These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 1.1] Medium Rail, Beam and Artillery rebalance

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#301 - 2013-07-26 19:54:37 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:
Tracking nerf on Rails is pretty big (even though it can be compensated by replacing falloff bonus on all ships that have it with a tracking bonus, but I don't expect that to happen), and +15% RoF increase seems nice only until you realize that Hybrids are the only weapon system consuming both cap and ammo. I would remove both of those changes but increase damage bonus to 20 or 25%.


Technically lasers do too, nobody uses T1 crystals.


The thing is, Scorch is just plain OP. I have no clue how to fix it without making it an instantly-reloading Void clone, but as long as that Crystal allows me to shoot at beam ranges, I'm going to fit pulses.

Now that I think about it, does anyone use medium or small gleam? I've only ever used it for POS shooting...


I'm not sure it's a problem with Gleam specifically, its just that small/medium beam aren't very useful. I also don't think its Scorch's fault, it's just that beam's are too much of an ass ache to fit and take far too much cap that Scorch becomes a default choice if you want to do something else, tank and tackle for instance, with your powergrid and capacitor.
Sub Tzero
Deutsche Luftschlosswerke AG
#302 - 2013-07-27 00:44:38 UTC
From a small scale lowsec PVP perspektive, HMs will not become any worse with this change, because there is no comparative to "utterly useless". The number of targets whos tank you can break with HMs solo is already zero.
Luscius Uta
#303 - 2013-07-28 10:28:01 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:


Technically lasers do too, nobody uses T1 crystals.


Not in PvP, but nobody uses Medium Rails in PvP either :)

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#304 - 2013-07-28 16:40:18 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:


Not in PvP, but nobody uses Medium Rails in PvP either :)


And nobody will after this 'rebalance' either.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2013-07-28 18:27:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyancat Audeles
. delete
Javius Rong
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#306 - 2013-07-29 00:00:10 UTC

The changes look good for medium LR turrets.

I see a bunch of people complaining about HML balance being out of wack with these changes. I am not sure that the raw DPS is off for HML but their ability to apply DPS rapidly and against Cruiser sized targets. I would like to see HMs get an increase in their velocity by +25% with a corresponding -25% to flight time, on top of that increase the HMs explosion velocity by +25% for better damage application.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#307 - 2013-07-29 02:09:52 UTC
Javius Rong wrote:

The changes look good for medium LR turrets.

I see a bunch of people complaining about HML balance being out of wack with these changes. I am not sure that the raw DPS is off for HML but their ability to apply DPS rapidly and against Cruiser sized targets. I would like to see HMs get an increase in their velocity by +25% with a corresponding -25% to flight time, on top of that increase the HMs explosion velocity by +25% for better damage application.


So you say they can apply dps rapidly against cruisers but then call for a exp velocity buff?
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#308 - 2013-07-29 02:51:14 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Javius Rong wrote:

The changes look good for medium LR turrets.

I see a bunch of people complaining about HML balance being out of wack with these changes. I am not sure that the raw DPS is off for HML but their ability to apply DPS rapidly and against Cruiser sized targets. I would like to see HMs get an increase in their velocity by +25% with a corresponding -25% to flight time, on top of that increase the HMs explosion velocity by +25% for better damage application.


So you say they can apply dps rapidly against cruisers but then call for a exp velocity buff?

He's saying he thinks that the raw damage they can do probably isn't the problem, but the application is. A little punctuation goes a long way.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Cofalib
GG Logistics
#309 - 2013-07-29 04:12:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Cofalib
I have a concern, that I am not sure is valid, since I haven't tested the values myself yet, but how are medium rails, with the RoF and Damage increase, gonna compared to PULSE LASERS. As medium pulse right now is fairly low on DPS, and only seems to be used for It's nice range dictation.

Since rails will have that same range dictation, with a nice damage increase because of this change, I feel that medium PULSE lasers may start to get over shadowed as a nice mix of range and damage, and people will simply opt for medium rail ships.

If anyone has tested the numbers, and compared these 2 gun types, I would appriciate an answer.

Edit: Just to clarify, I understand pulse lasers will not be changed, and that beams are getting a buff as well, I'm just wondering if the medium rail buff will kinda just walk over what medium pulse currently do.
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2013-07-29 13:48:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
Cofalib wrote:
I have a concern, that I am not sure is valid, since I haven't tested the values myself yet, but how are medium rails, with the RoF and Damage increase, gonna compared to PULSE LASERS. As medium pulse right now is fairly low on DPS, and only seems to be used for It's nice range dictation.

Since rails will have that same range dictation, with a nice damage increase because of this change, I feel that medium PULSE lasers may start to get over shadowed as a nice mix of range and damage, and people will simply opt for medium rail ships.

If anyone has tested the numbers, and compared these 2 gun types, I would appriciate an answer.

Edit: Just to clarify, I understand pulse lasers will not be changed, and that beams are getting a buff as well, I'm just wondering if the medium rail buff will kinda just walk over what medium pulse currently do.


Pulse with lolscorch will still be in a very good place because of the difference between pulse tracking and rail tracking. Those pulses apply solid damage all the way from scorch range all the way in tight and with the insta crystal change ability its really powerful as you can project damage far out, hit reliably, and very quickly up the damage if/when you targets gets in close.

Rail tracking means that as your targets approach or spiral in, ie ups his transversal, your rails will fail to hit. Pulses will maintain that ability to hit at much higher transverse amounts, (which makes kiting pulse boats very scary), kiting rails, not so much. Of course a lot of this all has to do with the speed of both boats, relative vectors, sig radius and of course pilot skill and SP skills of course.
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#311 - 2013-07-29 18:35:28 UTC
Sort of on/off topic but what the heck....

