These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#81 - 2013-07-18 17:14:40 UTC
I really don't understand why you guys do not attack the Tracking formula for the much larger problem of no scaling at range.

I've said this so many times and gotten nothing but positive feedback from players as well as solved the long standing issue with rails.

But instead of listening to common sense, you guys just play with damage and tracking numbers rather than hit the source of the problem which is the formula not accounting for a benefit to tracking at range.

Create a sig multiplier on every gun that get's modified at range to inflate the sig resolution of the guns. Vary the percents by gun type and size.

This allows rails to excel in the longer ranges but worse in the shorter ranges by having a larger base sig resolution, but much lower inflation rate, makes artillery alpha nice... if it can actually hit. It also removes some of the concern for webs because tracking can't cancel out sig resolution when webbed to near 0.

Your Talos example is a prime reason why this has to be done. 19% tracking difference for a massive damage increase on the ship will always get trumped with webs. But if you were to add signiture inflation to blasters, it means that they will be limited to certain ranges of effect that rails can always surpass even at the mid size level.



I wish you guys would just be honest and either say, "we can't do that" or "it would make to much lag" or something rather than continue to skirt the issue for the 11th year now. It's getting downright ridiculous.

If you have more questions about how it works, please, ask or go look at some of the other post. It's time to change this horrid formula.
Bagehi
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#82 - 2013-07-18 17:20:08 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
I really don't understand why you guys do not attack the Tracking formula for the much larger problem of no scaling at range.

Because changing numbers in the database is a tweak. Changing the tracking formula is a massive overhaul. Same reason for not overhauling POSes and any number of other "why don't you JUST.." changes.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#83 - 2013-07-18 17:24:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
What about optimal on Beams? They have the same optimal as Arty, but arty get more falloff. And Arty have volley advantage.

All beams need an optimal buff imo. You could take away a little something to compensate if you must (tracking, dps, whatever) but right now they are the worst at range of all long range weapon platforms. Which makes no sense as they are a friggin beam of light in a vacuum.What?

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#84 - 2013-07-18 17:24:15 UTC
i can suppor the changes... though dont think arties needed to be touched they are already good enough and are not used for dps they are used for alpha.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Drunken Bum
#85 - 2013-07-18 17:25:45 UTC
Adwokat Diabla wrote:
at first I was super excited about this and was gonna buy some eagles. but then i saw the tracking nerf to rails and now...

I know you think that it tracking better then a talos with null is cool, but in reality its kinda ****** vs frigs unless they're ******** and coming at you in a staight line. m. rails already track the 2nd worst of medium guns, and only just slightly better then arties, so why even bother when you can just use the other, better tracking guns. Please, just remove the tracking nerf on medium rals, and give them the buff that they so desperately need. Literally nobody uses medium rails right now and if it turns out that its over-powered then you can always nerf it, but I really do not think that this tracking nerf is going to help.

Agreed. At least rails have good range! Wait...

After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary.  -Fozzie

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#86 - 2013-07-18 17:27:06 UTC
Too much dps increase.... Drop the tracking nerf, and some of the increased dmg.
Harry Stampernox
Cluelix
Wrecktical Supremacy.
#87 - 2013-07-18 17:27:16 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
I really don't understand why you guys do not attack the Tracking formula for the much larger problem of no scaling at range.

I've said this so many times and gotten nothing but positive feedback from players as well as solved the long standing issue with rails.

But instead of listening to common sense, you guys just play with damage and tracking numbers rather than hit the source of the problem which is the formula not accounting for a benefit to tracking at range.

Create a sig multiplier on every gun that get's modified at range to inflate the sig resolution of the guns. Vary the percents by gun type and size.

This allows rails to excel in the longer ranges but worse in the shorter ranges by having a larger base sig resolution, but much lower inflation rate, makes artillery alpha nice... if it can actually hit. It also removes some of the concern for webs because tracking can't cancel out sig resolution when webbed to near 0.

Your Talos example is a prime reason why this has to be done. 19% tracking difference for a massive damage increase on the ship will always get trumped with webs. But if you were to add signiture inflation to blasters, it means that they will be limited to certain ranges of effect that rails can always surpass even at the mid size level.



I wish you guys would just be honest and either say, "we can't do that" or "it would make to much lag" or something rather than continue to skirt the issue for the 11th year now. It's getting downright ridiculous.

If you have more questions about how it works, please, ask or go look at some of the other post. It's time to change this horrid formula.



I don't understand. I thought range affected tracking..which is why you orbit close to a big ship to make it miss with its guns. Range reduces traversal velocity allowing you to track them...no?
Drunken Bum
#88 - 2013-07-18 17:27:28 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
CCP Rise - one thing, while You gave nice boost to guns, You left out something.

After this HML will be 100% unusable - outclassed with damage from their gun counterparts.

Very very wrong. Im already foreseeing hml sacrilege fleets in my future.

After the patch we're giving the market some gentle supply restriction, like tying one wrist to the bedpost loosely with soft silk rope. Just enough to make things a bit more exciting for the market, not enough to make a safeword necessary.  -Fozzie

huja
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2013-07-18 17:27:49 UTC
Max Kolonko wrote:
CCP Rise - one thing, while You gave nice boost to guns, You left out something.

After this HML will be 100% unusable - outclassed with damage from their gun counterparts.


Just accept that Rapid light missile launchers are the new HMLs and you will be happy.
I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#90 - 2013-07-18 17:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Harry Stampernox wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
I really don't understand why you guys do not attack the Tracking formula for the much larger problem of no scaling at range.

