These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Autocannons] A Balance Suggestion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#221 - 2014-12-04 13:14:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Aiyshimin wrote:
Give projectiles the 5 sec ammo change time (10 seconds is not just slow compared to blasters, but it's too long for current PVP meta, all ships are faster now), increase falloff slightly and improve the damage profiles of projectile ammo, make them more focused on one damage type, and get completely rid of the ones with 3 damage types. Meanwhile cut some range from Null.

Also, nerf links.



i think quite the opposite on the 3 damage types, i think more omni mixed ammo adds more flavour to projectiles as blasters and lasers are both 2 damage only, i think hail and barrage should be more mixed aswell, Null is fine , links do need nerfs aswell as bringing on grid, but thats a code issue.

shorter reload is definitely needed 3 seconds might be better too promote ammo switching as a strong projectile bonus
higher ROF and more falloff to the guns but nerf barrage a little..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#222 - 2014-12-04 13:56:51 UTC
Problem with mixed damage types is that you'll just end up doing less of the actual damage you should be inflicting.

Null is not massively OP like Scorch, but in some cases it hits out a bit too far- just a small range nerf would still keep it viable.

5 seconds is pretty good ammo switch time imo, 3 seconds is near instant when you consider how server ticks work and would step too much on laser's toes.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#223 - 2014-12-04 14:40:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
the over reliance on T2 ammo in general is an issue that needs a slightly stronger approach than has been taken in the pulse laser/scorch thread .. the max benefit/penalties of T2 ammo should be 10-20% on top of the T1 versions they are based especially as the T2 ammo already have the 2% a level damage skills on top.

we need more useful T1/faction ammo .. instead of 5-6 of 8 T1 ammo being useless, having 3-4 useful T1 ammo for both SR and LR guns would be much better.
easy enough for lasers being all optimal, similar with hybrids too, just projectiles have the issue of optimal vs falloff issue,
a way too resolve it so you could cut the ammo in half is too make arties fallof based aswell, much like bouncers are too some extent. maybe buff the optimal on arties too compensate

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#224 - 2014-12-04 18:26:19 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Give projectiles the 5 sec ammo change time (10 seconds is not just slow compared to blasters, but it's too long for current PVP meta, all ships are faster now)




Autos get larger clip sizes. The 5 second reload time is the hybrid gimmick to make them different to other weapons, making all weapons behave in the same way defeats this goal. Autos when compared to blastes already get more range, bigger clip sizes, selectable damage types, no cap use and better tracking in their engagement range
Nodire Hermetz
Jump 2 Beacon
Death Legion of Capybaras
#225 - 2014-12-05 17:58:13 UTC
Bumpinity for giving back some love at minmatar ships
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#226 - 2014-12-06 19:37:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tusker Crazinski
- I think they should lose damage selection for more Raw DPS (kinetic dominance for close range charges explosive for long range) much like lasers work or EM thermal

- take several charges per cycle lets say 4, over heating should take additional charges perhaps 6 ammo is the only limiting factor for projectiles to shoot. ammo should be an issue.

- long range ammo should give a fall off buff

also minmatar hull bonuses and slot layout need to stop being dumb. I'm looking at you wolf, munnin, mael
Nodire Hermetz
Jump 2 Beacon
Death Legion of Capybaras
#227 - 2014-12-07 04:50:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Nodire Hermetz
seriously , we just need a bit more dps , more falloff (45-50km falloff with barage on vagabond will be correct and not op and will fill with his bonuses and on what he's intented to do) and maybe a bit of tracking

no need to re-transform all the projectile into a semi-hydrid whatever things

it's all we need
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#228 - 2014-12-08 03:08:50 UTC
Nodire Hermetz wrote:
seriously , we just need a bit more dps , more falloff (45-50km falloff with barage on vagabond will be correct and not op and will fill with his bonuses and on what he's intented to do) and maybe a bit of tracking

no need to re-transform all the projectile into a semi-hydrid whatever things

it's all we need


Ummm, you're going a bit overboard there. A 20-30% falloff increase tied in with a damage increase and a possible tracking increase would be completely broken. Right back to the Winmatar meta. Consider that most people in this thread are noting that a 10-15% falloff increase would likely be sufficient. Even a bottom end (by your post) increase of 20% falloff would be more than sufficient for the next patch, and would likely go a very long way (pretty much entirely) toward balancing medium ACs.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#229 - 2014-12-08 03:31:29 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Nodire Hermetz wrote:
seriously , we just need a bit more dps , more falloff (45-50km falloff with barage on vagabond will be correct and not op and will fill with hn what he's intented to do) and maybe a bit of tracking

no need to re-transform all the projectile into a semi-hydrid whatever things

it's all we need


Ummm, you're going a bit overboard there. A 20-30% falloff increase tied in with a damage increase and a possible tracking increase would be completely broken. Right back to the Winmatar meta. Consider that most people in this thread are noting that a 10-15% falloff increase would likely be sufficient. Even a bottom end (by your post) increase of 20% falloff would be more than sufficient for the next patch, and would likely go a very long way (pretty much entirely) toward balancing medium ACs.