It's time to admit that new tracking 'physics' is required with a new formula: she's done alright has the old girl [tracking formula], but hasn't been updated since early 2004 when the signature resolution vs signature radius modification was added. It's now 2013....

There's loads that it currently can't handle, ship physical sizes being one glaring emission for example ("oh god, its blotting out the sun, we can't possibly miss.... oh wait"), ship rotation/ predictable orbits to name but two more.

A new formula would give new ways to open up the field to balance all guns including the 'low tier' guns that currently don't have purpose. It would also remove the need for 'hacky' solutions such as the bolt on for Titan guns.

If you don't update the core physics of tracking you'll be left with less and less wriggle room for balancing.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#312 - 2013-07-31 10:24:44 UTC
Aglais wrote:
Luscius Uta wrote:


Not in PvP, but nobody uses Medium Rails in PvP either :)


And nobody will after this 'rebalance' either.



With a 15% tracking nerf knowing they already track badly the only hulls worth fitting those are still Thorax and Proteus but in most pvp situations a blaster or rails Talos will be far better anyway.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#313 - 2013-07-31 13:18:55 UTC
Rejig to the tracking formula would be great. I'd love it to take into account constant broadside shots whilst orbiting in the right ship and fix a lot of the weird niggles we have ingame already. Would be a huge change to make though
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#314 - 2013-07-31 14:31:03 UTC
But now for something (almost) completely different:

If all Medium Long Range Weapons get a Damage buff... what about Heavy Missiles?
Will they fall behind now?
Or did you do the HM nerf already with this turret buff in mind so they will end up even?
Sarkelias Anophius
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#315 - 2013-07-31 16:48:25 UTC
FBL Mallers may actually be a thing. Interesting...
J A Aloysiusz
Risk Breakers
SONS of BANE
#316 - 2013-07-31 17:06:12 UTC  |  Edited by: J A Aloysiusz
I have two issues with medium ranged weaponry:

-They're strongly overshadowed by attack BCs. Why fit out an Eagle, when you can fit a naga with twice the range and twice the DPS for half as much ISK? The 50% mwd sig bonus to HACs might help aid this to some degree, however I strongly doubt the Eagle will be able keep its sig below 400 without loki OGB (which is next on the chopping block!), thus it's not a reasonable counter. That being said, I do support the capacitor and speed bonuses in the HAC changes.

-The second is the fitting requirements (this primarily applies to the PWG of rails). A prime example, the Deimos can't even fit neutrons with a 1600 plate, let alone 250mm rails, so it will either be a Heavy ship or an Assault ship, but not both ;D
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#317 - 2013-07-31 19:01:59 UTC
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
I have two issues with medium ranged weaponry:

-They're strongly overshadowed by attack BCs. Why fit out an Eagle, when you can fit a naga with twice the range and twice the DPS for half as much ISK? The 50% mwd sig bonus to HACs might help aid this to some degree, however I strongly doubt the Eagle will be able keep its sig below 400 without loki OGB (which is next on the chopping block!), thus it's not a reasonable counter. That being said, I do support the capacitor and speed bonuses in the HAC changes.

-The second is the fitting requirements (this primarily applies to the PWG of rails). A prime example, the Deimos can't even fit neutrons with a 1600 plate, let alone 250mm rails, so it will either be a Heavy ship or an Assault ship, but not both ;D



You can fit Deimost with 1600 and Neutrons, but you're giving away a rig slot for an ACR and fit AB only. It's a matter of CCP vision of ships and fittings, they rather force you to use fitting mods and rigs rather than fix things correctly and take a slot away, problem being a T1 does as better and once that fitting rig slot fitted they still have 2 left to improve dps and tank.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
J A Aloysiusz
Risk Breakers
SONS of BANE
#318 - 2013-07-31 20:21:10 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
J A Aloysiusz wrote:
I have two issues with medium ranged weaponry:

-They're strongly overshadowed by attack BCs. Why fit out an Eagle, when you can fit a naga with twice the range and twice the DPS for half as much ISK? The 50% mwd sig bonus to HACs might help aid this to some degree, however I strongly doubt the Eagle will be able keep its sig below 400 without loki OGB (which is next on the chopping block!), thus it's not a reasonable counter. That being said, I do support the capacitor and speed bonuses in the HAC changes.

-The second is the fitting requirements (this primarily applies to the PWG of rails). A prime example, the Deimos can't even fit neutrons with a 1600 plate, let alone 250mm rails, so it will either be a Heavy ship or an Assault ship, but not both ;D



You can fit Deimost with 1600 and Neutrons, but you're giving away a rig slot for an ACR and fit AB only. It's a matter of CCP vision of ships and fittings, they rather force you to use fitting mods and rigs rather than fix things correctly and take a slot away, problem being a T1 does as better and once that fitting rig slot fitted they still have 2 left to improve dps and tank.


ok big issue with your post there. It's either Deimos, or Diemost, not Deimost.

You're right though... On a ship with an MWD bonus, it takes dropping to an afterburner and using one of your two rig slots (why do t2's have only 2 rig slots anyway? Based on that pattern, T3's should have 1, not 3?!) to fit a reasonable tank+gank setup. Maybe I'll go post "diemost needs a pwg buff!" in the other thread. I think I will, actually...
xHxHxAOD
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#319 - 2013-08-02 01:30:32 UTC
should hvy missles not be buffed just a bit bc they were nerfed to be more in line the other med guns and such
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#320 - 2013-08-02 01:40:09 UTC
xHxHxAOD wrote:
should hvy missles not be buffed just a bit bc they were nerfed to be more in line the other med guns and such

No. If you look at the damage numbers they are in line with the medium long range guns. In other words, the medium long range guns were buffed to the current heavy missiles. Some numbers: Link