These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#161 - 2013-07-19 14:19:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
And these changes aren't making LR weapon HACs any better or better choice than ABCs but they will have some uses.


HACs, on their own? Maybe, maybe not. But they are still the pre-alpha, the starting point for discussion, as Rise mentioned. Hence why this discussion is so important.



Indeed but for what we can read all around everyone has his version of what HACs/SACs are meant to be, which clearly demonstrates ther is no real defined role for T2 assault cruisers in between T1 versions and ABC's, meanwhile HAC/SAC are supposed to be SPECIALIZED ships.

My question after T1 cruisers rebalance, after ABCs rebalance is, and legitimate I think: what are AHAC/SHAC supposed to be specialized at?
Being expensive with no real benefit over T1 versions nor good enough to compete with ABC's? -what's the point?

Of course this is only my version and vision of AHAC's/SHAC's but ihmo for a very specialized ship they need to get the special role they're meant to and most important the tools to achieve their task:

-be dam fast with a nasty small signature and tank (via resist profile), 0 sign bloom when MWD or change bonus to 100% AB speed eventually even bigger to catch MWD speeds

-deliver average 650dps at least (BC dps for a T2 specialized cruiser isn't OP) with in disruption/web range without requiring additional range modules

-get a 3rd rig slot !! this is clearly important and there's no reason they shouldn't have it to increase the interest over T1's

With these changes the natural way to balance those bonus is to force those ships to resist profile tank rather than buffer

->very small signature with good speed and nasty resist profile and only after------->DPS


Only my opinion of course

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

I'm Down
Perkone
Caldari State
#162 - 2013-07-19 14:50:21 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
All the issues brought up in this thread by this "balance" are exactly why you have to hit the tracking formula.

You simply cannot keep tweaking damage because at some point, you paint yourself into a corner.

Quote:
Rails that have worse tracking than artilleries
Rails that have better dps than blasters or pulses.
Beam Legions and Proteus that have near broken dps statistics.
Missile nerfs coming back to haunt you.




You can't continue down this road. Please just enhance the tracking formula to create balance within gun classes by varying the ranges they excel.

It's so simple:

Create a % modifier on all guns that affects Sig Resolution at range. Create higher modifiers for Artilleries and Pulse.

Create medium modifiers for Autocannons and Beams.

Create Low modifiers for blasters and Rails.

This way, you create zones of engagement where everything performs better than others. Rails now have tracking modified advantages at longer ranges and you can change range ammo to help also account for this. But nerf their tracking in close due to this modifier being built in for range engagements only.

Autocannons get a medium Modifier because they have falloff already affect them at range. This also means you can return them to pre TE nerf ranges so that they get more range, but bigger drop offs. I see pulses and beam balance in that pulses have higher tracking, beams have higher range potential, but both excel in mid ranges. Ultimately it's a tradeoff of which side is needed more. Beams might actually get a slightly higher advantage in modified tracking due to sig after 50km in this area so that pulses can't dominate the field always.

Make pulses and artilleries have high modifiers so that pulses don't have huge advantages at range over any other weapon system and Artlleries still thump, but struggle at any range to actually project their damage with diminished tracking abilities due to the sig mod.

It's the best option for balance for guns because it creates zones of variation where everything excels and damage is no longer a factor so much as tactics are. It also creates a need for the return of a variety of ships rather than uniform fleet concepts.

Then all you have to do is fix drones and Sentry carriers and wham.... weapon balance. No more stat tweaking, and more options for ship diversity.

JUST think, this opens up the door so that HACs can actually excel somewhere that ABCs cannot.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#163 - 2013-07-19 15:10:09 UTC
I was just EFTing, and you cannot fit an 800mm plate thorax with 200mm rails without investing in an ACR or some implants. It's the same for an 800mm plated 250mm rail deimos.
Also, this falloff bonus is stupid for railguns, adds less and less as you go up the ranges. Should switch all gallente range bonuses to optimal, then make blasters more optimally than falloffy.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#164 - 2013-07-19 15:21:46 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
I was just EFTing, and you cannot fit an 800mm plate thorax with 200mm rails without investing in an ACR or some implants. It's the same for an 800mm plated 250mm rail deimos.
Also, this falloff bonus is stupid for railguns, adds less and less as you go up the ranges. Should switch all gallente range bonuses to optimal, then make blasters more optimally than falloffy.