I've said this so many times and gotten nothing but positive feedback from players as well as solved the long standing issue with rails.

But instead of listening to common sense, you guys just play with damage and tracking numbers rather than hit the source of the problem which is the formula not accounting for a benefit to tracking at range.

Create a sig multiplier on every gun that get's modified at range to inflate the sig resolution of the guns. Vary the percents by gun type and size.

This allows rails to excel in the longer ranges but worse in the shorter ranges by having a larger base sig resolution, but much lower inflation rate, makes artillery alpha nice... if it can actually hit. It also removes some of the concern for webs because tracking can't cancel out sig resolution when webbed to near 0.

Your Talos example is a prime reason why this has to be done. 19% tracking difference for a massive damage increase on the ship will always get trumped with webs. But if you were to add signiture inflation to blasters, it means that they will be limited to certain ranges of effect that rails can always surpass even at the mid size level.



I wish you guys would just be honest and either say, "we can't do that" or "it would make to much lag" or something rather than continue to skirt the issue for the 11th year now. It's getting downright ridiculous.

If you have more questions about how it works, please, ask or go look at some of the other post. It's time to change this horrid formula.



I don't understand. I thought range affected tracking..which is why you orbit close to a big ship to make it miss with its guns. Range reduces traversal velocity allowing you to track them...no?


The further an offensive player gets from his target, the better his tracking number looks because it's based on radians. The signiture of that target does not currently change. So In effect, it becomes a slower moving target at range, while being identical size no matter how far away you are.

The original intent of webs way back when was that you cope with the really close range ships by slowing down speed. When this role changed with the long range webbing ships, nobody ever accounted for the fact that signature does not change.

It means that ships can hit things they are not meant to hit just because range boost tracking ability so significantly.

Painting only make it worse since you can inflate sigs to be even easier to hit.

It's one of the primary reasons for artillery dominance and rail/beam suckage.
It's also a reason missiles always had to have higher dps rather than have lower dps, but an advantage to no sig reduction.

There's massive implications to actually fixing the tracking formula rather than do an entire game overhaul of every ship that still doesn't fix the problem.

The difference is, the Devs can look busy with what they're doing rather than the 1 fix that rules them all.
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#91 - 2013-07-18 17:50:02 UTC
First of all, thanks for looking into this. Personally, I think I have never used medium rails ever, so I can say nothing about them.
Arty changes sound fine to me.
But as an avid laser user, although the proposed changes to beams made me drool- don't you think 25% more damage is a little overpowered? Those beams will slice through shield tanks like a hot knife through butter.
I am not sure if I am delusional, but wasn't the talk about overhauling all of the weapon systems?
I ask because I would be a little disappointed if this was the final answer- a little more damage here, a little more RoF there.
I was hoping for changes that would give each weapon system its own distinct feel, like different overheat mechanics (charging lasers for higher burst damage or artillery for better optimal range for example), "continuous" beam damage etc.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.

Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#92 - 2013-07-18 17:58:28 UTC
Nice to see them getting a look in. Not sure on the figures though, will need to play about in EFT and check them out on Sisi in the future.

Please give us a good chance to test this on Sisi and not rush in with the change.
Brother Mercury
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#93 - 2013-07-18 18:04:33 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
Capacitor usage of beams is still ****, even a 25% damage bonus is not going to make people use them instead of scorch heavy pulse or tachyon oracles.


I wish he wasn't right, but he is. The cap usage and fitting requirements are still too much compared to other options for Amarr hulls.

There will be very little benefit, if any, to use med beams in a given situation over T2 pulse with scorch.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#94 - 2013-07-18 18:14:17 UTC
Good changes, now just nerf ABCs.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Minister of Death
Colossus Enterprises
#95 - 2013-07-18 18:20:41 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Good changes, now just nerf ABCs.


What are 'ABCs'?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#96 - 2013-07-18 18:30:05 UTC
Assault Battlecruisers
Swidgen
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2013-07-18 18:36:07 UTC
Minister of Death wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Good changes, now just nerf ABCs.


What are 'ABCs'?

Attack Battlecruisers

Attack, not Assault
Doddy
Excidium.
#98 - 2013-07-18 18:52:41 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
mmkay so why are all the comparisons ignoring T2 ammo? ..... who uses antimatter on rails? .. anyone?

T2 ammo needs a buff on long range guns .. -75% range makes it unusable...


You mean the comparison using the best tracking ammo that would be much better at tracking? Wut?
Kesi Raae
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#99 - 2013-07-18 19:24:44 UTC
You pay for all that damage and tracking on beams with the crappy cap use.

If they were made to have less cap issues and lowered the damage or tracking to compensate they'd be treading on the toes of rails which would be boring, it's best if the weapon systems are as different to each as possible while still maintaining balance.

- Arties will have high alpha and selectable damage, but low dps and tracking.
- Lasers will have high dps, high tracking and instant ammo switching, but a fixed damage type and high cap use.
- Rails will have high dps and the longest range, middling cap use and tracking, and a fixed damage type.

I don't think high cap use is a problem, if they still need boosting then compensate in other areas (lower fitting) rather than taking away a unique aspect of the weapon system.
Windman Advena
Facehoof
#100 - 2013-07-18 19:38:12 UTC
Rails and Beams DPS will be about 40% better then Artillery DPS.
Give Artillery 20% RoF bonus. Artillery DPS will be still 25% less then Beam or Rails DPS