These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The end of Hybrid buff
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
#201 - 2011-12-23 11:55:13 UTC
Well, back to some lucid discussion on this last page finally.

And for what it is woth, I find medium raills to be ok now. Not as good as other options, but not completely laughable. For small gangs, a 200mm rail thorax with a TC, long point and armor tank resist/active rep, magstab and nano isnt a bad option. I dont have eft here, but i think it goes 1700-ish and does 300ish dps with light drones out to long point range. My current one has gotten kills in 5 engagements now, which is unheard of for any of my previous blaster thorax. Could probably shield tank it and put a te in the lows, but I havent tried that version yet. Thie rail fitting requirements are still crap though.

And honestly, the 5 second ammo swap time is probably the biggest buff we got in the latest patch. Its not huge, but it has come in handy a number of times for me.
Goose99
#202 - 2011-12-23 16:40:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Goose99
Emily Poast wrote:
Well, back to some lucid discussion on this last page finally.

And for what it is woth, I find medium raills to be ok now. Not as good as other options, but not completely laughable. For small gangs, a 200mm rail thorax with a TC, long point and armor tank resist/active rep, magstab and nano isnt a bad option. I dont have eft here, but i think it goes 1700-ish and does 300ish dps with light drones out to long point range. My current one has gotten kills in 5 engagements now, which is unheard of for any of my previous blaster thorax. Could probably shield tank it and put a te in the lows, but I havent tried that version yet. Thie rail fitting requirements are still crap though.

And honestly, the 5 second ammo swap time is probably the biggest buff we got in the latest patch. Its not huge, but it has come in handy a number of times for me.


"Gotten kills" is hardly any indication of effectiveness. All you had to do is shoot something to get on km, doesn't matter if all it did was scratching the paint, which is all med rails are good for. I suspect, as usual, it's the canes in the gang doing the heavy lifting.
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
#203 - 2011-12-23 18:04:58 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Emily Poast wrote:
Well, back to some lucid discussion on this last page finally.

And for what it is woth, I find medium raills to be ok now. Not as good as other options, but not completely laughable. For small gangs, a 200mm rail thorax with a TC, long point and armor tank resist/active rep, magstab and nano isnt a bad option. I dont have eft here, but i think it goes 1700-ish and does 300ish dps with light drones out to long point range. My current one has gotten kills in 5 engagements now, which is unheard of for any of my previous blaster thorax. Could probably shield tank it and put a te in the lows, but I havent tried that version yet. Thie rail fitting requirements are still crap though.

And honestly, the 5 second ammo swap time is probably the biggest buff we got in the latest patch. Its not huge, but it has come in handy a number of times for me.


"Gotten kills" is hardly any indication of effectiveness. All you had to do is shoot something to get on km, doesn't matter if all it did was scratching the paint, which is all med rails are good for. I suspect, as usual, it's the canes in the gang doing the heavy lifting.


I dont fly it with canes. Just in cruiser gangs. And i am not saying rails are as effective as projectiles or lasors - simply that they arent completely terrible and you can actually fit them on the proper size hulls now - which you couldnt before. But yes - they still pale in comparison to artys in BC gangs, which is why I still fly canes in those gangs. Rails still need dps (not necessarily alpha) and fitting help.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#204 - 2011-12-23 20:10:50 UTC
History Son!:

As long as the community will not support a increase in medium and to a lesser extent large blaster range. Most Gal ships will never be considered viable. Solo or 2 - 4 pilot engagements are not done by the mojority of pilots ingame. So having ships focused for that purpose seems ********. You know, when most Amarr or Min ships can do the same and more. Even in the past. The most used Gal ships were ships that could be used in fleets with rail-gun (rail-gun-Megathron, Lachesis, Onieros, Arazu, rail-gun-Deimos). Blaster Megathrons had the same issues they do now. Pulse lasers were just better compared to all other turrets. So there was never a time since 2007 were they were useful comparatively. Every battleship could use 90% stasis webifier, but some had better projected and applied damage and considerably more velocity. So even the time blaster ships were considered the most viable. Pulse lasers were considered superior. However, the one turret most pilots considered blasters were superior to @ that time was projectiles.

Why? @ the time. Most projectile ships were limited to being effective in warp scrambler range. Certain ships like the Vagabond, sliepnir, Huginn and Muninn could use Min ships superior velocity. The Tempest was also and still able to out manoeuvre less mobile ships in a armour or shield variant.