I can't completely agree with you because the dps potential with hybrids in fall off is clearly the best while increasing optimal would make them beams alike and wouldn't change much for blaster pilots the simple fact they are in scram web range to do any interesting dmg except large blasters being at the right spot.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

CannonFodder82
Dark EcheIon
#165 - 2013-07-19 15:46:24 UTC
i have sat and read this whole thread, im sitting here wondering if some of these people are playing the same game i am
Blastcaps Madullier
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2013-07-19 15:54:59 UTC
plenty have said since the last hybrid rebalance that the damage on medium rails needed looking at again, all can say is about bloody time :)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#167 - 2013-07-19 16:17:18 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
And these changes aren't making LR weapon HACs any better or better choice than ABCs but they will have some uses.


HACs, on their own? Maybe, maybe not. But they are still the pre-alpha, the starting point for discussion, as Rise mentioned. Hence why this discussion is so important.



Indeed but for what we can read all around everyone has his version of what HACs/SACs are meant to be, which clearly demonstrates ther is no real defined role for T2 assault cruisers in between T1 versions and ABC's, meanwhile HAC/SAC are supposed to be SPECIALIZED ships.

My question after T1 cruisers rebalance, after ABCs rebalance is, and legitimate I think: what are AHAC/SHAC supposed to be specialized at?
Being expensive with no real benefit over T1 versions nor good enough to compete with ABC's? -what's the point?

Of course this is only my version and vision of AHAC's/SHAC's but ihmo for a very specialized ship they need to get the special role they're meant to and most important the tools to achieve their task:

-be dam fast with a nasty small signature and tank (via resist profile), 0 sign bloom when MWD or change bonus to 100% AB speed eventually even bigger to catch MWD speeds

-deliver average 650dps at least (BC dps for a T2 specialized cruiser isn't OP) with in disruption/web range without requiring additional range modules

-get a 3rd rig slot !! this is clearly important and there's no reason they shouldn't have it to increase the interest over T1's

With these changes the natural way to balance those bonus is to force those ships to resist profile tank rather than buffer

->very small signature with good speed and nasty resist profile and only after------->DPS


Only my opinion of course


I'd have to say, my own analysis led to this conclusion as well. Hictors pretty much have the "tank" aspect covered, while ABCs have an unreachable monopoly on range and kiting. Range and kiting were pretty much what the HACs, at least the Zealot, which was the best one, used to do.

So, we cannot allow a ~60 mil isk ship with far fewer SP requirements to just outright invalidate an entire T2 ship class.

Thus, the niche that remains, is high dps close range tackling, with above average resiliency thanks to their high resist profile. Which is the direction I see them moving towards. I'd honestly say they aren't there yet, though.

We might consider tweaking their cost, because whether CCP likes it or not, to the players, cost is a factor. If I can buy 30+ Thorax for the price of a Deimos (even if it was any good), then you best believe I will buy up the Thoraxes instead. I'm not alone among players who enjoy cost effectiveness, and view it as a power all of it's own.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#168 - 2013-07-19 16:25:46 UTC
Urkhan Law wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Windman Advena wrote:
Rails and Beams DPS will be about 40% better then Artillery 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

When you are fightign larger ships.. DPS >>>>> ALPHA.


How medium arties are used at the moment, Lokis? Hurricanes?
Aren't they been used in a sort of "niche" combat only (certain fleet types in certain conditions) ?

It's an honest question, I only fly frigs (and badly), I really don't know the current application/meta of medium arties.
If one day I decide to upgrade to cruisers (solo - small gang low sec roamer), I really can't see why should I use them.


Bomber defense for larger fleets, mainly.

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.

Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#169 - 2013-07-19 16:31:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Crazy KSK
Harvey James wrote:
Crazy KSK wrote:
so why do med rails have less tracking then med arty? do you plan on changing that for all sizes?

also shield rail brutix now does more dps then armor blaster one \o/


really thats crazy i assume blasters with 2 mags against Rails with 3 mags?


