffer from having completely predictable and easy to tank damage types ("they are forming a-hacs? just tank em/thermal, gg we win").

But the battleship guns cap need almost make amarr concepts unviable. I know that a lot of people have always mentioned how the amarr are at a disadvantage because most of their ships are missing a bonus (10% reduction in cap need for guns, where instead they could have a useful bonus like every other ship in every other race). The truth of the matter is, you just can't run an Amarr concept without that bonus, unless you make serious fitting decisions to reduce the cap need of your guns.

The most popular amarr concepts of the past 3 years have been Zealots, Abaddons, and Armageddons. Zealots and Armageddons both get a -10% reduction in cap need for guns, and even then, I can tell you from personal experience that the Armageddon still ran out of cap boosters quite quickly in any fight lasting longer than 5-10 minutes. Then you have the Abaddon, for which the most successful iteration of this concept had to use TWO TECH 2 RIGS just to make the guns cap need managable, and make the ship last more than 5 minutes.

[Abaddon, PL hellcat]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Damage Control II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I
Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script

Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L

Large Anti-EM Pump I
Large Energy Discharge Elutriation II
Large Energy Discharge Elutriation II



Without the rigs, the Abaddon just eats through cap boosters in 5 minutes or less, turning the abaddon into a small gang ship at best. There are times when the ship would work without the two gun rigs, but usually it was just because alliances or FC's were using it inefficiently and not firing their guns all the time.

The fact of the matter is, there is a huge upswing in cap need for all BS sized modules compared to cruiser sized modules. Look at the difference between a 10mn microwarp drive and 100mn micro warpdrive. The 10mn MWD takes 13.5 cap per second, while the 100mn MWD takes 54.1 cap per second. Most BS get double the cap recharge rate of their cruiser cousins, but many BS modules take 3-5x the amount of cap as cruiser modules.

The main point is, the abaddon shouldn't need two rigs dedicated to reducing their gun's cap need just to last more than 5 minutes in a battle (including cap boosters). It's terribly unbalanced and it's part of the reason people have stopped using hellcats.


Bump.

To update this I'm going to point out the problem with Amarr battleship guns using more numbers and maths.

Using all level 5 skills, a Neutron blaster II uses 2.2 cap per second (shooting antimatter), while a Mega Pulse Laser II (shooting multifrequency) uses 6.5 cap per second. That's essentially 3x as much. With the proposed 10% reduction in cap use, they will be using 5.85 cap per second. On an abaddon, a full rack of pulse lasers shooting either multifrequency or scorch (the only two crystals they use) will still take up 46 cap per second after the proposed changes. Shooting just it's guns, WITH NO OTHER MODULES ON. If that Abaddon has an MWD fit (giving it a -25% reduction in cap, a standard fitting choice though) the cap on that abaddon will last for 3 minutes 14 seconds. How long does it last now? 2 minute and 42 seconds. Congratulations, you have given a ship 35 extra seconds of just using it's guns, not counting any other active modules.

The cap requirements for amarr battleship guns are absurd, and are not fixable by just a 10% reduction in pulse lasers. The change needs to be significant. A realistic change would be bringing the cap requirement for mega pulse lasers down to just above double the neutron blaster requirement (which would take up 4.4 cap per second with all level 5 skills instead of 6.5 cap per second). If i'm correct, that means bringing the base cap requirement for pulse lasers down from 40 to 25 cap, or a 37.5% reduction. I know that sounds like a massive reduction, but the amount of cap used is still huge, as with a rack of 8 guns, it still will take 35 cap per second to just run it's guns, which is a good bit more than it's natural recharge. But at least, with decent cap booster management you can fight for longer than 5 minutes.

tl;dr:

To sum up both posts. The cap requirement changes for battleship sized lasers are pathetic and don't do anything. Amarr battleships suck because they either need a -10% cap reduction bonus to function(a wasted bonus, basically any ship with this bonus only gets one real bonus), or they need to make massive fitting decisions to reduce cap need for their guns. Specifically I'm focusing on pulse lasers, as they are the most used guns for Amarr. You need to have a significant reduction in the cap need for Pulse lasers, 37.5% is my recommendation, because it brings mega pulse lasers to just above double the cap requirement of Neutron blasters, which is their closest cousin. Anything less than 35% is basically not a change at all.



Want to see more AMARR VICTOR
Verlaine Glariant
The Kudur Cult
#240 - 2013-04-15 12:32:31 UTC
Large Pulse Lasers capacitor need should also be -20%

www.amphysvena.org