So other than those specific ships. Every other Min ship operated under warp scrambler range. Min ships had superior mobility compared to Cal, Amarr and Gal. However even if the could out run every other ship in a specific class. Auto-cannons could only viably operate under warp scrambler range. Min had damage selection. However the ammunition was not as focused as it is now. Projectiles did not use capacitor then and pulse lasers were still considered supiroer. Even close range.Gal ships have always had a significant advantage in terms of defense in every class and damage. Not to mention most @ the time had nice graphs on the difference in damage of a Megathron compared to a Tempest. You know, to prove auto-cannons were not viable @ all. Gal ships could do everything most Min ships could, but better...

So what change? The changes in projectile damage was only 5 - 7%. The slight increase in base falloff of mid and high tier auto-cannons was slight. More focused damage ammunition did not yeild that much of a difference. Many had pretty graphs @ the time. Suggesting the changes were a "Joke". At-least in that regard they were correct. At-least to a certain extent... All the changes so far amounted to a significant increase in projectile applied damage under warp scambler range (once you factior in more focused damage and slight base falloff increase). Still, it didn't change much. Although artillery became overpowered compared to other long range turrets. At-least under 100km. Auto-cannons remained the same and apparently long range fleet engagements was becoming obsolete. (The stars seemed to align for the Minmatar race)

Then CCP listen to a handful in the community who suggested changes to tracking enhancers. Which was to help artillery. That was all it took. You could effectively take away all other changes, with the exception of base increase to autocannon falloff and you would have what we have now.

Min were now viable in fleet engagements (Gal were left behind as the only race that operated and focused close range only). Something primarily limited only to long range battleships and 3 - 4 T2 ships. Before, Min ships couldn't superior mobility because, what would that matter if auto-cannons could only work close range (This is what those pushing for increase Gal velocity don't seem to understand)? Using shield setups would increase mobility, but @ a cost of significant reduction in defence. Autocannons could only work close range @ the time. A armour plate would yield more effective hit-points, while maintaining most of a ships damage (Hurricane) and minmatar ships still had a advantage in velocity.

CCP did not intend for auto-cannons to be used outside of warp scrambler range @ the time of the projectile changes. CCP did intend to make artillery more effective in terms of range, compared to rail-gun and beam laser @ the time. The changes to tracking enhancers was intended to increase artillery, but not autocannons. Funny thing is. For the crowd that wanted ballance. The game was more balanced then than it is now. You had 2 races focused for close range engagements (Min and Gal) and 2 races focused for fleet engagements (Caldari and Amarr). Now it's just Gal focused for close range engagements and the other races for close range and fleet engagements.

Serious question. What would happen if CCP increased medium and larger blaster range? Everything else would remain the same. CCP just decided to introduce a significant increase to tracking computers. The values would be close to autocannons in terms or projected and applied damage, but with a balance of optimal and falloff. Min ships would still be more mobile and Gal would still be able to use armour. This is what pulse lasers are able to do @ the moment, but alot more viable. Being able to kite a single Gal ship would become very difficult, if not impossible and Min would still be able to disengage.

In one go the whole issue surrounding blaster would be solved. Or! CCP should just nerf medium and large autocanons falloff. So tracking enhancers will not effect those values as much. Bringing Minmatar back down to Gal engagement ranges. The other option is insane damage output, but that would be game breaking. I can already think of amusing ways to abuse such a weapon. Most of the other suggestions including the "just increase speed" crowd will not work. It sounds great and I'm for it. If only to show Gal ships would still be last choice given Min, Armarr or Cal are not available. Coupling speed with range would be another matter...

-proxyyyy
Willl Adama
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#205 - 2011-12-23 20:24:33 UTC
Hybrids are awesome

Hi
Orvy Bearmedeer
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#206 - 2011-12-24 10:57:49 UTC
I could use a buff Big smile
Elena Grimaldi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#207 - 2011-12-24 11:21:36 UTC
Willl Adama wrote:
Hybrids are awesome

you should try to play sometimes without t3 links and expensive implants
Outside small blasters they totally sucks, but it' s more a problem about the ships that use hybrid that for hybrid itself
Gabriel Karade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#208 - 2011-12-24 12:23:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Gabriel Karade
I really should dust off a Megathron sometime... Cool

That being said, I still think its worthwhile re-visiting ships and bonuses - get the 'doctrine' as a whole working properly from T1 down with everything fulfilling a role.

War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#209 - 2011-12-25 19:56:44 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
History Son!:

Serious question. What would happen if CCP increased medium and larger blaster range? Everything else would remain the same. CCP just decided to introduce a significant increase to tracking computers. The values would be close to autocannons in terms or projected and applied damage, but with a balance of optimal and falloff. Min ships would still be more mobile and Gal would still be able to use armour. This is what pulse lasers are able to do @ the moment, but alot more viable. Being able to kite a single Gal ship would become very difficult, if not impossible and Min would still be able to disengage.

