These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#101 - 2013-07-18 19:40:15 UTC
So, anyone? How do the numbers shake out in the end? Will it look like more of the same on TQ now, given that all the medium weapons systems are getting a buff, or what is the net result?

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#102 - 2013-07-18 20:12:00 UTC
Windman Advena wrote:
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



When you get 6k alpha out of a T2 arty fit you get about 2.5 from a dps fit with other guns and alpha > to DPS everyday, if you can't kill it with a single volley bring more arties. Those are already the reason why beams and rails are total crap atm.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#103 - 2013-07-18 20:17:53 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Heavy Missiles were previously so powerful because there was no short range medium missile weapon system. The introduction of HAMs changed that, but they were bad and heavy missiles still too good, thus the combo buff/nerf to distinguish them from each other more.

HMs retain the classic missile advantages over guns of being "immune" to tracking (you can't get an advantage over them by simply getting in close) and static damage profile (I do the same DPS at 0km as at 60km). I'll need to dig into numbers once someone gets EFT updated, but HMs are probably still just fine in comparison to the new long range guns for those reasons.


I disagree, if you plug in current TQ numbers into EFT you'll see that HML ships are already less dps than an equivalent beam-fitted ship and to a lesser extent rail-fitted. For example, the harbinger navy issue and drake have similar dps bonuses and both fit 6 turret/launchers so I plugged them into EFT. With all lvl 5's, 4 heat sinks/bcs, and T2 weapons/ammo, and no implants I'm getting 610 dps for the harbinger and 508 for the drake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would argue that the advantages you cite are already baked into the current TQ numbers, now with a 20% buff beams/rails/arties will pull even further ahead.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#104 - 2013-07-18 20:21:42 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Heavy Missiles were previously so powerful because there was no short range medium missile weapon system. The introduction of HAMs changed that, but they were bad and heavy missiles still too good, thus the combo buff/nerf to distinguish them from each other more.

HMs retain the classic missile advantages over guns of being "immune" to tracking (you can't get an advantage over them by simply getting in close) and static damage profile (I do the same DPS at 0km as at 60km). I'll need to dig into numbers once someone gets EFT updated, but HMs are probably still just fine in comparison to the new long range guns for those reasons.


I disagree, if you plug in current TQ numbers into EFT you'll see that HML ships are already less dps than an equivalent beam-fitted ship and to a lesser extent rail-fitted. For example, the harbinger navy issue and drake have similar dps bonuses and both fit 6 turret/launchers so I plugged them into EFT. With all lvl 5's, 4 heat sinks/bcs, and T2 weapons/ammo, and no implants I'm getting 610 dps for the harbinger and 508 for the drake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would argue that the advantages you cite are already baked into the current TQ numbers, now with a 20% buff beams/rails/arties will pull even further ahead.
You realize that dps on paper isn't necessarily what you actually get? Things like tracking, sig radius, ship speed, etc. all come into play. HMLs hit with their full damage regardless if you're close or far, if your Drake is flying around, etc.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#105 - 2013-07-18 20:25:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Akimo Heth
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Heavy Missiles were previously so powerful because there was no short range medium missile weapon system. The introduction of HAMs changed that, but they were bad and heavy missiles still too good, thus the combo buff/nerf to distinguish them from each other more.

HMs retain the classic missile advantages over guns of being "immune" to tracking (you can't get an advantage over them by simply getting in close) and static damage profile (I do the same DPS at 0km as at 60km). I'll need to dig into numbers once someone gets EFT updated, but HMs are probably still just fine in comparison to the new long range guns for those reasons.


I disagree, if you plug in current TQ numbers into EFT you'll see that HML ships are already less dps than an equivalent beam-fitted ship and to a lesser extent rail-fitted. For example, the harbinger navy issue and drake have similar dps bonuses and both fit 6 turret/launchers so I plugged them into EFT. With all lvl 5's, 4 heat sinks/bcs, and T2 weapons/ammo, and no implants I'm getting 610 dps for the harbinger and 508 for the drake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would argue that the advantages you cite are already baked into the current TQ numbers, now with a 20% buff beams/rails/arties will pull even further ahead.
You realize that dps on paper isn't necessarily what you actually get? Things like tracking, sig radius, ship speed, etc. all come into play. HMLs hit with their full damage regardless if you're close or far, if your Drake is flying around, etc.


