These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Hybrid Turrets

First post First post
Author
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#161 - 2011-11-07 11:58:08 UTC
Theron Gyrow wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:

Railguns:
Very slow tracking (being addressed with tracking boost)


I don't think that rails' tracking is currently being improved at all. Just blasters'.


Apologies.... overlooked that. Maybe a slight boost to railgun tracking would help.
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
#162 - 2011-11-07 13:43:54 UTC
The problem is none of the developers used a hybrid weapon, or tried to use a hybrid-weapon ship in a long time. That much is obvious or otherwise the Talos would have never made it even to Singularity. There is not much time to make significant changes and test them, so I fear we will end up with a train-wreck of a half-assed attempt to fix hybrid weapons but without a concept for the weapons and ships.

....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.

sq0
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2011-11-07 14:01:57 UTC
Deviana Sevidon wrote:
The problem is none of the developers used a hybrid weapon, or tried to use a hybrid-weapon ship in a long time. That much is obvious or otherwise the Talos would have never made it even to Singularity. There is not much time to make significant changes and test them, so I fear we will end up with a train-wreck of a half-assed attempt to fix hybrid weapons but without a concept for the weapons and ships.


base concept should be this :
1. Ship with short range weapons have to catch long range one - so it has to be the fastest.
2. After getting in its range, its dps have to be that much higher, that it compensates for the time spent (and dmg received) while getting in that range.


This is base, other things like tracking ( well that is allready in point 2) pg, cpu etc, are secondary issues.

The sooner this people and mainly devs aknowledge, the better.
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#164 - 2011-11-07 14:39:14 UTC
sq0 wrote:

The sooner this people and mainly devs aknowledge, the better.


They can never acknowledge that. Racial differences is the reason. They probably messed up when they first designed races, or at least the environment was much different, fact is: minmatar is the fast race, gallente are armor tanked blaster wielding hedonites. In time, it meant that gallente boats suck because they have incompatible requirements.
I honestly doubt they will shift their view on racial characteristics, so we have to take THAT into account while trying to come up with a sensible solution to our problems.

The same goes with "caldari gunships are ranged platforms", which in this environment is completely silly.
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Villore Accords
#165 - 2011-11-07 15:05:42 UTC
Gecko O'Bac wrote:


They can never acknowledge that. Racial differences is the reason. They probably messed up when they first designed races, or at least the environment was much different, fact is: minmatar is the fast race, gallente are armor tanked blaster wielding hedonites


I disagree... Minmatar are the Mobility race. Hi agility and versatility.

Not speed. Having the highest speed too is a problem and overpowers Minmatar
sq0
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2011-11-07 15:07:29 UTC
Gecko O'Bac wrote:
sq0 wrote:

The sooner this people and mainly devs aknowledge, the better.


They can never acknowledge that. Racial differences is the reason. They probably messed up when they first designed races, or at least the environment was much different, fact is: minmatar is the fast race, gallente are armor tanked blaster wielding hedonites. In time, it meant that gallente boats suck because they have incompatible requirements.
I honestly doubt they will shift their view on racial characteristics, so we have to take THAT into account while trying to come up with a sensible solution to our problems.

The same goes with "caldari gunships are ranged platforms", which in this environment is completely silly.


so just switch autocannon and blaster range, FO and dmg, attributes. I really think that fastest ships should have close range guns, with higher dmg ( or different way of getting into range ) this is how ever you take it the most logical concept, if this is broken, mechanics are broken. Just imagine that archer is faster than melee warrior in some rpg, how the fck could warrior kill him? -neverever.
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#167 - 2011-11-07 15:08:49 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Gecko O'Bac wrote:


They can never acknowledge that. Racial differences is the reason. They probably messed up when they first designed races, or at least the environment was much different, fact is: minmatar is the fast race, gallente are armor tanked blaster wielding hedonites


I disagree... Minmatar are the Mobility race. Hi agility and versatility.

