These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rhea] Pulse Lasers and Scorch

First post First post
Author
Eric Shang
SPUDDEN IMPACT
The Potato Alliance
#141 - 2014-12-04 16:12:11 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
You think making Scorch so that it barely has any more range than Multi is something that would be good? Your numbers would be utterly terrible, why would anyone ever use Scorch?


Increase the range to 10 so its overheated scram range and you golden.

Short range: (frigate level)

Pulse Lasers
Blasters
Autocannons
Rockets

Long range: (frigate level)
Beam
Rail
Artie
Light Missle

How can you make scorch hit so far when it is to be a short range ammo and then you have gleam thats long range ammo but hits like its a pulse ammo?

There is a fault here.

Ex Pirate - Now a reborn priest for Faith Singularity

My Pirate Journey: http://ericshangthepirate.wordpress.com/

Schneevva
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#142 - 2014-12-05 02:08:05 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:



No that is NOT the reason why pulses have issues. THe main problem with pulses is that high damage cristals have same penalty as the other types of high damage ammunitions ( antimatter and EMP).. what you ask? How can that be an disadvantage? Because the MAIN advantage of pulses over other weapons is RANGE.

Result.. High damage ammunition penalty is FUNCTIONALLY much HIGHER on pulse lasers than on Blasters and AC. On AC the bonuses and penalties of T1 ammo were fixed long ago by making a tracking vs damage tradeoff. On blasters you use AM or NOTHING of t1 ammunition. The AM range penalty is irrelevant since you will already need to be very close.

Reduce MF range penalty to 30% and scale the other crystals .. and pulse lasers will be in a much more healthy place because they will be able to use their main advantage. That of REMOVE COMPLETELY the range penalty on T1 ammunition and exchange it for TRACKING vs Damage scaling.



This is no different from saying that "blasters give functionally more damage from the same ammo type because they all have the same base damage and blasters have a higher damage mod". Or that it's unfair that close range t2 ammo gives a penalty tracking on blasters because blasters have more tracking to lose.

It's nonsense. Lasers still end up with more range and better ratio of optimal/to falloff than the others (and this will only be increased with the next patch) , and don't try to pretend that falloff is identical to optimal, or that Conflag isn't insanely good.
Nevil Kincade
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2014-12-05 04:57:55 UTC
since you asked what we think:

Due to laser cap consumption many Amarr ships loose a full ship hull skill bonus slot to a laser cap consumption bonus where other races get nice things like DMG, ROF or tracking which i find perverse. Those ships that have been reworked in the past to get an actually useful bonus suffer from the high cap use. considering the neut vulnerability, horrible tracking and the predictable dmg pattern laser platforms are hardcountered too easy in too many ways (especially in fleet doctrines). most of them lack the speed to keep the desired range to make use of the lasers advantageous optimal range and do not have the cap to keep burning and firing their guns at the same time anyway. this usually results in fitting a cap booster occupying one of the sparse mid slots which amarr usually have the fewest of to begin with. thus the ships utility is being crippled and range control made impossible while excessive amounts of power grid are required for the cap booster. so what i'm asking for is the same amount of ship hull bonuses any other platform gets and the ability to fire my weapon system constantly like any other ship so that the cap booster can stay an optional counter to neuts. this can be achieved by drastically reducing laser cap consumption.


Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#144 - 2014-12-05 09:03:19 UTC
Eric Shang wrote:
Mr Floydy wrote:
You think making Scorch so that it barely has any more range than Multi is something that would be good? Your numbers would be utterly terrible, why would anyone ever use Scorch?


Increase the range to 10 so its overheated scram range and you golden.

Short range: (frigate level)

Pulse Lasers
Blasters
Autocannons
Rockets

Long range: (frigate level)
Beam
Rail
Artie
Light Missle

How can you make scorch hit so far when it is to be a short range ammo and then you have gleam thats long range ammo but hits like its a pulse ammo?

There is a fault here.