Please read more carefully, I said those advantages are already baked into the TQ numbers (and HML's don't hit for full damage regardless of range, they're damage just isn't affected by range, there's a difference). A beam fitted ship with same bonuses and turret count is 20% greater dps than HML ship ALREADY, with the upcoming changes they'll be way ahead.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#106 - 2013-07-18 20:41:38 UTC
Akimo Heth wrote:
Maximus Andendare wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Heavy Missiles were previously so powerful because there was no short range medium missile weapon system. The introduction of HAMs changed that, but they were bad and heavy missiles still too good, thus the combo buff/nerf to distinguish them from each other more.

HMs retain the classic missile advantages over guns of being "immune" to tracking (you can't get an advantage over them by simply getting in close) and static damage profile (I do the same DPS at 0km as at 60km). I'll need to dig into numbers once someone gets EFT updated, but HMs are probably still just fine in comparison to the new long range guns for those reasons.


I disagree, if you plug in current TQ numbers into EFT you'll see that HML ships are already less dps than an equivalent beam-fitted ship and to a lesser extent rail-fitted. For example, the harbinger navy issue and drake have similar dps bonuses and both fit 6 turret/launchers so I plugged them into EFT. With all lvl 5's, 4 heat sinks/bcs, and T2 weapons/ammo, and no implants I'm getting 610 dps for the harbinger and 508 for the drake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would argue that the advantages you cite are already baked into the current TQ numbers, now with a 20% buff beams/rails/arties will pull even further ahead.
You realize that dps on paper isn't necessarily what you actually get? Things like tracking, sig radius, ship speed, etc. all come into play. HMLs hit with their full damage regardless if you're close or far, if your Drake is flying around, etc.


Please read more carefully, I said those advantages are already baked into the TQ numbers (and HML's don't hit for full damage regardless of range, they're damage just isn't affected by range, there's a difference). A beam fitted ship with same bonuses and turret count is 20% greater dps than HML ship ALREADY, with the upcoming changes they'll be way ahead.



This is true. However, the general consense is 'Turret DPS > Missile DPS' already. You can see it on frigates for example, even damage heavy rocket ships have laughable dps compared to turret ships. This is because of the damage application. A Missile will always hit, unless the target is out of max range, or too fast for the missile to catch up. Then it's damage applied is calculated based on stats like sig, speed, explosion radius, explosion velocity and damage reduction factor.

It is true that medium long range turret platforms will deal significantly more damage than heavy missiles are doing, but only if they actually track the target. which usually is 15-20km and above. Everytime something comes in close, their applied dps drops incredibly fast to... zero.

It's a tradeoff. And it has to be attractive so people make the choice. Heavy Missiles aren't as good as they were before. But they're ... not bad right now. However, Medium Rails and Medium Beams are just incredibly useless. Medium rails have so anemic damage that it's just sad. Medium Beams have the same issue. Medium Arties are the only kinda okayish medium lr-weapon system, and they definately can use the RoF bonus. Keep in mind, all these weapon systems will lose significantly on damage application because of the reduced tracking.
Pinky Feldman
Perkone
Caldari State
#107 - 2013-07-18 20:42:49 UTC
As has been said already, medium beams really need some cap love similar to the one that large beams got. The smaller cap reservoir and cap boosters that cruisers get compared to BS really kills any viability.

The tracking of long range medium guns is no doubt better than long range ones, but the practical ability to apply damage is still mediocre compared to long range tier 3 platforms.

Also, the Talwar graph is meaningless as an exercise in tracking, since the Talos DPS difference at 40-60km is being influenced more heavily by the optimal+falloff of Neutrons with Null compared to 250mm rails with Antimrather than tracking.


Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#108 - 2013-07-18 20:49:20 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Akimo Heth wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Heavy Missiles were previously so powerful because there was no short range medium missile weapon system. The introduction of HAMs changed that, but they were bad and heavy missiles still too good, thus the combo buff/nerf to distinguish them from each other more.

HMs retain the classic missile advantages over guns of being "immune" to tracking (you can't get an advantage over them by simply getting in close) and static damage profile (I do the same DPS at 0km as at 60km). I'll need to dig into numbers once someone gets EFT updated, but HMs are probably still just fine in comparison to the new long range guns for those reasons.


I disagree, if you plug in current TQ numbers into EFT you'll see that HML ships are already less dps than an equivalent beam-fitted ship and to a lesser extent rail-fitted. For example, the harbinger navy issue and drake have similar dps bonuses and both fit 6 turret/launchers so I plugged them into EFT. With all lvl 5's, 4 heat sinks/bcs, and T2 weapons/ammo, and no implants I'm getting 610 dps for the harbinger and 508 for the drake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would argue that the advantages you cite are already baked into the current TQ numbers, now with a 20% buff beams/rails/arties will pull even further ahead.

You are wrong.*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

For a start, good luck fitting 4 BCSs on a navy drake and still fitting a tank. But even if you did, you are looking at 362 dps at 94km with faction, 424 dps at 71km with fury. For a navy harbinger, you are looking at 522dps at 23km with scorch, 239 dps at 48km with faction radio and beams, 332 dps at 54km with aurora. Either way, both your dps and your max range is superior with hml, and you don't have to account for tracking.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Edit: You were talking about normal drake not navy drake. For the standard drake, you are looking at 407 dps at 63km with faction, and 478 dps at 47km with fury. This of course locks you into kinetic damage, other damage types are worse. Faction still does more dps at a longer range than the longest ranged beam ammo, and fury does twice the dps of the ammo type that operates at the same max range.

tl:dr heavy missiles are fine, *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Alsyth
#109 - 2013-07-18 21:01:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Alsyth
Ok, so for you 552 < 424 ? Impressive. And you purposefully forgot hi damage ammo for beams...
And what about hitting frigs at 100% damage at 30km as soon as they don't get good transversal? That's what you get with guns.
When a missile boat would need them to stop their ship entirely while keeping the Mwd on to do full damage? Especially if you use fury.
Why are missile boats never used in incursions (except cruise and then again they are not optimal)?

Mind you I fly all races, hac 5, all medium sized weapon systems, in pvp and pve and... If you fail to see how bad hml are atm that's either because you don't use them or because you are blinded by your hate for missiles and don't want anyone to use them.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#110 - 2013-07-18 21:03:43 UTC
Alsyth wrote:
Ok, so for you 552 < 424 ? Impressive.
And what about hitting frigs at 100% damage at 30km as soon as they don't get good transversal? That's what you get with guns.
When a missile boat would need them to stop their ship entirely while keeping the Mwd on to do full damage? Especially if you use fury.
Why are missile boats never used in incursions (except cruise and then again they are not optimal)?

Mind you I fly all races, hac 5, all medium sized weapon systems, in pvp and pve and... If you fail to see how bad hml are atm that's either because you don't use them or because you are blinded by your hate for missiles and don't want anyone to use them.

You are comparing the dps you can apply at <23km with that you can apply at 2-3 times the range. Comparing apples and oranges here. Thats like me complaining that rail dps is too low because blasters do more dps - it's ********.
Vic Teishikuro
Tactical Chaos Corp
#111 - 2013-07-18 21:08:18 UTC
I will also ask the Question when will we see a missle balance/ buff aswell.

after these changes come out the drake will offically be dead.

Heavy missles need love,

THe recent Cruiser missle buff didnt effect the other however many missles types
CCP add missles into this Balance please


Rails will might be hit too hard with a -15% reducation to traking. I think -10% is enough if not less.
Alsyth
#112 - 2013-07-18 21:09:34 UTC
Had you not purposefully forgotten hi damage ammo for beams, your post might have made sense...

