These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Polarized weaponry (affectionately known as glass cannons)

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#421 - 2014-10-29 14:14:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Syrias Bizniz
Another idea might be that Polarized Guns are always heated. They will always create heat in the highslots when used, and they will always get damaged. Not at the rates normal weapons would get damaged, so they don't get burned out after 20-30 volleys.

But they would certainly be unsuitable for prolonged engagements. Also, while shooting with them, you could ofc not repair any modules as you're heating something.


That way you wouldn't have to drop all resistances to zero in order to 'balance' them. Maybe give them a penalty,similar like shield boost amplifiers have, that all other modules generate more heat, too.


Edit: Maybe even add Laser-like reload mechanics where you swap ammo instantly?
Soden Rah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#422 - 2014-10-29 14:33:15 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Another idea might be that Polarized Guns are always heated. They will always create heat in the highslots when used, and they will always get damaged. Not at the rates normal weapons would get damaged, so they don't get burned out after 20-30 volleys.

But they would certainly be unsuitable for prolonged engagements. Also, while shooting with them, you could ofc not repair any modules as you're heating something.


That way you wouldn't have to drop all resistances to zero in order to 'balance' them. Maybe give them a penalty,similar like shield boost amplifiers have, that all other modules generate more heat, too.


Edit: Maybe even add Laser-like reload mechanics where you swap ammo instantly?



Great. you just created weapons that would be mandatory for all small gang warfare.

The only time these wouldn't be mandatory would be situations where you you long range weapons or you are expecting long fights.

These are supposed to be niche use weapons, not general replacements/upgrades of weapons we already have.

If you're fitting a large tank with these guns then you have failed to grasp the concept of a glass cannon.
Aurelius Valentius
Valentius Corporation
Valentius Corporation Alliance
#423 - 2014-10-29 15:32:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Aurelius Valentius
I remember this from the old SFB board game days:

5.3 FUSION BEAM

Fusion beam is the "other" Hydran heavy weapon. This one is
designed for close-range combat. It is a "normal" direct-fire
heavy weapon.

Fusion beam can be regular loaded, overloaded, or suicide
overloaded.

Overloaded fusion beam cause 50% more damage than regular and
cost twice the energy to load.

Suicide overloaded fusion beam cause 100% more damage than
regular, cost 3 times the energy to load, AND burns out the
firing weapon (it can be repaired, of course).

Fusion beam should ALWAYS be overloaded as it doesn't do that
much damage beyond overload range any way. Charge in, reinforce
forward shield, then blast the enemy to pieces.

Suicide overload should be used if you need to bring a QUICK end
to the battle. If you are at point-blank range, slow (i.e. plenty
of power), then by all means go for it.


I imagine that this is something of where the idea comes from...

Anyway, maybe this should be a mode, and not a kind of weapon in it's own... but unlike SFB, since we have a market, you can't repair it - it's just dead...

So something like regular, over-heating, overloading - where over heating causes damage from heat - Overloading is just a more intense single shot or couple shots that takes out your weapons even faster but gives you that increased damage, but unlike nano-paste reps, this can't be used - when you burn out you burn out until you get a new weapon, and no recycle either, totally fused/used.

Just a thought, but since the mechanics are there, and it would just be an increase in the stats, it should be easier to implement and to balance also.

Benefits of such:

1. it uses existing items, and when such item are destroyed = creates more demand for existing items in game, not making a new market that is instead of... easier to balance and makes for a healthy economy.

2. uses the existing game items and mechanics and so can be used in all weapons and items that can over heat... simply more reward, but higher risk - so it works there also.

3. Damage can be balanced to the amount of bonus with simple code changes that exist in game also - so that KISS right here - in terms of keeping it simple

4. People would be familiar with the concept, it would be then a tactical choice that anyone can make - like overheating, and not a fitting choice which is rather limiting and need pre-conceptions in place - since EVE should be about choices, the best choice is having an array of them to choose from, not from a limited selection or single option on a module.

The more I think on the conversation and the concept of this whole idea, the more I think that this is a better way to go... nothing against the original idea and modules and all, but I think it's limited and not really something EVE would have... a better idea is this, it's something that could be termed a "suicide overload" which makes the weapon a "glass cannon" but it makes it for all weapons, and then the person simple has the choice...