Not speed. Having the highest speed too is a problem and overpowers Minmatar


That is what you think/would like. Fact is, Minmatar is the fast race. Their ships have the highest base speed, better agility modifiers and lower masses. Which is what I was saying. CCP designed the races like this and it's unlikely they will, now in 2011, change the setup substantially.
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#168 - 2011-11-07 15:12:03 UTC
sq0 wrote:
Gecko O'Bac wrote:
sq0 wrote:

The sooner this people and mainly devs aknowledge, the better.


They can never acknowledge that. Racial differences is the reason. They probably messed up when they first designed races, or at least the environment was much different, fact is: minmatar is the fast race, gallente are armor tanked blaster wielding hedonites. In time, it meant that gallente boats suck because they have incompatible requirements.
I honestly doubt they will shift their view on racial characteristics, so we have to take THAT into account while trying to come up with a sensible solution to our problems.

The same goes with "caldari gunships are ranged platforms", which in this environment is completely silly.


so just switch autocannon and blaster range, FO and dmg, attributes. I really think that fastest ships should have close range guns, with higher dmg ( or different way of getting into range ) this is how ever you take it the most logical concept, if this is broken, mechanics are broken. Just imagine that archer is faster than melee warrior in some rpg, how the fck could warrior kill him? -neverever.


Positioning, focused defense against ranged damage, short speed bursts, higher durability, higher total dps. These are all solutions adopted in other situations.

In years, I have seen a distinct unwillingness on the part of CCP to modify their approach to racial characteristics. I doubt that is going to change now or ever, that's why I say we have to design AROUND that to find a workable middle ground.
sq0
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2011-11-07 15:26:44 UTC
Gecko O'Bac wrote:
sq0 wrote:
Gecko O'Bac wrote:
sq0 wrote:

The sooner this people and mainly devs aknowledge, the better.


They can never acknowledge that. Racial differences is the reason. They probably messed up when they first designed races, or at least the environment was much different, fact is: minmatar is the fast race, gallente are armor tanked blaster wielding hedonites. In time, it meant that gallente boats suck because they have incompatible requirements.
I honestly doubt they will shift their view on racial characteristics, so we have to take THAT into account while trying to come up with a sensible solution to our problems.

The same goes with "caldari gunships are ranged platforms", which in this environment is completely silly.


so just switch autocannon and blaster range, FO and dmg, attributes. I really think that fastest ships should have close range guns, with higher dmg ( or different way of getting into range ) this is how ever you take it the most logical concept, if this is broken, mechanics are broken. Just imagine that archer is faster than melee warrior in some rpg, how the fck could warrior kill him? -neverever.


Positioning, focused defense against ranged damage, short speed bursts, higher durability, higher total dps. These are all solutions adopted in other situations.

In years, I have seen a distinct unwillingness on the part of CCP to modify their approach to racial characteristics. I doubt that is going to change now or ever, that's why I say we have to design AROUND that to find a workable middle ground.


higher durability and/or higher dps is matter of course (to compensate for getting dmg while not in range to fire). Positioning - why would i choose a ship that needs some extra possitioning to have even a slightest chance of winning if i have another that is just better in allmost every situation (and in those specific ones it still might be better). Only thing i think is ok is the speed burst - form of rush abilities of melees in other games, but that is again far greater issue than simply changing some stats of hybrids ( where i think is this balancing going )
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#170 - 2011-11-07 15:36:57 UTC
I don't mind minmatar being the fastest race, however for the base velocity Gallente should be faster. After fitting a few armor rigs on the gallente armor ships and a nanofiber on the shield tanking minmatar ship the result should be the minmatar ship still being the fastest (in general) while the blaster ships with better agility and less mass should accelerate faster being able to catch their pray...
Somehow making the projectiles better and at the same time making minmatar mostly shield tanked with plenty lowslots for damage and speed mods on the already fastest ships in Eve made everything a little lopsided :-(

Pinky
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#171 - 2011-11-07 16:17:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Gecko O'Bac
sq0 wrote:
Positioning - why would i choose a ship that needs some extra possitioning to have even a slightest chance of winning if i have another that is just better in allmost every situation (and in those specific ones it still might be better).


Well, even in the open space of EVE there are many situations where you have choke points or forced positioning. Gate camping, pos bashing, undocking, PI shuttling, whatever. In these situations a more durable ship, with high dps at close range may win over a faster, lower dps counterpart that is forced to bash through the danger zone.

