These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Hybrid buff: No love for hybrid ammo?

Author
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2011-10-28 13:40:54 UTC
current test server stats aren't final.



also, blasters need a damage boost. ammo changes, while a good idea, still irks me because it could make blasters something like AC Mk.II, with a bit shorter range and no damage selection.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#22 - 2011-10-28 13:50:30 UTC
I don't think any kind of hybrid changes would be enough to make people from Echelon Rising actually shoot at people.

But jesus, remove the tracking penalty from void already.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#23 - 2011-10-28 14:22:05 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
current test server stats aren't final.



also, blasters need a damage boost. ammo changes, while a good idea, still irks me because it could make blasters something like AC Mk.II, with a bit shorter range and no damage selection.


CCP does not need to do a mirror image of projectile ammo when redoing hybrid... Think outside the box man...


Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#24 - 2011-10-28 14:53:58 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I don't think any kind of hybrid changes would be enough to make people from Echelon Rising actually shoot at people.

But jesus, remove the tracking penalty from void already.

This. They removed the tracking penalty from a bunch of the other t2 short range ammo, why not the one on the weapon system everyone's dying to see buffed?
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2011-10-28 16:36:55 UTC
I posted this in another thread which actually to discuss all of the proposed changes in the next release. My gripe is specifically about hybrids so I figured I sohuld put it here as well.

Magosian wrote:
If I read the data right, the summary of proposed changes by CCP to make hybrids viable includes:

-making Gallente ships slightly faster (which are still considerably slower than anything sporting autos)
-reducing cap requirements per shot (although autos still require no cap)
-tweaking fitting requirements for hybrids (what??)
-slightly increasing railgun damage (yet range wasn't addressed, hybrids as a whole are still ineffective, thus unappealing)

Projectiles will remain vastly superior. Why? Artillery provides alpha, which further provides the pilot and his friends with extra planning dynamics, such as alpha fleets and suicide ganking. Autocannons are not the kings of dps, but this is often overshadowed due to the flexibility in choosing three of the four damage types available through changing ammunition. Projectiles altogether do not require cap, making them a viable choice for any ship or fleet who relies heavily on buffer tanks or to those who would be otherwise concerned about cap restrictions.

Lasers, while not quite as grandios as projectiles, have enough benefits to also put them significantly above hybrids in terms of preference and effectiveness. Scorch crystals provide what is largely considered the most effective t2 ammo in the game. The instant swapping of crystals only plays to the advantage scorch provides: a very high and linear rate of damage can be applied at ranges outside the norm of short range turrets. Should anything close the gap, the ability to swap from scorch to conflag/faction-multi is HUGE, allowing [pulse] laser turrets the incredible capability to change its effectiveness and dictating combat dynamics instantly. Just as important, lasers happen to have the most significant relationship to racial ship type, as Amarr vessels specialize in armor tanking. Armor is significantly better than shields for large engagements simply because augmented armor buffers often double the effective hitpoints of their shield counterparts. This alone makes lasers the weapon of choice for large fleet engagements. Scorch and instant ammo swapping is just icing on the cake.

So, what does this all mean?

In my eyes, hybrids will still be the red-headed step-child of turrets because they do not answer fundamental questions when fitting ships and planning for combat. Some of those more common questions are below:

alpha? projectiles (artillery)
reducing cap usage? projectiles
flexible damage types? projectiles
compliment/negate neutalizers/repair? projectiles
capital turrets? lasers
prolonged sieging/fleeting? lasers
least logistical headaches? lasers

Specifically speaking to the changes proposed in the OP's link, I get a strong impression CCP still does not understand the underlying weaknesses of hybrids. They are:

-Blasters need to be practical. They either need improved ranges which will allow them to compete with autos and "scorch'd" pulses or they need to be on the fastest ships. It's that simple.

-Railguns, and to a certain degree blasters, need something which fits a niche. Most of the questions every pilot/gang/fleet asks themselves when fitting a ship is, how is using weapon-type X going to give me an advantage on the field? In most cases (shown above), the answer is amost always projectiles or lasers. Hybrids need to be the answer to at least a couple of these questions. Presently, they do not.

Razor Blue
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-10-28 17:48:44 UTC
Maybe reduce range selection and add explosive dmg to some ammo. After all projectiles and railguns arent that different, they both fire slugs at high velocities. Turret signature resolution modifier perhaps, could be difficult to balance though.

Is CCP given any though of looking at T1 hybrid ammo?
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#27 - 2011-10-29 03:24:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
I think void needs both the range buffed and tracking increased. As is, fednav will out-dps it at any useful range, including optimal in most cases...you have to have both ships nearly sitting still for it to be any use. Or shoot at a cap ship....

thhief ghabmoef

Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2011-10-29 11:36:24 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
current test server stats aren't final.



also, blasters need a damage boost. ammo changes, while a good idea, still irks me because it could make blasters something like AC Mk.II, with a bit shorter range and no damage selection.


CCP does not need to do a mirror image of projectile ammo when redoing hybrid... Think outside the box man...





it's CCP we're talking aboutBlink

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Hamatitio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2011-10-30 15:47:26 UTC
I'd like to see something unique for the t2 ammo, like as it hits shields it can penetrate to armor, or it can neut cap with each shot. Something to make me actually choose a hybrid weapon when i need the given advantage.

