These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Hybrid weapon and Tech II ammo balancing

First post First post
Author
Dare Devel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#821 - 2011-11-03 23:28:10 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Speaking of rigs....

In the past, I almost never bother using hybrid weapon rigs, since the PG penalty on top of the high PG req of hybrids is severe - esp. on a gunboat with 5-8 PG hungry blasters or rails.

But, with the reduction in PG for hybrids, it looks like the gun rigs can be used more often now.

A quick EFT test of a T1 Hybrid Collision Accelerator on a old Brutix loadout, with seven T2 heavy neutrons, looks like it will add around 7% to the DPS. The T2 version looks to add around 11%.

Another quick EFT test on an old PVE mission rail loadout showed that the 30% cap reduction of hybrids allowed swapping a CCC rig for a HCA rig, one for one, boosting DPS while still remaining cap stable. Also, the T1 HCA rig is much cheaper than the T1 CCC rig - so, more bang for the buck.


Can your share your fit?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#822 - 2011-11-03 23:44:03 UTC
I am extremely skeptical of adding tracking over damage to blasters. It was never poor tracking that drove me to using Projectiles and then Lasers. It was damage. Blasters just don't have it. They also don't have range - so even should they have reasonable damage they just don't have the range for me to use it. I understand that the ship changes are intended to help alleviate that, but I remain skeptical.

I don't promise to whore this thread - send me a mail if you want me to expound on this.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Oxeu
Perkone
Caldari State
#823 - 2011-11-03 23:56:13 UTC
The issue to me seems you want blasters to be the king of short range dps, but auto cannons do that job better and at longer ranges.

I would sooner reduce blaster damage and give them a 10k optimal with short range ammo or something park them in between the auto cannons and the pulse lasers. Makes more sense to on slower ships.

But above all to me the fact is you got 1 gun type to many meaning it is hard to give it a job it is good at without over doing it or making other weapons seem pale.

Also rails need a lot more damage than just 10% their dps is pathetic and 10% to it makes it still worthless and really fine with your range talk, but not a soul in this damn game snipes from 150-250k away for all the right reasons. I would vote to reduce artillery cannons accuracy at ranges due it being a crude weapons, reduce rail range to and add to rail dps.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#824 - 2011-11-04 00:02:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Liang Nuren wrote:
I am extremely skeptical of adding tracking over damage to blasters. It was never poor tracking that drove me to using Projectiles and then Lasers. It was damage. Blasters just don't have it. They also don't have range - so even should they have reasonable damage they just don't have the range for me to use it. I understand that the ship changes are intended to help alleviate that, but I remain skeptical.

I don't promise to ***** this thread - send me a mail if you want me to expound on this.

-Liang


If you're web and manage to orbit blaster bs with your cane at 1.5km, he will almost never hit you, I consider this has serious tracking issue.

Everything other than frigates, webbed and under 10km should have to pick their teeth wiht broken fingers at best.


Edit: yes, without range for blasters or tweeked ammo I don't think a simple agility boost will change the fact this gun type just can't compete at distances fights happen, 15 to 25km, and aren't fast enough or have tools to help them do the job.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#825 - 2011-11-04 01:02:54 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
I am extremely skeptical of adding tracking over damage to blasters. It was never poor tracking that drove me to using Projectiles and then Lasers. It was damage. Blasters just don't have it. They also don't have range - so even should they have reasonable damage they just don't have the range for me to use it. I understand that the ship changes are intended to help alleviate that, but I remain skeptical.

I don't promise to ***** this thread - send me a mail if you want me to expound on this.

-Liang



OMG you're back!!!!! YAY!

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#826 - 2011-11-04 01:39:39 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:


Prophecy:
Replace energy turret cap usage for a 10% per lvl optimal bonus
This gives the Prophecy a far better role as Fire support rather than just a tank. Useful with Pulse or Beams without stepping on the Zealots toes.

Honestly no, it would still be a pretty sad ship but it could tickle at a longer range.

The Harbinger is pretty bad off too. It has a crap bonus as well. Give it an Optimal Range Bonus instead of Laser Cap and Give the Prophecy a Damage Bonus and make it a serious brawler.

With the Zealots Sig and Speed none of this will touch it's toes.


Harbinger is already in a good place and is a serious Brawler. Without Cap Bonus to turrets it would cap it's self out far too quickly with 7 guns. I stick with my original suggestion of turning the Prophecy into a fire support platform with an optimal range bonus instead of Cap.

Jane Idoka wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Stuff I said



u want fries with that?


Yes I do. But tell me why any of these fixes wouldn't work.