Get null opt+falloff to +35-40% like scorch and barrage and we're done?
Admiral Pelleon
White Shadow Imperium
#210 - 2011-12-25 20:31:39 UTC
I confess to being utterly fascinated by this thread.

Lots of alt posts who are ~pro pvpers~ saying blasters are broken.
Liang using ~numbers~ to prove empirically that they are working as intended.
Actual PvPers saying blaster boats are working fine.

Basically, post with your mains and HTFU.

Good day.

Those who cannot keep up will be left behind, to watch from a distance. And those who stand in our way will not watch at all.
Xrock
#211 - 2011-12-25 21:07:14 UTC
Quote:
Lots of alt posts who are ~pro pvpers~ saying blasters are worse than proj.
Liang using ~numbers~ to prove empirically that they are working as intended in actual scenerios.
Actual PvPers saying blaster boats are working fine.


FYP
Fade Azura
Weaponized Autists Cartel
#212 - 2011-12-26 23:22:58 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Roime wrote:

Of course close-range boat is a poor counter to kiting, but I've been kited exactly once in my career (Crow killed my Incursus). Of course you commit to a fight in a brawler ship.

Former Blue Rep here and will return because RvB PvP is just so much fun. Good to point out that RvB is way different then other forms of PvP.

In RvB you see very little Kiting. It is mostly Brawler fits there and because of that Blasters do exceptionally well. Every fleet has MWD Frigate and or Ceptor Tackle, a lot of it so kiting ships tend to be left behind and Tank / DPS come out more. Ships like Duel Web Canes shine where Shield Canes are rarer. You have to adjust your fits to meet this brawling atmosphere.

I was kited once in RvB by a Stabber in a 1v1, flying my favorite RvB Ship a Brick S Neutron Vexor. Had Hammer II's on her, kept playing stop and start games with an Overheated MWD and Tackle while withdrawing and Launching Drones. Eventually she laxed to 15km and I gunned it and got an overheated web on her then grabbed her 3 seconds later with a Scram. Toast in seconds.

http://bluerep.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11508896

I would have been humped if it was a Nano Rupture for sure. But outside of 1v1's the other fleet tends to warp on you before any Kiter can kill you and with the Frigs they're ether quick quick on the warpout or dead.

http://bluerep.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=11474760

Here is one of my lovely Vexors. It runs Hammers but they were on the Field when she popped.

Blaster Boats especially Megathrons and Brutix work well in RvB. Tristan's and Merlin's are doing better to. Thorax you see a ton of bad fits on them, Shield ones tend to melt the second they come out of warp in bigger fights so you usually wanna keep them in smaller gangs. When I FC more then 5 people and see a Thorax easy kill is the first thought in my head always.

Blasters do alright in RvB. But the lack of a good Gallente Battlecruiser to match the Drake and Cane for real fleets and gangs as well as the lack of a Gallente fleet ship in General is an issue. You just don't see any Gallente Ships you can build a coordinated gang out of.

http://bluerep.eve-kill.net/?a=corp_detail&crp_id=64815&view=ships_weapons&m=12&y=2011

Even looking at the RvB stats, a place all about Brawlers, Blasters are no where near top dog. Drakacane make a strong showing though of course. The Rifter, Rupture, Thrasher and Cane team take the cake having the highest score in each of there respective classes.

Say what you will. I will always choose the Plate Vexor over a Plate Rupture though.



Being a big fan of the vexor myself i can personally say that you are officially my HERO!

ALSO ... are you married? =)
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2011-12-27 00:15:55 UTC
Admiral Pelleon wrote:
I confess to being utterly fascinated by this thread.

Lots of alt posts who are ~pro pvpers~ saying blasters are broken.
Liang using ~numbers~ to prove empirically that they are working as intended.
Actual PvPers saying blaster boats are working fine.

Basically, post with your mains and HTFU.

Good day.


Oh, working as intended? Why are the devs working on making them viable in fleet engagements?
Because they aren´t intended to be a weapon for a few niches. The devs wanted -for variety- to have more tactics available than shooting from range. So the intention of the ones developing and designing the game seems to be quite different of what liang claims them to be.
So Liang hasn´t proving anything, instead he is evading again and again my question: what are the design features that optimize Gallente for close combat? I have pointed out that minmatar has multiple ones, and that at least one of them -capless weapons- are indispensable for close combat in fleet warfare.
Also they are saying that they are working... well i never disputed that, just that other races´ ships working as good as well or just slightly worse and a few even better without being restricted so narrowly. So what´s the point? Working is fine if you aren´t operating under heavy restrictions, if heavy restrictions apply, you need to shine to make up for them.

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.
Joss56
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2011-12-27 00:39:59 UTC
Kush Monster wrote:
The only pissing and moaning that I hear about blasters has been on the forums mostly from carebears.

every pirate or PVPer that I've talked to will never say their blasters suck. sure they'd love another buff but come on. Get within optimal and a blaster will tear you to shreds.