Not saying that "gate camping" is a great design for any ship, but it's a possibility. As it is, blasters can't really fulfill that role either. (Well, neither railguns can, even though sniping itself is mostly a positioning war)

Edit for ideas: remember, in suggesting we may think outside the box as well... If nothing gets implemented we may still give CCP something to think about... For example a bonus to short range warps... This way a coordinated attack of short range ships could catch an unprepared, but faster, ship. This is NOT a great idea, we have problems with on-grid probing already, but it's still something different and unique other than "MOAR SPEED PLZKTHXBAI"
NeoShocker
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#172 - 2011-11-07 17:14:40 UTC  |  Edited by: NeoShocker
Been thinking. Of course we want different weapon systems that is different from others. Read most of the thread and I came up an idea.

Blasters and Railgun systems are very much like other two weapon systems. Close range, high DPS and trakcing, and RoF fo blasters. Long range, low DPS, low tracking and lower RoF. Pretty much the same in general for other gunnery weapon systems, just that different damage type, optimal and falloff range.

Why not SWAP around blasters and railguns?

Blasters will have high alpha damage and RoF is reduced by half or 60%, tracking is increased by 25% and the range is the same or 10% more range. Think artilleries, but short range instead of long range.

Railguns, gave more thoughts on this. I really tried it, but it was pretty underwhelming IMO. I think it should be similar to current blaster's mechanics, just the much increased RoF, and slightly increase tracking while maintaining its a long range weapon system. It will be low alpha, but the fast firing long range DPS. Think blasters, but long range and fast firing guns, just semi low damage.

It bothers me a lot when railguns and blasters is trying to be as good and similar as projecties (or so people wanted to). So I really much prefer the idea of swapped roles of the railgun weapon systems or just change the way how it works. Not make it similar roles to other weapons systems.
Miriiah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2011-11-07 17:51:45 UTC
NeoShocker wrote:
Been thinking. Of course we want different weapon systems that is different from others. Read most of the thread and I came up an idea.

Blasters and Railgun systems are very much like other two weapon systems. Close range, high DPS and trakcing, and RoF fo blasters. Long range, low DPS, low tracking and lower RoF. Pretty much the same in general for other gunnery weapon systems, just that different damage type, optimal and falloff range.

Why not SWAP around blasters and railguns?

Blasters will have high alpha damage and RoF is reduced by half or 60%, tracking is increased by 25% and the range is the same or 10% more range. Think artilleries, but short range instead of long range.

Railguns, gave more thoughts on this. I really tried it, but it was pretty underwhelming IMO. I think it should be similar to current blaster's mechanics, just the much increased RoF, and slightly increase tracking while maintaining its a long range weapon system. It will be low alpha, but the fast firing long range DPS. Think blasters, but long range and fast firing guns, just semi low damage.

It bothers me a lot when railguns and blasters is trying to be as good and similar as projecties (or so people wanted to). So I really much prefer the idea of swapped roles of the railgun weapon systems or just change the way how it works. Not make it similar roles to other weapons systems.


Fast RoF railguns is a nono, navy ammo already costs enough.
If you want to do that, make normal/navy ammo cheaper/take less space
M1AU
Zappenduster Inc.
#174 - 2011-11-07 18:04:01 UTC
I just wanted to point out that CCP Ytterbium wrote some interesting stuff regarding the new tier 3 BCs in regards to blaster performance here.
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#175 - 2011-11-07 18:14:42 UTC
Worryingly, there is no mention in Ytterbium's post of the insignificant damage difference between blasters and their counterparts, and no insights into the problems of railguns.
sq0
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2011-11-07 18:33:22 UTC
NeoShocker wrote:

It bothers me a lot when railguns and blasters is trying to be as good and similar as projecties (or so people wanted to).


they should be exactly as good, just in different situations, or different aproach, not just wrong and weaker just firing sifferently :D
Hungry Eyes
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#177 - 2011-11-07 18:50:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Hungry Eyes
Daedalus Arcova wrote:
Worryingly, there is no mention in Ytterbium's post of the insignificant damage difference between blasters and their counterparts, and no insights into the problems of railguns.


on the bright side, they seem aware that the problem runs much deeper. this is a good sign.

and more importantly, theyre understanding that the tornado is OP.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#178 - 2011-11-07 18:52:25 UTC
OK, quick silly idea here and then I'll shut up.

