Ships & Modules

Kudos to the OP, and bump, for what its worth...

It's alot of words just to outline popular belief. Since this is a summary thread of sorts though, let me add my somewhat conflicting (slightly more optimistic and simple) recurring perspective in summary as well. I will keep it as centered and basic as possible, so we'll start out with some general assumptions to conclude definitions...

1. In a game like EVE there is a framework, of mechanics and the total sum of tools, that define the sandbox and influence trend.


2. This framework has a parenting effect of causality on tweaks and balance. Thus changing frame and balance figures at once is usually ill advised as B is based upon A, they are relative.


3. Since there is a parenting effect however, one has to assume that the framework is deliberate (a conscious choice) made to enhance and make the content within it better.

Let's apply some examples to the abstract in the following statements:

• The longest distance of "warp TO" is 100km, the shortest distance of "warp FROM" is 150km. Coupled with the (buff of the-) probing mecanics, this is the general framework that define "Sniping range" today, and an example very influential on Hybrid balance.


• If the warp-to would be 200km and the warp-from 250km, all of a sudden 200-250km is the framework that define "sniping", and ships like the Rail Rokh, Cruise Raven and Rail Eagle would have their nische and appeal reinforced.


• However, (2009-) mobile sniping in the 100-150km frame is far more entertaining for everyone than (2007-) static sniping in the 200-250km frame, where more ships can affect each other and more elements are involved in their operation. One has to conclude that the changes were a conscious choice to improve gameplay.

Overall, i'd say that the recent years profileration away from extremes, reinforcing a vivid and interactive medium range has been for the better. It's just a question of letting balance catching up. If the game designers mean for a certain ship to be the best in a given role, it will obvisouly need to be adapted to what the framework define as that role. Having ships based around 2007 mechanics in a 2009 environment is about as useful as being god, giving someone gills and putting them on a dry lakebed - no matter if there actually was a lake there in the past.


Short range can be defined through the other general form of framework:
Where is the highest concentration of stopping power?

Ranges in a game like EVE overall are usually tied to breakpoints of what elements occur in said range. A ship tailored around 25km is related to the effects that occur in it's range, a ship that end up between ranges of heavy influence has little value or use of it's peak optimal. With medium neuts, unbonused webs and scrams, as well as other effects outside of primary racial weapon systems all occuring around the 10km breakpoint, it's not a far fetched to conclusion to define that as short range. Very few other effects (barring Blaster damage, Autocannon optimals or frigate-size combat) appear at a closer range, and certainly not with a higher concentration.

That reason, and that reason alone, is why i was always "pro range" in the "range vs. damage" discussion. I still belive that Blaster PvP will thrive, if led to dominate the full extent of the range it's intent on dominating (intent by the definition above then of course; short range, 0-10km). The best illustrative example is that it would enable blaster ships to fringe other ships in their optimal. The problem as things stand is that one of their tactical advantages is currently used against them (infer the popular 7-8km pulse example).

By extension that would also have positive bi-effects such as empowering ships with unusual or somewhat malplaced bonuses, allowing you to capitalize on those bonuses, when they are not the reason you reach intended effect - but beyond them. Range bonuses are typical examples, where the bonus itself become more empowering if it move you from short range into another. The weapon system is not meant to obscure another, but a ship with eg., a dual range bonus should inherently be able to contend (in short, blasters should not obscure autocannons, but there's nothing wrong in an Eagle hitting AC base ranges).

If you can dominate a defined 10km range then tracking and damage only has to be inline with that, something many Gallente ships are not as far from as seem to be popular belief.


Addendum:

Scaling:
This isn't really a Hybrid issue, but it's related to the damage discussion and is always an important factor, as the Projectile buffs illustrated. Most short range (blaster-) ships that are considered good have the addition of drones. From the Taranis to the Thorax and Brutix, over Comets, Dramiels and Daredevils and including hybrid drone-hybrid boats such as the Ishkur and Myrmidon. This does not manifest itself among Battleships, so when comparing the Megathron to the Armageddon you do not see the damage gap available in the Deimos or Thorax when compared to class-specific counterparts. Just as with projectiles, the problem is isolated to the Battleship class and will have negative implications if you deal with it across the board. A very simple solution is nerfing bandwidth on non-gallente Battleships, a more difficult solution would be nerfing smaller-class drone-components and improving raw damage. There's already a balance in place to be used - bandwidth bridge damage.

Fitting:
This used to be my primary pet peeve, but considering that CCP has already adressed it (yet i don't know if it's been adressed to content, that remains to be seen - and should be fine tuned over time rather than slopped over), i am leaving it be for now. As other people have mentioned (Prometheus from Hydra-fame made a good set of posts over on FHC about it), this is the most positive change so far in the test-server data.

Does anyone know what the fock, Noisrevbus, is chatting about? Sometimes, some people, this game, just oh my god = /

You get me?

No. Drink bleach.

I can understand that some elaboration may be necessary, since it's essentially two years of related discussion condensed to a single post. It's difficult elaborating on it as a whole though, as it would quickly fall to the problems i criticized your set of initial posts for then. I tried being as concise, and built the post up as clear, as i could - but it will naturally never be more than a summary.