So over heating - adds overloading.

More damage than over-heating
More/faster heat damage than over-heating
No option to repair damage (totally burned out)
Oh and...
The power drain takes down your tank, for the time being that you choose this option - e.g then you can fit a tank, you can fly around as normal, but if you engage overloading, then regardless of the fit on the ship, you're tank is down as they are with the orginal concept - this is that power overloading to weapons that takes down the resists because your power is going elsewhere, and when your done they fused so you are just like they are now - no tank.

Or, it could come back when the weapons are burned out, or after a time delay or not at all because of fused relays - as other options for the concepts implementation,

... all of which again are balance issues that work for this concept instead... it's dynamic enough to be very interesting

it could be one shot, or more - depending, but I would say 100% more damage, and 3x the heat damage per for s start, and see what happens with the balance.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#424 - 2014-10-29 16:43:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Honestly, this sounds more like a rig to me than a module.

Say, +25% DPS, +25% velocity, -50% resists? I don't have a spreadsheet handy, so I'm just pulling numbers out of the air.

I like the idea of having the bonus and the penalty trigger on overheating, too. You had overheating rigs in the pipeline once. This might be a good time to revisit them.

The basic problem with these guns is that, in your effort to balance them, you've essentially made them run orthogonal to the logic governing the rest of the game:

They're brawler weapons, but they defeat remote and local repair, especially armor repair, and severely hamper buffer tanks. Without a tank, you can only brawl down noncombatant ships and any Interceptor you can catch--maybe. And by "noncombatant," I mean no weapons: a small ship fitted with these guns will die to an angry Retriever. Buffer tanks generally don't work too well with kiting, but neither do weapons with a 50% range penalty. Their penalty is optimally exploited by ships that have bad resists to begin with, but the price says to fit it to the kind of ships that tend to either have excellent resists or great potential as snipers or kiters, both of which roles the weapons defeat.

It's not obvious to me what you're trying to accomplish here. If I were you, I'd get a clean sheet of paper and think about maybe making this either a low-slot item, like a shield power relay crossed with a weapon upgrade, or a rig. Or, if it must be a high-slot weapon system, maybe clean-sheet that.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Soden Rah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#425 - 2014-10-29 17:07:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Soden Rah
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Honestly, this sounds more like a rig to me than a module.

Say, +25% DPS, +25% velocity, -50% resists? I don't have a spreadsheet handy, so I'm just pulling numbers out of the air.

I like the idea of having the bonus and the penalty trigger on overheating, too. You had overheating rigs in the pipeline once. This might be a good time to revisit them.

The basic problem with these guns is that, in your effort to balance them, you've essentially made them run orthogonal to the logic governing the rest of the game:

They're brawler weapons, but they defeat remote and local repair, especially armor repair, and severely hamper buffer tanks. Without a tank, you can only brawl down noncombatant ships and any Interceptor you can catch--maybe. And by "noncombatant," I mean no weapons: a small ship fitted with these guns will die to an angry Retriever. Buffer tanks generally don't work too well with kiting, but neither do weapons with a 50% range penalty. Their penalty is optimally exploited by ships that have bad resists to begin with, but the price says to fit it to the kind of ships that tend to either have excellent resists or great potential as snipers or kiters, both of which roles the weapons defeat.

It's not obvious to me what you're trying to accomplish here. If I were you, I'd get a clean sheet of paper and think about maybe making this either a low-slot item, like a shield power relay crossed with a weapon upgrade, or a rig. Or, if it must be a high-slot weapon system, maybe clean-sheet that.



Ignoring the possibility of speed tanking...

You are missing the fact that in small gang fights you can often go some time without ever actually getting shot at.
I have been in plenty of battles while a new char when my corp was war decced when the mercs attacking us showed up in their bs's and they targeted and shot at our bs's and those of us in t1 cruisers were largely ignored.
In my t-rex - heavy tackle/glass cannon I made it to the top, or near the top of a number of kills because I started firing long before the BS's got a lock and lasted because nobody thought to shoot the t1 cruiser when they had bs's shooting at them.

If you are in a mixed gang going on a roam then having a few glass cannons along is fine as long as they are cheep enough to not worry if they get targeted and go pop.

I have never had more fun in EvE than when blasting around in a fast cheep T-Rex as part of a small gang.
And if these mods were affordable [and existed] back then I would totally have fit them.