Eagle/Ferox would both perform exceptional as either a blaster or rail setup

Deimos gets its very heavy DPS at close range and the falloff bonus helps for sniper fits

etc etc


Vigilant Archer
Doomheim
#827 - 2011-11-04 02:09:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Vigilant Archer
In my experience the problem with hail wasn't the fallof but the optimal, I've tried everything I can in a rifter using t2 200mm's and I simply can't get close enough to get within optimsl rsnge when orbiting at 500m, falloff was fine for me decreasing optimal penalty might help it bring it up to par.

Also I find that it's kind of depressing to see that a blaster fit battleship can be outranged very easily by a frigate using rails, artillery or even beams, haven't applied the math of the buff yet but pretty sure it's still the same scenario.

Also on a side note I kind of feel the jaguar's optimal bonus and the wolf's falloff bonus should be switched, but that's for another day,
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#828 - 2011-11-04 02:27:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Misanth
Right, so since Gallente is bloody damn powerful up close already, but rails are fail and blasters have fallen out of favour (it never was made for nullsec blob fights anyway, but hey), here's my take on what could solve this;

Give Gallente an innate 90% web bonus (as others suggested). But - give it a massive stacking penalty. I.e. if you apply two webs, they'll only be 90.1% or something. It would be ridicilous if we came back to the point where we can't get back to gates purely because there's Gallente sitting on the field.

To put some perspective where I'm coming from: http://kenny.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=10928688
That happened just some day ago. The Drake jumped through the gate I was sitting on, I single-webbed (yes, not dual web) him and he only got about halfways back to the gate before he died. The Machariel did not even join in until five seconds before the Drake died, I believe, just to get on the killmail.

I.e. Vindicator functions like the old Megas did, and work "as a Gallente/blaster-ship". If Gallente would work innate like that, it would make blasters bloody damn powerful even at current stats, and solve alot of the issues. But multiple webs would just make it gamebreaking, and that's something even I (even tho I'd benefit from it) wouldn't want to see. (not to mention how overpowered every railship would be, they could just web-kite anything to death)

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.

Vigilant Archer
Doomheim
#829 - 2011-11-04 02:41:10 UTC
I've been looking over the buff a bit more hybrids especially blasters would still need some serious buffing even after this buff, I say blasters don't need a damage increase but an optimal and falloff increase as mentioned in my last post currently from my math an artillery fit frigate can outrange a blaster fit battleship,and not to mention even if the frig was in range the bs still couldn't hit it (as should be).
Chicken Pizza
One-man Armada
#830 - 2011-11-04 03:00:19 UTC
Good babysteps. Still needs more work, though.

I may have to break out my 330m ISK Daredevil in minor celebration after the patch. 20% tracking bonus? Yes please!
Calbanite
Sad Face Inc
#831 - 2011-11-04 04:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Calbanite
Not sure if It's been brought up yet in this thread but someone suggested a while back to give blasters a higher chance to score those wrecking hits we all love. It wouldn't fix them of course... you still have that "getting into range while not capping out or exploding into a ball of wreckage" problem.

Hybrids need 2 special aspects just like the other weapon systems for starters. We could even take a better look at the ammo we use. Anyone seen those crates of Hybrid ECM charges floating around? Go ahead and look them up in game. Maybe have a charge that slows the target down or something...

Here
(those ecm hybrid charges i was talking about)

Edit: Corp Member on TS just mentioned giving webs a falloff. You don't get the max velocity reduction as in optimal but it will slow the target down a percentage.
Cornette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#832 - 2011-11-04 05:20:34 UTC
When I read this thread and Dev post back and forth a couple of times I come to the conclusion that these proposed changes while nice won't really fix the situation with blasters and rails. The main reason is because Gallente ships are simply to slow.

Read that again dear devs: THEY. ARE. SLOW.

Giving them only a 10 / 5 increase in base speed is like farting in the wind. Hardly noticeable.

For blasters to be viable Gallente ships need to be at least 20% faster.

In comibination with overload that would bring Gallente ships almost near Minmatar normal speed, in that critical stage when you need to reach your target to apply facemelting dps to it.


That means Gallente need to become the second fastest race in game. A position that now is currently hold by Amarr.

So a 20% increase in speed pls.

Or I will continue to fly Minmatar in 90% of the times.


Another thing that needs to be done is a NERF.

Tracking Enhancers are simply to powerful for the advantage they give to autocannons/arties.

The 30% falloff need to be cut in half, to force people that use them, mostly Minmatar, to fight closer.


And your fixes to blasters are nice but they don't go the full length.