I'll try to help the arguments on their way, but i need to adress specifics to avoid digestion issues.

Is there anything in particular that put you off when reading the post, that you'd like me to explain a bit better?

Just one really, seems you touch on the proposed changes a few times, yet take no significant disposition. If there is any one thing I am trying to say about them, it's that it's nowhere near enough. Your post neglected to convince me of your thoughts on the matter, either way. So...?

After reading this thread and never having used Hybrid Turrets before I think I should have spent the last week and a half training up Projectile turrets instead. I was looking for a way to make Federation and Republic enemies a bit easier since we all know Amarr, while mighty in armor only has two damage types. Should I hang around and wait for the fix to go through, or should I jump on Projectile turrets? I've been relying on my drones for damage vs Federation&Republic or just skipping those missions altogether those two factions are the only time I have issues with lvl 4's.

if it's for pve, train up for a raven.

Yes, and that is the conflicting part of my post.

Perspective - Mechanics:
I assume you saw through the form of the post, with an abstract outline followed by examples explained from two different angles. Initially i tried to point to how my perspective tend to differ from alot of discussion on these forums that focus on comparing weapon systems to each other - instead i compare them to the environment they are meant to function in. In very short and simple terms i gave you a background to the perspective and terminology separating mechanics (rules, laws of physics, framework, sandbox) from content (tweakable balance, figures, stats). I pointed to how mechanics create the environment and are always above (parent to) the content you fill it with: i even went as far as to say that it defines certain keywords that exist in the context created:

eg., What is long range? The mechanics define it.

I used one bulleted example to explain how that relates to what is considered "long" range (or sniping, as a tactic), relevant to Railguns and i used a more discursive example to explain how breakpoints issued by other elements (or effects, from modules or otherwise) than the weapons themselves define ranges at shorter distances.

Example: breakpoint, element
If i throw out a couple of distance figures, say: 53km, 24km and 17km - you are likely to directly recognize one of them. That is because one of them is a very iconic element that help define a given breakpoint. Having your weapon system match that breakpoint and your ship have stats that are advantageous in that environment is usually the staple of a good ship. Whereas if your ship has trouble adapting or your reach end up between breakpoints you are usually forced to adapt out of your optimal.


Conflicting - Volume:
People who suggest that the Hybrid system need alot more volume in figures to stay competetive in relation to the other - and come up with overblown solutions to achieve that, such as double the web strength, double the damage or double the tracking - usually think in terms of working against the mechanics and environment they create, leading to overly complicated and difficult to maintain balance scenarios.

To elaborate on that: Blasters are considered a short range weapon system. Short range is not defined b the reach of Blasters themselves, but by a concentration of elements existing in that range. Maintaining that large and medium Blaster ranges should exist under (-be shorter than) the effect of things like medium neuts, warp scramblers and webifiers means that the system is punishing itself by not working in relation with the tools available to support it and instead go against the mechanics that define short range. In fact, if your optimal is only half that of your intented environment, you are only half as effective as you should be. Doubling up stats to overcome poor relation to mechanics, is usually a bad choice that manifest itself when the environment changes.

Example:
A good example of that you can see in the Prometheus (who take a stance similar to mine) against Marlona and Pattern on FHC discussion: with how overtracking will simply make it too easy to kill things that are designed to get under your guns instead. That is more likely to make Blaster PvP counteract Frigate PvP, instead of ensuring that Blaster PvP can dominate it's short range environment against equal size opponents intended for other ranges.

Blasters are meant to keep Autocannons at web and scram fringe, not be kited by either them or Pulses at the very same range. Making sure base reach Blasters are the definitive option up to that range, do not interfere with the role of Pulse or Autocannon as some would lead you to belive - it is still within the very definition of short range - as opposed to being in falloff already where your environment begin and having tracking issues (as you are supposed to) when things get under 50% of that defined short range, where radial and angular velocity take precedence over transversal. No 100% damage, tracking or web bonus is going to be a sufficient replacement for logic.


Summary:
If you rebalance Blaster and Rails to excel in the full extent of what the current mechanics define as short (~0-10km) and long (~100-150km) range - they do not need vast improvement in volumous figures. However, CCP need to sit down and look at their sandbox first and decide wether the existing mechanics should define short and long in the manner they do. They should not dabble with figures and stats unless they are absolutely certain that the frames of the sandbox are in the position they want to build from. The #1 problem of Hybrids today is that they are still balanced with figures related to old mechanics, when long and short was defined differently - there's no point tweaking them until the developers themselves are clear on their own definitions.

This post is actually way, way worse than my first one - but at least it elaborates on it.

Have the key arguments become clear?
ie., why i keep referring to short and long, why they are defined at the ranges they are?

His point seems to be that CCP needs to work according tothe following process:

1. define combat rules
2. define combat roles
3. balance weapons and shisp accordingly.

His argument seems to be that CCP last did serious work on 1 and 2 in 2007-2009, and should really redefine the overall picture on those points before making up their mind about blasters, and especially rails.