Yea im only talkin 10-15%. Anymore than that and you start getting into silly ranges with autocannons with barrage. There isnt anything acs need, other than falloff adjustments.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Nodire Hermetz
Jump 2 Beacon
Death Legion of Capybaras
#230 - 2014-12-08 04:03:12 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
Nodire Hermetz wrote:
seriously , we just need a bit more dps , more falloff (45-50km falloff with barage on vagabond will be correct and not op and will fill with hn what he's intented to do) and maybe a bit of tracking

no need to re-transform all the projectile into a semi-hydrid whatever things

it's all we need


Ummm, you're going a bit overboard there. A 20-30% falloff increase tied in with a damage increase and a possible tracking increase would be completely broken. Right back to the Winmatar meta. Consider that most people in this thread are noting that a 10-15% falloff increase would likely be sufficient. Even a bottom end (by your post) increase of 20% falloff would be more than sufficient for the next patch, and would likely go a very long way (pretty much entirely) toward balancing medium ACs.


Yea im only talkin 10-15%. Anymore than that and you start getting into silly ranges with autocannons with barrage. There isnt anything acs need, other than falloff adjustments.



giving 10-15% give just 2km+ falloff in barrage in vaga/cyna , it's really nothing ... and we will still got anemic dps with that falloff range...
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#231 - 2014-12-08 14:02:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
Nodire Hermetz wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
Nodire Hermetz wrote:
seriously , we just need a bit more dps , more falloff (45-50km falloff with barage on vagabond will be correct and not op and will fill with hn what he's intented to do) and maybe a bit of tracking

no need to re-transform all the projectile into a semi-hydrid whatever things

it's all we need


Ummm, you're going a bit overboard there. A 20-30% falloff increase tied in with a damage increase and a possible tracking increase would be completely broken. Right back to the Winmatar meta. Consider that most people in this thread are noting that a 10-15% falloff increase would likely be sufficient. Even a bottom end (by your post) increase of 20% falloff would be more than sufficient for the next patch, and would likely go a very long way (pretty much entirely) toward balancing medium ACs.


Yea im only talkin 10-15%. Anymore than that and you start getting into silly ranges with autocannons with barrage. There isnt anything acs need, other than falloff adjustments.



giving 10-15% give just 2km+ falloff in barrage in vaga/cyna , it's really nothing ... and we will still got anemic dps with that falloff range...


Yes but it would shift the dps curve more towards mid-range engagements like its supposed to. What youre asking for is for autocannons to move to a long range weapon system which is not their intended role. You move falloff 2-3km and that can be a 50-100dps bump at point range. We do NOT need acs to do full damage at point range. Thats laser territory.

You want minny long range weapons? Ask CCP to fix arty PG requirements to make them viable. Post to my arty thread with support.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Minalist
Doomheim
#232 - 2014-12-08 22:17:27 UTC
Bump!

And since we're on a matari issue:

- why amarr, caldari and gallente have a AF to both their weapons systems but minmatar is nailed on projective weapons in both? A missile based minmatar AF is missing.
- and adjust the artillary powergrid requirements, pls.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#233 - 2014-12-08 22:50:35 UTC
Minalist wrote:
Bump!

And since we're on a matari issue:

- why amarr, caldari and gallente have a AF to both their weapons systems but minmatar is nailed on projective weapons in both? A missile based minmatar AF is missing.
- and adjust the artillary powergrid requirements, pls.

Works for me. Can we get that at the same time we get a Tier 3 BC that can use large missiles?
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2014-12-09 04:07:27 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Minalist wrote:
Bump!

And since we're on a matari issue:

- why amarr, caldari and gallente have a AF to both their weapons systems but minmatar is nailed on projective weapons in both? A missile based minmatar AF is missing.
- and adjust the artillary powergrid requirements, pls.

Works for me. Can we get that at the same time we get a Tier 3 BC that can use large missiles?