Then you will have a weapon system with poor tracking, extensive cap use, and none flexible damage type that will fail at close range and won't have enough damage in scram kite range.

btw Scorch=Xrays/Gamma on beams, not gleam; and gleam is not a long range ammo it's a short range ammo for long range guns.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#145 - 2014-12-05 23:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Ashlar Vellum wrote:

btw Scorch=Xrays/Gamma on beams, not gleam; and gleam is not a long range ammo it's a short range ammo for long range guns.

Exactly. Each short range weapon system has a high damage, lower tracking, low range ammo for use in a close orbit against larger enemies where the tracking/range penalty is moot and the damage is more important to break tanks.
They also have a lower tracking, longer range ammo with decent damage for use against enemies hanging outside of the base range. In the case of lasers, it's a bit imbalanced compared to the other ammo types, but that's because the other ammo types besides MF/Conflag are worthless.

On the other hand, long range guns have two types of T2 ammo. A short range, high tracking "oh ****" ammo type for use against enemies who have gotten under your guns, and a long range, low tracking ammo meant for extreme range sniping.

Schneevva wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:



No that is NOT the reason why pulses have issues. THe main problem with pulses is that high damage cristals have same penalty as the other types of high damage ammunitions ( antimatter and EMP).. what you ask? How can that be an disadvantage? Because the MAIN advantage of pulses over other weapons is RANGE.

Result.. High damage ammunition penalty is FUNCTIONALLY much HIGHER on pulse lasers than on Blasters and AC. On AC the bonuses and penalties of T1 ammo were fixed long ago by making a tracking vs damage tradeoff. On blasters you use AM or NOTHING of t1 ammunition. The AM range penalty is irrelevant since you will already need to be very close.

Reduce MF range penalty to 30% and scale the other crystals .. and pulse lasers will be in a much more healthy place because they will be able to use their main advantage. That of REMOVE COMPLETELY the range penalty on T1 ammunition and exchange it for TRACKING vs Damage scaling.



This is no different from saying that "blasters give functionally more damage from the same ammo type because they all have the same base damage and blasters have a higher damage mod". Or that it's unfair that close range t2 ammo gives a penalty tracking on blasters because blasters have more tracking to lose.

It's nonsense. Lasers still end up with more range and better ratio of optimal/to falloff than the others (and this will only be increased with the next patch) , and don't try to pretend that falloff is identical to optimal, or that Conflag isn't insanely good.


Not exactly. Have you seen the downsides to using long range faction ammo compared to close range faction ammo on Autocannons? The range downside is almost non-existent because of the huge falloff and the already pathetic optimal. Even if you do more than triple the optimal of autocannons, the optimal is a smal fraction of the overall range of the guns.

Just for example. Not saying I endorse his idea.

Also, Conflag isn't insanely good. You're high or something. It's pretty solid if you don't mind capping yourself out and you're shooting something two size classes higher than you, but even with a Coercer (a destroyer with a 50% tracking bonus) it's possible for frigates to get under your guns. You know, on a ship specialized in killing frigates, with a close range weapon system. It's still a great choice for when you don't need the tracking/can force the range to be at the edge of your optimal where the tracking isn't as bad, but it's not insanely good. Scorch is, but that's because of the low damage penalty and the high optimal of lasers recieving a huge bonus from an increase to optimal (you know, like I touched on in the first paragraph of this reply.)
Commander Haruhi
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2014-12-06 17:50:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Haruhi
I'm very much for having pulse lasers be very high alpha, very low RoF close range weapons and beams be very low cycle time / high RoF, very low alpha long range weapons.

It would differentiate them from the minmatar in particular with their high alpha long range guns and fast RoF "short"-range guns.


I mean, if you're gonna have lasers, why not have a continous beam of amarrian facemelting?
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#147 - 2014-12-07 11:16:21 UTC
A shake up of lasers to change the beams into a continues beam of facemelt gets my vote :D
Schneevva
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#148 - 2014-12-08 00:57:53 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:


Not exactly. Have you seen the downsides to using long range faction ammo compared to close range faction ammo on Autocannons? The range downside is almost non-existent because of the huge falloff and the already pathetic optimal. Even if you do more than triple the optimal of autocannons, the optimal is a smal fraction of the overall range of the guns.

Just for example. Not saying I endorse his idea.