Being hit by a blaster should be the equivalent of getting hit by a shootgun. Enormous damage up close but drasticly reduce the further away the target is.

Anything within 10k range, normal webifier range, should feel the full pain.

But I know you at CCP are afraid of making them too powerful, so perhaps a compromise could do:

a 10% increase in base damage

and

a 50-100% increase in blaster optimal.



Lastly, I'm not sure about rails, but a 10% increase in damage won't cut it, maybe double that?
Manar Detri
#833 - 2011-11-04 06:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Manar Detri
While it's all clear both rails and blasters need buffs, i'm going to say few things on just blasters.

Blasters lack dmg gap between pulse lasers and autocannons, the range is small, so the damage or something else should make the blasters win at close range. The tracking buff is something that i'd reckon is enough (as a tracking buff)_, but would actually have to test it rather than just look at the numbers.

But, we can't only be looking at the weapon system enough, and just giving more speed/agility to blaster boats doesn't cut it.

As an example, an abaddon with blasters can receive the same ehp as a hyperion while doing more dmg with the blasters (can fit 2 mag stabs and even put a rig on, hype can just fit one magstab without killing its tank). This is a problem, and any change solely on blasters will just push that weapon system on to better platforms where they can be used better than on gallante platforms.

What i'd suggest is fixing those gallante bonuses, take a good look at the drone bays (i'd go as far as 50 bandwidth + 75 m3 dronebay on cruiser size and 125 bandwidth with 150 drone bay on bs size). Secondly, make those drones work, allow em warping with you or "instantly docking" back into ur drone bay, it's a hassle of a weapon system when it can be left behind due to fastmoving required (this stings sentrys the most).

Anywho, devs need to look at the ships themselves also, bad platforms never get used.
Tiger's Spirit
Templars of the Shadows
#834 - 2011-11-04 06:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiger's Spirit
Cornette wrote:
...



CCP why buffed matars ? Because everyone used before matar weapon buff the amarrian ships. Amarrian ships was overpowered above all ship types because their ridiculous scorch range. Shot from 45km range from optimal without any bonus and + 10km from falloff against 3km optimal+17km falloff??? When matar ships didn't have falloff bonuses or enough speed was crap. Their main advantages was their speed over tanking.
Matar ships with their paper hull was the worst ship after speed nerf and they needed to compensate them when lost their speeds. Thx but not need matar nerf again, when amarrian can shot with scorch like a long range weapon.
Need a fine solution for hybrid and rail platform for bring back to line them, but not need nerf any other weapon system.
I never understand crying babies on forum, who cry because of falloff.
Shoting from falloff is crap. Never was better a gun with 5km optimal+25km falloff than a 30km optimal range weapon which have better tracking and which have more +10km falloff too.
I know hybrid system need rethinking, but the other nerf is unacceptable when some other ships "finaly" useable.

Need smarter changes than nerf.

Need rethinking gallentean ship bonuses.
They are too slow to reach their targets ?? Give to them scram range bonus 5 or 7.5%/lvl and they can be shut down enemy mwd from farther distance and they will be get the chances to aproaching their targets to shorter range in faster time.
Or web 5 or 7.5% range/lvl and they can be slowing enemies from farther distances.
If they can reach the paper hull targets faster there, they would be repeal them with their huge damage.

Rails need better changes, need better DPS over all sniper ships, because they have worst alpha.
10% + damage multiplier wont be enough, need more 10 ROF too or wont be using them no one again after this patch.
We want to see more useable ship types in fleets.
Many ships is unuseable in games. I can flight at least 200 shiptypes with t2 guns, but most of ship unuseable and i don't want to flight with them.
EW frigs ? Need rethinking. Gallentean ships need rethinking. Most of caldari ship unuseable in pvp. etc
Dramiel ? I dont understand CCP why made a frig over interceptor speed ? Who want to using ceptors if a developer create a more powerful and faster ships in the frig class?
Need better balances for ship usage or player base wont be use the other ships when they got a overpowered ships in their class.
Sylthi
Coreward Pan-Galactic
#835 - 2011-11-04 08:45:41 UTC
Ok.... so Hybrid turrets will now not suck as BADLY as before.... but they will still very firmly SUCK.

They are STILL: heavy on grid (for the dps, range, and tracking), heavy on CPU (for the dps, range, and tracking), heavy on cap (for the dps and tracking you get out of the crappy things), they require easily exhaustible ammo (i.e. it takes up too much space for what you get out of the crappy stuff), and you are limited to a single set of damage types. No other single weapon type carries ALL of these negatives.