You obviously don't fly missiles, or you'd know how bad they are. That's all. Or maybe you only use Tengu, the single ship making hml worth it?
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#113 - 2013-07-18 21:13:40 UTC
Alsyth wrote:
Had you not purposefully forgotten hi damage ammo for beams, your post might have made sense...

You obviously don't fly missiles, or you'd know how bad they are. That's all. Or maybe you only use Tengu, the single ship making hml worth it?



YOu obviously haven't tried medium rails or beams or you'd love your Heavy Missiles.
Akimo Heth
State War Academy
Caldari State
#114 - 2013-07-18 21:14:14 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Arkon Olacar wrote:
Akimo Heth wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Heavy Missiles were previously so powerful because there was no short range medium missile weapon system. The introduction of HAMs changed that, but they were bad and heavy missiles still too good, thus the combo buff/nerf to distinguish them from each other more.

HMs retain the classic missile advantages over guns of being "immune" to tracking (you can't get an advantage over them by simply getting in close) and static damage profile (I do the same DPS at 0km as at 60km). I'll need to dig into numbers once someone gets EFT updated, but HMs are probably still just fine in comparison to the new long range guns for those reasons.


I disagree, if you plug in current TQ numbers into EFT you'll see that HML ships are already less dps than an equivalent beam-fitted ship and to a lesser extent rail-fitted. For example, the harbinger navy issue and drake have similar dps bonuses and both fit 6 turret/launchers so I plugged them into EFT. With all lvl 5's, 4 heat sinks/bcs, and T2 weapons/ammo, and no implants I'm getting 610 dps for the harbinger and 508 for the drake. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would argue that the advantages you cite are already baked into the current TQ numbers, now with a 20% buff beams/rails/arties will pull even further ahead.

You are wrong.*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

For a start, good luck fitting 4 BCSs on a navy drake and still fitting a tank. But even if you did, you are looking at 362 dps at 94km with faction, 424 dps at 71km with fury. For a navy harbinger, you are looking at 522dps at 23km with scorch, 239 dps at 48km with faction radio and beams, 332 dps at 54km with aurora. Either way, both your dps and your max range is superior with hml, and you don't have to account for tracking.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal

Edit: You were talking about normal drake not navy drake. For the standard drake, you are looking at 407 dps at 63km with faction, and 478 dps at 47km with fury. This of course locks you into kinetic damage, other damage types are worse. Faction still does more dps at a longer range than the longest ranged beam ammo, and fury does twice the dps of the ammo type that operates at the same max range.

tl:dr heavy missiles are fine, *Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal


I fit the 4 BCS/heat sinks for the sake of example to keep them equal.

HML's range is supposedly already balanced because of the explosion radius/velocity difference (scourge furies have very low exp velocities so they're almost never hitting for full damage), whereas guns can pop frig's quite easily for full damage at long ranges/low traversals. Also, HML's don't have any mods to modify their range or exp sigs/vels, only rigs.

I don't have a problem with current TQ damage numbers, but signficantly buffing other long range weapons by 20% creates an imbalance in my opinion.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#115 - 2013-07-18 21:23:21 UTC
Alsyth wrote:
Had you not purposefully forgotten hi damage ammo for beams, your post might have made sense...

You obviously don't fly missiles, or you'd know how bad they are. That's all. Or maybe you only use Tengu, the single ship making hml worth it?

582 dps at a masive 7.5km optimal, with 10km falloff. Completely comparably to missiles that hit at 60km+ amirite?

@Akimo: right now the only medium weapon types that are viable are the alpha of arties, and pulses with scorch. Pretty much everything else needs a buff to make them viable, HMLs, HAMs and ACs are simply the least bad out of the remaining weapon types. Even with the changes, HMLs will still out dps all other long range turret types once you get into that 40-60km sweet spot for missiles. The tracking nerfs make the difference between paper dps and applied dps for these turrets comes more into line with the gap between the two for missiles due to explosion velocity.
Alsyth
#116 - 2013-07-18 21:27:22 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Alsyth wrote:
Had you not purposefully forgotten hi damage ammo for beams, your post might have made sense...