Also, Conflag isn't insanely good. You're high or something. It's pretty solid if you don't mind capping yourself out and you're shooting something two size classes higher than you, but even with a Coercer (a destroyer with a 50% tracking bonus) it's possible for frigates to get under your guns. You know, on a ship specialized in killing frigates, with a close range weapon system. It's still a great choice for when you don't need the tracking/can force the range to be at the edge of your optimal where the tracking isn't as bad, but it's not insanely good. Scorch is, but that's because of the low damage penalty and the high optimal of lasers recieving a huge bonus from an increase to optimal (you know, like I touched on in the first paragraph of this reply.)


You shouldn't be treating falloff as identical to optimal in any scenario.

And yes, conflag is "bad" if you exist in some weird vacuum where webs don't exist. Otherwise it's probably the best of the t2 high damage ammos. The cap penalty is fairly irrelevant, a coercer for example can run a full rack of small pulses using conflag, a prop mod, and a warp scram and have 16 minutes of cap, which is more than enough. And the tracking penalty is just that, not particularly a big deal. Something can get "under your guns" if had MF loaded as well.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#149 - 2014-12-08 02:55:59 UTC
Schneevva wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:


Not exactly. Have you seen the downsides to using long range faction ammo compared to close range faction ammo on Autocannons? The range downside is almost non-existent because of the huge falloff and the already pathetic optimal. Even if you do more than triple the optimal of autocannons, the optimal is a smal fraction of the overall range of the guns.

Just for example. Not saying I endorse his idea.

Also, Conflag isn't insanely good. You're high or something. It's pretty solid if you don't mind capping yourself out and you're shooting something two size classes higher than you, but even with a Coercer (a destroyer with a 50% tracking bonus) it's possible for frigates to get under your guns. You know, on a ship specialized in killing frigates, with a close range weapon system. It's still a great choice for when you don't need the tracking/can force the range to be at the edge of your optimal where the tracking isn't as bad, but it's not insanely good. Scorch is, but that's because of the low damage penalty and the high optimal of lasers recieving a huge bonus from an increase to optimal (you know, like I touched on in the first paragraph of this reply.)


You shouldn't be treating falloff as identical to optimal in any scenario.

And yes, conflag is "bad" if you exist in some weird vacuum where webs don't exist. Otherwise it's probably the best of the t2 high damage ammos. The cap penalty is fairly irrelevant, a coercer for example can run a full rack of small pulses using conflag, a prop mod, and a warp scram and have 16 minutes of cap, which is more than enough. And the tracking penalty is just that, not particularly a big deal. Something can get "under your guns" if had MF loaded as well.

What the **** is a web? Something I put in my prop slot, my point slot, or my cap booster slot?

Because it's a minority of laser using ships that have more than 3 mids. The number of laser based ships that have enough mids for everything they need and a web is quite low, most of them being ship classes that can't even use a web effectively like Battleships or caps. Ships up to BC don't have slots for a web, and BCs and BSes are trash anyways.


And just saying, none of my Coercer fits get over 3 mins of cap life, most less than that by a lot. the 10mn fit gets 2:32 with Scorch, 2:02 with Conflag. The "Slicer" style fit gets 1:22 with Conflag. Which prop mod do are you using, and why a scram when your damage range is out to long point range with pulses?

Also, Void is probably better. It's available on Gallente ships, an overwhelming number of which have a tracking bonus which allows them to apply damage more easily to similar sized ships. They also tend to have a decent amount of midslots, typically 4 or more on every ship over Destroyer. The range is poor, but Gallente ships are largely fast enough to get into range, and when in range can apply tackle while tracking well despite the penalty.

I won't dispute though, that it is far superior to Hail still. Hail's bad. Just terrible.

And no, falloff isn't indentical to optimal. But the point stands that range is dictated by 2 distinct variables that are affected independantly of each other, therefore the weapons which have a higher concentration of their range in one or the other are more affected by modifiers to that stat than other weapons. IE. Lasers suffer greatly by reducing their primary range by changing to high DPS ammo. Autocannons are almost completely unaffected due to the very small percentage of their effective range being in optimal.
Schneevva
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#150 - 2014-12-08 03:46:03 UTC
Quote:
What the **** is a web? Something I put in my prop slot, my point slot, or my cap booster slot?