Meh

I think ABCs should just be guns.

right now a scam = death for a ABC missiles would break that.

and god knows no one wants a drone ABC in the game right now
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#235 - 2014-12-09 04:15:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Tusker Crazinski wrote:


Meh

I think ABCs should just be guns.

right now a scam = death for a ABC missiles would break that.

and god knows no one wants a drone ABC in the game right now

We already have Drone ABC's
They are called Vexors, VNI's & Ishtars. Medium sized ship using a full 'large' weapon system.
---
Also, I'm on board with increasing AC fall off range...
IF!
Ammo for AC's also affects fall off, not just optimal. So that longer range Ammo's actually have a purpose.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#236 - 2014-12-09 13:06:39 UTC
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Minalist wrote:
Bump!

And since we're on a matari issue:

- why amarr, caldari and gallente have a AF to both their weapons systems but minmatar is nailed on projective weapons in both? A missile based minmatar AF is missing.
- and adjust the artillary powergrid requirements, pls.

Works for me. Can we get that at the same time we get a Tier 3 BC that can use large missiles?


Meh

I think ABCs should just be guns.

right now a scam = death for a ABC missiles would break that.

and god knows no one wants a drone ABC in the game right now


My bait nado laughs at your scram, and explodes frigs all the time at scram range.

Not to mention, if they are BS sized missiles, they will be doing jack **** to a frigate unless you have lots of painters/webs. I wouldn't be opposed to a drone ABC, as long as it had a big weakness. It could be interesting to add a few ABC variants

Minmatar: missiles
Caldari: missiles
Gal: drones
Amarr: Neuts/drones?

Suppose thats for a different thread though, more a/c fall-off plz?

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Tusker Crazinski
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#237 - 2014-12-10 00:20:52 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Tusker Crazinski wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Minalist wrote:
Bump!

And since we're on a matari issue:

- why amarr, caldari and gallente have a AF to both their weapons systems but minmatar is nailed on projective weapons in both? A missile based minmatar AF is missing.
- and adjust the artillary powergrid requirements, pls.

Works for me. Can we get that at the same time we get a Tier 3 BC that can use large missiles?


Meh

I think ABCs should just be guns.

right now a scam = death for a ABC missiles would break that.

and god knows no one wants a drone ABC in the game right now


My bait nado laughs at your scram, and explodes frigs all the time at scram range.

Not to mention, if they are BS sized missiles, they will be doing jack **** to a frigate unless you have lots of painters/webs. I wouldn't be opposed to a drone ABC, as long as it had a big weakness. It could be interesting to add a few ABC variants

Minmatar: missiles
Caldari: missiles
Gal: drones
Amarr: Neuts/drones?

Suppose thats for a different thread though, more a/c fall-off plz?


meh till missiles are less ********,,, or more precisely less ****** proof I don't think they should get a fast max gank boat.

because this bait nado is a very situational ship, a missile ABC could do the same just better and without compromising the whole ship to pop figs in point range.

and honestly that's why I love the current ABCs, insane damage potential but one **** up means a 100 million isk fail mail.

anyway back to ACs I think the different tiers should lose fitting and DPS disparities but have their Falloff and tracking disparities extremely accentuated.

It took lots of corp chat yelling to stop putting 425s on my Vaga and just go for the 220 XLASB fit
Arla Sarain
#238 - 2014-12-10 00:53:05 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Autos when compared to blastes already get more range, bigger clip sizes, selectable damage types, no cap use and better tracking in their engagement range

Null deals more damage than barrage at autocannon falloff range. Selectable damage types are moot with 10s reloads. You lose more DPS at reload than you gain from matching the ammo types.

At what ranges do autocannons track better than blasters? Slashers with 125mm (smallest small) track marginally better (about 10%, likely less, number I am getting is 0.65rad/s) than comets with Neutrons (largest smalls). Both have tracking bonuses. Im not sure what pattern medium and large follow, I assume similar.

At 500m blasters will out track or track just as well ACs and hence out DPS them simply because blasters have by their definition higher DPS.

What do you refer to as AC operation range? The 30% into falloff? At this range blasters still win. Tracking becomes less significant the further you move away and for blasters to start losing DPS the AC ship needs to move out further into his falloff.

11km falloff is trash when you deal 40% of your already low DPS at that range.

Small ACs are pretty bad. They just have bad DPS, their token falloff does them no favours. 10s of changing ammo is 10s of you dealing no damage on a weapon choice that already does low DPS. Lasers do more and have huge optimals.
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#239 - 2014-12-11 21:25:46 UTC
bump coz AC need a blue answer
Nodire Hermetz
Jump 2 Beacon
Death Legion of Capybaras
#240 - 2014-12-14 13:28:29 UTC
Bump this thread , AC and Projo need some love !