My only issue with these weapons as they stand is the reduced range which make applying the damage so much harder and make any kind of speed tanking so much harder.

Although I have yet to see the updated specs as of today.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#426 - 2014-10-29 17:58:27 UTC
Soden Rah wrote:
If you are in a mixed gang going on a roam then having a few glass cannons along is fine as long as they are cheep enough to not worry if they get targeted and go pop.

I have never had more fun in EvE than when blasting around in a fast cheep T-Rex as part of a small gang.
And if these mods were affordable [and existed] back then I would totally have fit them.


Did your cheap T-Rex have faction weapons on it? No? Because they're not cheap, right? These weapons are going to carry faction prices in the current design.

That's one of the problems I mentioned. The penalty says, "put these on a cheap ship!" because only the very newest players care if their Rupture gets ruptured. But these guns tend toward Incursion-bling pricey.

Soden Rah wrote:
My only issue with these weapons as they stand is the reduced range which make applying the damage so much harder and make any kind of speed tanking so much harder.


Yeah, they're pure brawling weapons, which means you're almost certainly in range of full tackle (scram + web), which means you're dead, and the Nereus that just killed you can loot your fancy guns and call it a payday.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Soden Rah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#427 - 2014-10-29 18:59:59 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Soden Rah wrote:
If you are in a mixed gang going on a roam then having a few glass cannons along is fine as long as they are cheep enough to not worry if they get targeted and go pop.

I have never had more fun in EvE than when blasting around in a fast cheep T-Rex as part of a small gang.
And if these mods were affordable [and existed] back then I would totally have fit them.


Did your cheap T-Rex have faction weapons on it? No? Because they're not cheap, right? These weapons are going to carry faction prices in the current design.

That's one of the problems I mentioned. The penalty says, "put these on a cheap ship!" because only the very newest players care if their Rupture gets ruptured. But these guns tend toward Incursion-bling pricey.

Soden Rah wrote:
My only issue with these weapons as they stand is the reduced range which make applying the damage so much harder and make any kind of speed tanking so much harder.


Yeah, they're pure brawling weapons, which means you're almost certainly in range of full tackle (scram + web), which means you're dead, and the Nereus that just killed you can loot your fancy guns and call it a payday.



And I have said several times that how much these things cost is key.
And asked CCP for some hint as to how much they are going to cost because it's hard to work out how they are going to be used without knowing that.

As this is in the testing balancing feedback stage then it's possible that CCP can change it's mind and make them affordable and not nerf range. Bigger balancing changes have happened before due to player feedback.

If they are 20~100mill items then as they stand they are pointless.

If they are sub 5mill [ideally 2~3] then we have a ball game.

But as we have no word on price, I can only comment on the guns in the absence of price data and I can see legitimate uses and value of the guns as they are in their stated glass cannon role as long as they don't nerf the range and thus allow people to actually apply the damage while being able to kite/speed tank.
Bjurn Akely
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#428 - 2014-10-29 23:56:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bjurn Akely
Soden Rah wrote:

And I have said several times that how much these things cost is key.
And asked CCP for some hint as to how much they are going to cost because it's hard to work out how they are going to be used without knowing that.

As this is in the testing balancing feedback stage then it's possible that CCP can change it's mind and make them affordable and not nerf range. Bigger balancing changes have happened before due to player feedback.

If they are 20~100mill items then as they stand they are pointless.

If they are sub 5mill [ideally 2~3] then we have a ball game.


I'm split. I kind of want them to be pricy, so they're not overused. At the same time I want to be able to afford them... Ugh
Soden Rah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#429 - 2014-10-30 00:53:57 UTC
Bjurn Akely wrote:
Soden Rah wrote:

And I have said several times that how much these things cost is key.
And asked CCP for some hint as to how much they are going to cost because it's hard to work out how they are going to be used without knowing that.

As this is in the testing balancing feedback stage then it's possible that CCP can change it's mind and make them affordable and not nerf range. Bigger balancing changes have happened before due to player feedback.

If they are 20~100mill items then as they stand they are pointless.

If they are sub 5mill [ideally 2~3] then we have a ball game.