No, you put it into a mid a slot. You have two of them on a coercer. Yes I agree that needing cap boosters on many amarr ships is terrible and Amarr ships have too few slots to compensate for their cap problems. This has nothing to do with the fundamental balance of lasers, and webs, in general, in solo, solo or large scale pvp are basically par for the course. Webs on the tormentor, coercer and omen/maller are all possible and in fact kind of required if you intend to use pulse outside of massive blobs (where odds are you will still probably having webbing support and tackle.) or kiting (but scorch kiters are terribly predictable).
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#151 - 2014-12-11 14:01:36 UTC
Schneevva wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:



No that is NOT the reason why pulses have issues. THe main problem with pulses is that high damage cristals have same penalty as the other types of high damage ammunitions ( antimatter and EMP).. what you ask? How can that be an disadvantage? Because the MAIN advantage of pulses over other weapons is RANGE.

Result.. High damage ammunition penalty is FUNCTIONALLY much HIGHER on pulse lasers than on Blasters and AC. On AC the bonuses and penalties of T1 ammo were fixed long ago by making a tracking vs damage tradeoff. On blasters you use AM or NOTHING of t1 ammunition. The AM range penalty is irrelevant since you will already need to be very close.

Reduce MF range penalty to 30% and scale the other crystals .. and pulse lasers will be in a much more healthy place because they will be able to use their main advantage. That of REMOVE COMPLETELY the range penalty on T1 ammunition and exchange it for TRACKING vs Damage scaling.



This is no different from saying that "blasters give functionally more damage from the same ammo type because they all have the same base damage and blasters have a higher damage mod". Or that it's unfair that close range t2 ammo gives a penalty tracking on blasters because blasters have more tracking to lose.

It's nonsense. Lasers still end up with more range and better ratio of optimal/to falloff than the others (and this will only be increased with the next patch) , and don't try to pretend that falloff is identical to optimal, or that Conflag isn't insanely good.


Wrong.. ratio is just a measurement that you make in spreasheet balance. In real eve things are different. If amarr lasers lose range they are suddenly pulled inside a range, where they will get SLAUGHTERED by blasters.

You cannot analyse just the stats of the weapons, you need to think on the effect they have on a real combat scenario. Range alone is not everything. If you have 7.5 km optimal while blasters have 2 km.. that is NOT a LOT more! Because these very few KM means 2-3 seconds of movement in combat conditions. Since any reaction in game can only take effect after 2 seconds, that means that getting at that range is suicidal for an amarr ship because it means that SURELY they will get caught and pushed to near zero range before they can react to a direction change or prop overheat.

For a blaster ship, it is nearly irrelevant in this scenario if their range was 2 km and then became 1. BEcause in real eve, not in a spreadsheet, 1 or 2 km is exactly the same !

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#152 - 2014-12-11 16:55:44 UTC
so this change has had such little effect.

- conflag
had 7.5km optimal 5km falloff
now has 7.8km optimal and 6km falloff

-scorch
22.5km op 5km falloff
22.05km op 6km falloff

which tell us this was far too little a change... try again fozzie

try 10% this time in addition , so scorch down to 30% range
and add the 10% to pulses optimal, then reduce the 50% to conflag and multis down to 30%

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

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2014-12-12 08:52:21 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
so this change has had such little effect.

- conflag
had 7.5km optimal 5km falloff
now has 7.8km optimal and 6km falloff

-scorch
22.5km op 5km falloff
22.05km op 6km falloff

which tell us this was far too little a change... try again fozzie

try 10% this time in addition , so scorch down to 30% range
and add the 10% to pulses optimal, then reduce the 50% to conflag and multis down to 30%



They made it little because the can see that pulses are not weak. They are already stronger than AC for most scenarios. THe problem lies in blasters and rails that cover the WHOLE engagement envelope with advantage over energy weapons and projectiles (with the exception of arties having the alpha strike niche). But current game designers have a very skewed view of racial balance and for some reason thing gallente needs more and more help when they are already by far the most powerful race on small scale engagement (where these type of details matter)

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"