4 mag stabs actually( 706vs679) with 3 its( 667vs679) 12dps less then the blaster one

Brutix, 250s shield_buffer wrote:

[Brutix, 250s shield_buffer]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Damage Control II

Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Warp Disruptor II

NEW 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
NEW 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
NEW 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
NEW 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
NEW 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
NEW 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
[empty high slot]

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x5

Brutix, mixed_blasters higher_tank armor_buffer wrote:

[Brutix, mixed_blasters higher_tank armor_buffer]
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
[empty high slot]

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I


Hammerhead II x5


PS: full ion brutix need 1%pg implant and I don't like opening that can of worms that's why it looks like that

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.

Shahai Shintaro
Caldari Manufacturing and Design
#170 - 2013-07-19 16:47:58 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:

Also, this falloff bonus is stupid for railguns, adds less and less as you go up the ranges. Should switch all gallente range bonuses to optimal, then make blasters more optimally than falloffy.


I think that's the point and the difference between a gallente hybrid boat and a Caldari one. The gallente boat is designed to be strapped with blasters hence falloff and tracking bonuses while the Caldari boats are designed for rails and hence get optimal bonuses
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#171 - 2013-07-19 17:18:23 UTC
When are you fixing Quad Light Beam Lasers? The damage buff to them is nice, but they really need to be made a pulse laser, or given quite a bit more tracking to have them viable as close-range weapons, since they're basically blaster-range lasers WITHOUT the latter's tracking. :(
Max Zerg
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2013-07-19 17:49:19 UTC
Dear CCP Rise,

being rather noob Gallente pilot i can speak only about Rails

1) they are not of any use when fast enemy ships are closer than 15-18 km
what distances they would be useful after reballancing ?

2) +15% ROF for me means -15% capacitor recharge rate, am i corrrect?
this would result in using Vexors as pure dorone boats with no guns
Myrmidons may use projectiles. What do you think about cap stable PVE Vexor?
How do i fit rails to Vexor ? Requirements to learn Capacitor skills and Controlled Bursts
to 5 and plug in +5 Control Bursts slot 10 implnat are somewhat tough for newb, aren't they ?
So what about newbie PVE Vexor's pilots, any ideas, please?

( i realize that with your "ALL 5" you do not think about noobs, this is why i'd like to remind you about the difficulties new players may experience with lack of capacitor for "upgraded" railguns )

Thanks
Merii Kha'sen
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#173 - 2013-07-19 17:51:21 UTC
Given this buff, Heavy Missiles also need to be brought back in line with the long range turrets to make sure they stay competitive, especially given that they have flight time.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#174 - 2013-07-19 18:05:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
Urkhan Law wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Windman Advena wrote:
Rails and Beams DPS will be about 40% better then Artillery 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

When you are fightign larger ships.. DPS >>>>> ALPHA.


How medium arties are used at the moment, Lokis? Hurricanes?
Aren't they been used in a sort of "niche" combat only (certain fleet types in certain conditions) ?

It's an honest question, I only fly frigs (and badly), I really don't know the current application/meta of medium arties.
If one day I decide to upgrade to cruisers (solo - small gang low sec roamer), I really can't see why should I use them.


Bomber defense for larger fleets, mainly.



Some null entities like Hydra BL and actually many other gangs use arty Cyna gangs and have an impressive success rate, most used are of course Cynabals but also Munins supported by anti tackle SFIs and they can mess up pretty much larger gang groups quite easily.

Of course the specific ships bonus helps those arties work like a charm and when you have enough numbers (20/25 ships including 1/2 logi scout bbler and anti tackle like SFI) those do really nasty things and are very hard to catch if the FC is as good has some Hydra dudes (always awesome to fight them, always learning stuff) -Elo Knight is not Hydra member but he's a dam good FC at this kind of stuff even if I haven't crossed his road doing this for a while.