I'm split. I kind of want them to be pricey, so they're not overused. At the same time I want to be able to afford them... Ugh



Well as we have all learned, making something pricey doesn't work very well in balancing... titan blobs anyone...

All it really does is prevent new or casual players from being able to use it.

By giving these weapons such a severe penalty [nuking all the resists] they should have made it such that they are less good
for most applications and thus wont just replace existing weapons, but can still excel at their niche.
Of course these are begging to be used for highsec suicide ganking.
And making them cost more will have an effect on the cost benefit equation of using them... However at the cost of removing their usefulness for their primary [as it looks to me] application and purpose.
So I think that you live with the fact that these make Suicide ganking slightly easier [so maybe you need 8~9 cat's instead of 10~12] and make them affordable.

Circa 2~3 mill for med turrets. or about 2~3 times the price of the standard t2 mods.
Bjurn Akely
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2014-10-30 01:00:18 UTC
Soden Rah wrote:

So I think that you live with the fact that these make Suicide ganking slightly easier [so maybe you need 8~9 cat's instead of 10~12] and make them affordable.

Circa 2~3 mill for med turrets. or about 2~3 times the price of the standard t2 mods.


Personally I'd like them to be so expensive as to make them unfeasible for high-sec gateganking or miner ganking. I personally don't have that much love for that game style. But that is just my personal opinion.
Quesa
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#431 - 2014-10-30 01:12:45 UTC
It would be super if you could spend time doing bug fixes or development on worthwhile areas of the game instead of creating a new gun for us to shoot structures with.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#432 - 2014-10-30 13:43:52 UTC
After taking a short look at polarized weapons today, I noticed a weird error: The OP says there should be a Heavy Neutron Blaster version of them, but it's not in the market.

Has CCP forgotten to seed the medium version of the neutron blasters?
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#433 - 2014-10-30 13:56:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Soden Rah wrote:
Well as we have all learned, making something pricey doesn't work very well in balancing... titan blobs anyone...


The one area where balancing on price kind of works, as CCP has mentioned, is suicide ganking. It doesn't prevent anyone from fitting an eight-figure Catalyst, but the guaranteed loss of the ship offers a strong disincentive to do so.

If the price is pitched too low, every gank Catalyst and Brutix and Talos in creation will immediately be fitted with these weapons. Maybe some of the autocannons will end up on gank Thrashers. And that will be about it.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#434 - 2014-10-30 14:23:21 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Soden Rah wrote:
Well as we have all learned, making something pricey doesn't work very well in balancing... titan blobs anyone...


The one area where balancing on price kind of works, as CCP has mentioned, is suicide ganking. It doesn't prevent anyone from fitting an eight-figure Catalyst, but the guaranteed loss of the ship offers a strong disincentive to do so.

If the price is pitched too low, every gank Catalyst and Brutix and Talos in creation will immediately be fitted with these weapons. Maybe some of the autocannons will end up on gank Thrashers. And that will be about it.


Not the Brutix. Except with gimmick fits using medium projectile or -laser weapons. Because I get the feeling CCP has completely forgotten to add the medium blaster weapons.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#435 - 2014-10-30 15:39:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
Kills means nothing. You can just un group your weapons and carry tackle/ewar and just cycle on every ship on field even if you die first you will still be on ever kill


and price point should be faction at least.
Soden Rah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#436 - 2014-10-30 16:43:45 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Soden Rah wrote:
Well as we have all learned, making something pricey doesn't work very well in balancing... titan blobs anyone...


The one area where balancing on price kind of works, as CCP has mentioned, is suicide ganking. It doesn't prevent anyone from fitting an eight-figure Catalyst, but the guaranteed loss of the ship offers a strong disincentive to do so.

If the price is pitched too low, every gank Catalyst and Brutix and Talos in creation will immediately be fitted with these weapons. Maybe some of the autocannons will end up on gank Thrashers. And that will be about it.


Not the Brutix. Except with gimmick fits using medium projectile or -laser weapons. Because I get the feeling CCP has completely forgotten to add the medium blaster weapons.



Well given that med blasters were what I was testing with I don't think they have forgotten to add them.
Soden Rah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#437 - 2014-10-30 16:53:27 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Soden Rah wrote:
Well as we have all learned, making something pricey doesn't work very well in balancing... titan blobs anyone...