You obviously don't fly missiles, or you'd know how bad they are. That's all. Or maybe you only use Tengu, the single ship making hml worth it?



YOu obviously haven't tried medium rails or beams or you'd love your Heavy Missiles.


Mind you, I'd take a beam zealot any day over a hml Cerberus, and that's because of the weapon system.
I admit med rails need the buff, but if hml do not get one too, I will never even consider hml drake and will take beam harbinger or rail Brutix instead. Nighthawk? No thanks, I'll take a rail Astarte... The list goes on. Caracal? With rapid light why not, with hml never.

I used to fly hml a lot before the nerf. They were indeed much better than medium long range guns at that time, but the nerf was much too strong: damage AND explosion radius/velocity AND range. Really?
They went from best (for damage at 25+km on destroyer and bigger) to plain worse in almost any situation.

And now, medium long range turrets get a buff they really deserve (though arties deserve more imo), but hml need to get one too.
Pinky Feldman
Perkone
Caldari State
#117 - 2013-07-18 21:50:05 UTC
Kesi Raae wrote:
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.


The issue is this. Functionally, the rail platforms are already pretty close to laser platforms, if not better. When I can just throw on a TC with a speed script to make up for the tracking difference since i'm not being forced to fit a mandatory cap booster just to fire my guns, why would I use beams over rails?

A cargohold with ammo is cheaper and lasts me more reliably through fights than a carghold full of cap boosters and crystals.

Mole Guy
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2013-07-18 22:01:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mole Guy
the power requirements on the beam weapons need to be looked at. they are steep ALL the way across the ship range.

also, i think we need to "rethink" the dual weapons role to begin with.

think of it this way:

its 2 smaller frig weapons mounted on a cruiser platform.
take the cruiser dual. its a medium weapon in theory...but in actuality, its just 2 smaller, frig sized weapons mounted together.
it should have slightly better tracking than a frig light weapon because it has more power (cruiser power grid) to move the platform they are mounted on.

it should have the same ROF, slightly better tracking, same range/fall off but double frig weapon damage.
they should use more power grid than frig weapons, but not close to normal "medium" weapons.
they should also have the sig radius of the smaller weapons. remember, they are smaller weapons, just 2 of them.

if i want to deck out a cruiser as an anti frig platform, i drop to double frig weapons.

i know, you say "use a destroyer"... but i want cruiser size and durability. bring dual frig weapons AND arties.
destroyers use multiple frig weapons. great, but they cant use multiple cruiser weapons. what if we have a cruiser roam and dont know if we are fighting frigs or something larger? i would bring a muninn with both arties and dual 280mm's. then,
we would get the range and tracking bonus from the muninn with the 280's. but it would still be a cruiser platform.

the bs sized dual medium weapons should be the same way...2x cruiser weapon.
it doesnt matter if we are talking about dual heavy pulse or dual 250 rail. short or long range doesnt matter.

it would bring cruisers back into the lime light. it would make them REALLY useful.
it would make cruisers anti-frig as well as anti-cruiser+ with a small change in guns.

i think they should actually use small ammo as well. they are not cruiser weapons. they are multiple frig weapons mounted up.

we used them alot in WWII and before. ive seen 2 AND 4 .50 cal machines guns mounted together as anti-air craft or anti-small boat. these should be the same.

frig weapons that gain the bonuses of cruiser mounts.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#119 - 2013-07-18 22:10:07 UTC
so, how are these new improved medium long range weapons comparing to close range weapons in terms of dps? I've not gotten a chance to plug in new variables to eft yet.
Sarkelias Anophius
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2013-07-18 22:17:04 UTC
Rough estimate based on previous fittings puts the Deimos at a healthy 500+ dps @ 16+40ish, rail Proteus at > 700dps @ 22+29. All figures depend on tracking/range mods and my memory, of course. I can't be bothered to use beams so I dunno about those.