Edit: actually after the proliferation of sniping ABCs these groups are less and less seen all over the place but when they do it always finishes with lots of blood and dead corpses all over the place.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#175 - 2013-07-19 18:11:10 UTC
Merii Kha'sen wrote:
Given this buff, Heavy Missiles also need to be brought back in line with the long range turrets to make sure they stay competitive, especially given that they have flight time.



I'm saying this since the beginning of this thread, HM's are now uninteresting as hell, after turrets rebalance HM's will be of no interest at all.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#176 - 2013-07-19 18:13:15 UTC
Shahai Shintaro wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:

Also, this falloff bonus is stupid for railguns, adds less and less as you go up the ranges. Should switch all gallente range bonuses to optimal, then make blasters more optimally than falloffy.


I think that's the point and the difference between a gallente hybrid boat and a Caldari one. The gallente boat is designed to be strapped with blasters hence falloff and tracking bonuses while the Caldari boats are designed for rails and hence get optimal bonuses



The deimos is quite clearly NOT designed to be strapped with blasters.. Its pretty awful at it.

Not that its amazing at rails, like trouser said, its fittings can't accommodate armor tanking and rails. Also its slow.. Bringing us back to the Why the **** is the Vaga so fast compared to the deimos thing.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Serenity Zipher
#177 - 2013-07-19 18:24:23 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Merii Kha'sen wrote:
Given this buff, Heavy Missiles also need to be brought back in line with the long range turrets to make sure they stay competitive, especially given that they have flight time.



I'm saying this since the beginning of this thread, HM's are now uninteresting as hell, after turrets rebalance HM's will be of no interest at all.


Tech 2 HM's were the first weapon system I trained for in eve. On my Damnation with 3 ballistic controls 2's and all support skills to 4 , I only get 236.9 DPS. I wish i trained for HAM's now What?
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#178 - 2013-07-19 18:34:39 UTC
Serenity Zipher wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Merii Kha'sen wrote:
Given this buff, Heavy Missiles also need to be brought back in line with the long range turrets to make sure they stay competitive, especially given that they have flight time.



I'm saying this since the beginning of this thread, HM's are now uninteresting as hell, after turrets rebalance HM's will be of no interest at all.


Tech 2 HM's were the first weapon system I trained for in eve. On my Damnation with 3 ballistic controls 2's and all support skills to 4 , I only get 236.9 DPS. I wish i trained for HAM's now What?



The major problem of this weapon system came with little changes, not game ones but players choices.

The proliferation of HM Drakes and after Tengus fleets only put on the spotlight what was going wrong with HM's: the ridiculous flight time and explosion radius.

Thing is that not only those were nerf at reasonable numbers but on top their dps got nerf which results in even less applied DPS than paper numbers.
DPS loss+explo radius nerf brought an even higher nerf when the dps numbers at that time were acceptable considering the loss due to missile mechanic changes.

Since then we've seen T1 cruisers and BC's changes hit, ship bonus changes and now turrets changes and I'm pretty sure HM's will be the most uninteresting weapon system to use if used at all and this not because HAM's became too strong but only because HM's got a higher nerf then they needed.

I don't want to see again 100MN AB Tengus shooting HMs at stupid ranges, hell implement a stupid variable in 100MN ABs "can't be fit on T3's" but HM's need right now a little 3% dmg increase imho but after turrets rebalance it will be around 20%.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Baren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2013-07-19 19:19:27 UTC
Soo

CCP I Dont Think That Your "Band-Aid" Solutions Will Work This Time

It Is Time To Fix How turrets use Sig and Tracking

I still Dont See Why People Will not Just use ABC's


Missle's Need to be added to this balance.

Missles were nerfed and Once this update comes, they will be soo far behind.
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#180 - 2013-07-19 19:38:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobias Hareka
Baren wrote:
It Is Time To Fix How turrets use Sig and Tracking


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT8VqVcLDqc

Quote:
ABC's


Astarte, Brutix, Celestis?
That's interesting setup...

Quote:
Missle's Need to be added to this balance.

Missles were nerfed and Once this update comes, they will be soo far behind.[/b]


Missiles are fine. Well, defenders need some work.