The one area where balancing on price kind of works, as CCP has mentioned, is suicide ganking. It doesn't prevent anyone from fitting an eight-figure Catalyst, but the guaranteed loss of the ship offers a strong disincentive to do so.

If the price is pitched too low, every gank Catalyst and Brutix and Talos in creation will immediately be fitted with these weapons. Maybe some of the autocannons will end up on gank Thrashers. And that will be about it.



Given that we are currently looking at 10~20% boost in dps from these turrets, then what used to take 10 gank ships might now
take 8~9 ships. If these turrets are 2~3 times the price of regular T2 then those 8~9 ships will still likely cost more than the 10 with regular guns.

It's hardly game breaking. In fact as they currently stand, even if they do become the gankers weapons of choice, I don't think this will make any noticeable difference to ganking if they are priced in the 2~3 times regular t2 bracket.

I agree that gankers will probably switch to using these weapons for preference if these are affordable.

What I don't agree with is seeing this as a problem, because I don't think it will make their ganking more prolific or affordable.

However what making these weapons very expensive will do is stop them being used for their "affectionately known as glass cannons" use of being put on cheap [ish] semi-disposable 'glass cannon' small gang ships which seems to me to be the whole point of these weapons.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#438 - 2014-10-30 17:31:21 UTC
Soden Rah wrote:
Owen Levanth wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Soden Rah wrote:
Well as we have all learned, making something pricey doesn't work very well in balancing... titan blobs anyone...


The one area where balancing on price kind of works, as CCP has mentioned, is suicide ganking. It doesn't prevent anyone from fitting an eight-figure Catalyst, but the guaranteed loss of the ship offers a strong disincentive to do so.

If the price is pitched too low, every gank Catalyst and Brutix and Talos in creation will immediately be fitted with these weapons. Maybe some of the autocannons will end up on gank Thrashers. And that will be about it.


Not the Brutix. Except with gimmick fits using medium projectile or -laser weapons. Because I get the feeling CCP has completely forgotten to add the medium blaster weapons.



Well given that med blasters were what I was testing with I don't think they have forgotten to add them.


Then why aren't they showing up in my client? I've looked over my market setting several times now, Polarized Heavy Neutron Blasters don't show up.

Have other people seen this problem turn up, too? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who can't test medium polarized blasters.
Soden Rah
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#439 - 2014-10-30 17:44:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Soden Rah
Owen Levanth wrote:
Soden Rah wrote:
Owen Levanth wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Soden Rah wrote:
Well as we have all learned, making something pricey doesn't work very well in balancing... titan blobs anyone...


The one area where balancing on price kind of works, as CCP has mentioned, is suicide ganking. It doesn't prevent anyone from fitting an eight-figure Catalyst, but the guaranteed loss of the ship offers a strong disincentive to do so.

If the price is pitched too low, every gank Catalyst and Brutix and Talos in creation will immediately be fitted with these weapons. Maybe some of the autocannons will end up on gank Thrashers. And that will be about it.


Not the Brutix. Except with gimmick fits using medium projectile or -laser weapons. Because I get the feeling CCP has completely forgotten to add the medium blaster weapons.



Well given that med blasters were what I was testing with I don't think they have forgotten to add them.


Then why aren't they showing up in my client? I've looked over my market setting several times now, Polarized Heavy Neutron Blasters don't show up.

Have other people seen this problem turn up, too? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who can't test medium polarized blasters.


I don't know.

I'll have a look when I get home and can boot up SiSi.

Have you tried searching the market with the keyword Polarized, rather than just looking under blasters?

Because that's how I picked up the ones I'm using.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#440 - 2014-10-30 17:50:36 UTC
Soden Rah wrote:


I don't know.

I'll have a look when I get home and can boot up SiSi.

Have you tried searching the market with the keyword Polarized, rather than just looking under blasters?

Because that's how I picked up the ones I'm using.


Yes I did. Several times. Things I also tried:

1. Logging in and out repeatedly. Problem persists across several days now.

2. Checking and un-checking the checkbox for the visibility of items not on the local market. Everything else not available appears and disappears like it should. (Also all other Polarized weapons are seeded on the market, so they aren't influenced by this, but I wanted to be thorough.)

3. Closing and opening the market-window several times. No change.

From my point of view I can only conclude polarized medium blasters aren't there.