Oh and as a blaster boat lover, I've never stopped complaining about scorch ;)
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#30 - 2011-10-30 16:56:21 UTC
Here's a crazy thought. Imagine a game where the stats of Blasters and Autocannons were swapped. Minmatar had the high damage knife weapon. Gallente were fighting from falloff distance with large drone bays in support as well as heavy armour. Visual graphics, audio effects, and cap useage were swapped. Autocannons would be a "very primitive weapon system capable of high damage but only from close range" while Blasters would be spray and pray pew pew. I'm not suggesting we do this - but just imagine.

We would not be having any of this discussion about Blasters. Noone would doubt Minmatar's ability to actually get in range and apply that damage. We would not be discussing 'more tracking' or 'more damage' or more anything for that matter. Small, fast ships equipped with short range weapons and an inferior tank. Some Drones. Do I commit to go in or run? Versus slower, armoured ships with large drone bays and significant range. It would be - (gasp) - balanced.

Now this would appeal to a new person entering the game but not to older players who trained for a completely different experience. My point is this: If you have the shortest range weapon system in the game you should have the fastest ships. Period. End of story. Attach whatever caveats to that you'd like - such as less agility. Until the Gallente can actually go faster then FOTY Minmatar boosting blasters won't help.
Shayla Sh'inlux
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2011-10-30 17:18:10 UTC
Quote:

current test server stats aren't final.


In the history of this game, "preliminary" test server stats have more often than not been the final stats.

I think it's pretty safe to assume the stats as they are now will be the final stats that go live on TQ and thus Hybrids and Gallente hulls will remain mostly useless and there is still zero need to regret training projectiles.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#32 - 2011-10-30 23:15:55 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Here's a crazy thought. Imagine a game where the stats of Blasters and Autocannons were swapped. Minmatar had the high damage knife weapon.



Well, I don't need to imagine. There's already a faction cruiser that gives some insight on this subject (minus overwhelming damage). How this armour plated faction cruiser set-up interacts with other ships and setups in our current enviroment. Would suggest a increase in velocity and a slight increase in damage isn't enough.

This cruiser is able to do; 500 damage per second, cruising @ 1,735 meters a second and has 43,000 effective hit points. It's damage projection is limited to under 10,000 meters. It does all this with a 1600mm armor plate. Said cruiser has one advantage over most armor tanked ships and that's high mobility. (It's better able to avoid engagements (gate camp for pretty much).)

However, It's limited to engaging close range. So, even a armour tanked Omen Navy Issue by comparison. Would be better @ dealing with numbers, even though it has a velocity of around 1300 meters a second (1600mm armour plate). So, no destroying orbiting frigates @ range and most effective guerilla tactics are not viable. In fact, engaging multiple frigates with-in this cruisers optimal range wouldn't be very effective (even though this ship has insane tracking).

The ship has to commit to a engagement, which cancels it's mobility advantage (what does it matter if you can't increase survivability?). My target selection is marginal and all the benifits of running away means nothing. Now, that I have to commit to apply damage. Unless I can micro warp drive out of scram range, while being engaged by multiple ships (gank/blob/ecm). (Stabber Fleet Issue)!?


Also, there's already a setup for the Mrymidon that has large defense and high damage output; 800 damage per second, 60,000 effective hit points and cruising around @ 1355 meters a second. You'd think there would be more of these around wouldn't you? I've flown said setup with blasters and autocannons. The setup has been around since the changes to stasis webifier (2009) and It's suppior to the shield-Brutix in every way. Only a Hurricane has more mobility (not much difference). Although, this setup has higher velocity than most other shield battlecruiser setups. I've had trouble with shield-Harbingers running away long enough for my defense advantage to be worth nothing. Drakes that are, 300 meters a second slower, are able to do the same and even if they cant. Still not a one sided engagement (even having 300 damage per second advantage). I'm not able to deal with frigates using warp disruptors @ range, bar drones (which is slow and often destroyed). This setup has most of the advatages of a shield-Hurricane, with regards to getting the f0ck out.

However, all the velocity here and there amounts to nothing when you have to commit to a engagement. You have no options once commited, but you have high damage and large defense (never seems enough to me). Only one thing could help it's survivablity (damage projection) and something else that CCP would never do (1000 - 1500 damage per second Brutix and Myrmidons, with tank (lol)). Now! Range would increase it's survivabilty and it does with a autocannon setup. Even though you give up mobility, by fitting 2 tracking enhancers. Your target selection increases and the ships survivablity.

With that said! I know no-one, who flys Gallente and who are good. Who have issues catching ships (including myself). It's everything else that can go wrong quickly (ecm, neut, gank/blob) that's the issue and if that's the case. Then it has everything to do with close-range pvp. I can use many examples and you can figure this out on your own by using these ships and setups. Even Minmatar ships when focused for close range suffer in our current enviroment. Either way, with higher velocity or damage (Serpentis). Once I commit to a engagement all I can do is shoot and hope this is not a trap or he's alone (and I never play this game thinking a pilot is alone or this is not a trap). So, all I could hope for is that I destroy one ship, while losing my own...


Close range pvp makes alot more sense in pvp and not in pvppp, which is what you have to deal with currently.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#33 - 2011-10-31 11:59:26 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
With that said! I know no-one, who flys Gallente and who are good.


You haven't met Baltec yet !

He's the king of blasters (with plenty minmatar ships webbing/scramming/remoting of course)


Lol

/tount off
Koniss
Advanced Technology
#34 - 2011-10-31 12:55:31 UTC
the only change i would make to hybrid ammo is make caldari faction charges do more kinetik damage like 70% kin and gallente charges do more thermal damage.

Previous page12