It is true that some, but not nearly all, of the Gallente ships counterbalance this with nice drone bonuses and bays. But, drones are slow to respond, easy to nerf, are destructible, and the controls of which have been and seemingly always will be buggy as hell because the devs refuse (or are unable to) fix them.

So, yeah, Gallente boats are still easily in the "my recommendation to skip to my newer players" folder. (Which there have been fewer and fewer newbies around lately I've noticed CCP..... you might want to see to that.... just a recommendation if you guys all like having your jobs and indeed a company and all....)

Oh, and before I **** off all the Gallente boat drivers out there, I am in no way saying that Gallente boats are useless. They DO have their uses. But, they are BY FAR the LEAST useful tool in my arsenal, and these "balances" do NOTHING to change that.

It's like I always say to my newer players: "Trust the rust, the gold, and occasionally the steel if you must.... but avoid the mean green unless you can't be seen in anything else." I know, the saying sucks, but the newbies seem to be able to remember it; so what the hell. ;)

Peace all.

Out.
Phoenix Torp
Almost Absolute
#836 - 2011-11-04 10:32:55 UTC
Well, after all these ideas about rebalancing hybrids, and his problems in every one of his possibilities, It's time to change for productive possibilities:

Option 1:
- Drop hybrids.
- Gallente -> Laser
- Caldari -> Projectile

Option 2:
- Drop hybrids.
- Gallente -> Projectile
- Caldari -> Laser

Option 3:
- Minmatar -> Blasters
- Gallente -> Projectile

All these with a remapping of hybrid skills SP.
I would choose 1, as 3 would cause wrath on Minmatar players.

http://eveboard.com/pilot/Phoenix_Torp

Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#837 - 2011-11-04 10:52:48 UTC
Would increasing minimum warp to distance to 250km not be a major help to rails too? This would allow extreme range sniper fleets. Even if they're a bit fail on alpha
Manar Detri
#838 - 2011-11-04 11:02:02 UTC
even if we would increase ranges and such we are still stuck in current trend of alphaing stuff, and with time dialation coming the response times for logistics becomes even better making alphaing even more useful. If we want low alpha snipers to work we need a very much redone ewar and other utility to use against logistics.

But on a real side, lets just buff hybrids to opness, make em fotm for 6 months, while doing small balancings for it in the coming 6 months, in the end we should end up with a balanced weapon system and balanced gallante/caldari hybrid ships.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#839 - 2011-11-04 11:18:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Misanth wrote:
Right, so since Gallente is bloody damn powerful up close already, but rails are fail and blasters have fallen out of favour (it never was made for nullsec blob fights anyway, but hey), here's my take on what could solve this;

Give Gallente an innate 90% web bonus (as others suggested). But - give it a massive stacking penalty. I.e. if you apply two webs, they'll only be 90.1% or something. It would be ridicilous if we came back to the point where we can't get back to gates purely because there's Gallente sitting on the field.

To put some perspective where I'm coming from: http://kenny.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=10928688
That happened just some day ago. The Drake jumped through the gate I was sitting on, I single-webbed (yes, not dual web) him and he only got about halfways back to the gate before he died. The Machariel did not even join in until five seconds before the Drake died, I believe, just to get on the killmail.

I.e. Vindicator functions like the old Megas did, and work "as a Gallente/blaster-ship". If Gallente would work innate like that, it would make blasters bloody damn powerful even at current stats, and solve alot of the issues. But multiple webs would just make it gamebreaking, and that's something even I (even tho I'd benefit from it) wouldn't want to see. (not to mention how overpowered every railship would be, they could just web-kite anything to death)


If you give web strgth to some ships:

Webs should be just like DCU's, you shouldn't be able to fit more than one, has for warp jamers but it's another problem since Damps are crap and it's gallente reccon bonus has well, maybe these hulls could fit more than one after changes (if).

Now everyone is afraid of 90% webs, just do the math with 10% per level on 60% webs knowing most people don't train the 5th point on T2 ships since the time training is totally ridiculous for such small reward.

Either 10% web strgth per level or 15% range on web and scram (not disruptor) - this would probably help blaster hulls get to the range and do the job without forum threads and rivers of tears because of 90% webs almost no one would have.
BooooooBeeeeeer
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#840 - 2011-11-04 11:19:23 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Would increasing minimum warp to distance to 250km not be a major help to rails too? This would allow extreme range sniper fleets. Even if they're a bit fail on alpha

It will not. Now, the ship can be found in 10 seconds, with combatprobs. Warp, aproch, scram = you're dead.