Add a low mod that reduces shield HPs but increases hull HPs. (putting shield emitters into the hull instead on the outside)
Add a high cap use active med mod that increases hull resists. (pumping cap to reinforce hull integrity fields)
Add hull repair drones. (still lowest efficiency repair but greater convenience than modules)

And with the already high hull HPs, Gallente ships turn into natural hull tankers that can be fast and durable without throwing med slots for tank.
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#179 - 2011-11-07 20:37:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Daedalus Arcova
This post got me thinking about how to use ship stats for mass, inertia and speed to help Gallente ships stay mobile, even when weighed down with plates.

Bear in mind that mass doesn't affect speed unless an AB or MWD is active.

The obvious way to compensate for plates is to lower the mass of Gallente ship hulls. But this is actually counter-productive, as the addition of plates will actually be a greater percentage increase in mass, and will hurt speed and agility while the AB or MWD is on more than it would with a high base ship mass. By the same token, the difference in AB/MWD speed between an armour buffer and shields will be even greater.

So what I'd suggest (slightly counter-intuitively), is to actually increase the mass of Gallente ships, but also give them a boost to base speed and agility to compensate. This would mean that putting plates on a Gallente hull would make less of a difference to its AB/MWD speed, because the difference in mass caused by the addition of the plate and the activation of the prop mod is smaller compared to the total mass of the ship. Armour rigs would still hurt your speed, but plates would have less of a negative effect than they do currently.

With these changes, Gallente ships would have much higher base speeds, but it wouldn't translate into as much as a gain when using AB/MWD. This also means better mobility when scrammed at present. Currently, even if a Gallente blaster boat manages to get into scram range of its target (as it must), getting scrammed itself often means the target slips away due to their higher base speeds. If Gallente had the fastest base speeds instead (maintaining the Minmatar's superior mobility with AB/MWD), then they'll have a far easier time staying on top of their target in scram range.

Gallente would have the speed advantage inside scram range (assuming single-prop MWDs), but Minmatar would still be the fastest ships with MWDs active.

This is very much just a priori theorising. Someone who is better with formulae than I am ought to do the maths on it, and there are probably unintended consequences that I haven't thought of. However, tweaking manoeuvrability through the use of speed, agility and mass (instead of just speed and agility) could mix things up in some very interesting (and hopefully positive) ways.
Monger Man
D.S.A.
#180 - 2011-11-07 21:00:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Monger Man
I've had an interesting idea.

I'm not the best at pvp so take with a grain of salt.

To me it seems using blaster against amarr generally can work out ok. They don't seem to neut you
unless there bonused because they have cap pressure, so you're active tank can hold longer.
You have the speed and mids to get on them and hold them. And the dps and tracking to
give you a bit of an advantage.

Against minmatar, rails seem to generally work out better, you can stay out of there neut range.
Again making you're active tank last a bit longer, keep them in fall off. Keep you're dps up.
You're not faster than them but you can generally hold them long enough it seems.

The problem right now is, you're running from a fight depending on how you're fit. No hope with blasters
if you see a Hurricane. No hope with rails if you see a Harbringer.

What if hybrids instead changed how they worked with different ammo.
You only have hybrids, long range ammo, both close and far.
Short range ammo both close and far.

Depending on what ammo you load you're hybrid now works like a rail gun, or a blaster.
You could still keep the specializations, they would effect the ammo types.
You could keep all there disadvantages (you'd have to), reload time, ammo, cap.

Hybrid boats wouldn't need to be the fastest. Active tanks could hold up a bit better.
Maybe even plates in fleet fights might work out better.

Also instead of giving caldari a range bonus to there ships perhaps give a
hybrid ammo change bonus. Reducing time to switch ammo a bit.

The big problem is hybrids would become the most flexible weapon in the game.
And I'm not sure if you would end up seeing all gallente boats instead of minmatar.