Yes, so has many other blahblah for peanuts, you don't even know what you're talking about. Someone said to you...

Hey, trust me because I tell you to....
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#215 - 2011-12-27 00:53:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mfume Apocal
Sebastian N Cain wrote:

So Liang hasn´t proving anything, instead he is evading again and again my question: what are the design features that optimize Gallente for close combat? I have pointed out that minmatar has multiple ones, and that at least one of them -capless weapons- are indispensable for close combat in fleet warfare.


A weapon's cap usage (or lack thereof) is nearly always irrelevant in fleet situations. I can't think of a single fleet comp outside of supercap killing Tempests that includes neuts and the Amarr based comps are either cap stable (AHACs) or have a cap booster (Hellcats). The only time where cap is a concern is when grinding sov/pos with subcaps.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#216 - 2011-12-27 01:06:50 UTC
Kingwood wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:

hmm i still dont know why i should know who are u... that Mfumae never enlightened me :(


Just somebody who plays the game instead of making stuff up on the forums m8



I'm very sure you will be on top for the next Tournament, so much training with those awesome ships Gallente and Hybrids.

I can't wait to see HYDRA RELOADED on you tube giving everyone lessons how to fly blaster ships.

AMIRIGHT ?
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#217 - 2011-12-27 01:39:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
m0cking bird wrote:
History Son!:

As long as the community will not support a increase in medium and to a lesser extent large blaster range. Most Gal ships will never be considered viable. Solo or 2 - 4 pilot engagements are not done by the mojority of pilots ingame. So having ships focused for that purpose seems ********. You know, when most Amarr or Min ships can do the same and more. Even in the past. The most used Gal ships were ships that could be used in fleets with rail-gun (rail-gun-Megathron, Lachesis, Onieros, Arazu, rail-gun-Deimos). Blaster Megathrons had the same issues they do now. Pulse lasers were just better compared to all other turrets. So there was never a time since 2007 were they were useful comparatively. Every battleship could use 90% stasis webifier, but some had better projected and applied damage and considerably more velocity. So even the time blaster ships were considered the most viable. Pulse lasers were considered superior. However, the one turret most pilots considered blasters were superior to @ that time was projectiles.


I read all your wall of text has usual Lol

While sometimes I see you has some kind of "mad scientist", you know the nuts... but a nice nuts, the mad scientist Lol
I really appreciate to read your comments may they be good in my opinion or bad, thing is that i like to read your "papers"

Thing is that a lot of people posting about this precise matter seems to have 2 distinguished uses of those ships/guns, most of them are in null/low and of course we have those that think (like me) an intended armor ship should be as much effective as a shield ship and those thinking (with reason) that armor ships are a lot better shield fitted than armor fitted.

Well I can only see one problem around this whole mess...fail concept patched with duct tape here and there to cover all the fail points. Why are we even discussing some flawed concept that wasn't in the beginning because that concept had the meanings to do his job, since then taken away for whatever reason despite players opinions/useless feedback.
For reference and further comments I'd like to remind everyone the (amen) dead old forum and the hybrids thread old of 3 years.

Will there always be adepts for hybrids? Of course there will
Will there be some situations where hybrids will shine with all those awesome, spectacular (????) improvements? -yes !

Do you really believe, the Top 20 6 months ago, that was the same 4 months ago, that was just the same before the so much announced "HYBRIDS REBALANCE" in the expansion video, and that is exactly the same just after that FÜnKING AWESOME HYBRIDS REBALANCE ...is going to change? -wherever is hope there's life.

Well you guys must drink eat smoke inject or whatever really nasty stuff, because all it matters is the result.

And the result today is?

Nothing changed.

Gallente and blasters are just WOW rogues in eve. Makes me laugh when I think about it.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#218 - 2011-12-27 02:04:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
X Gallentius wrote:
m0cking bird wrote:
History Son!:

Serious question. What would happen if CCP increased medium and larger blaster range? Everything else would remain the same. CCP just decided to introduce a significant increase to tracking computers. The values would be close to autocannons in terms or projected and applied damage, but with a balance of optimal and falloff. Min ships would still be more mobile and Gal would still be able to use armour. This is what pulse lasers are able to do @ the moment, but alot more viable. Being able to kite a single Gal ship would become very difficult, if not impossible and Min would still be able to disengage.

Get null opt+falloff to +35-40% like scorch and barrage and we're done?


Well actually let's pick some situation, take a blaster prot ( Lol )

900M +/- stuff with buffs to range and dps.

Unless you are very, very, very, extremely lucky, you WILL, cross some combo drake,cyna/rapier or vaga/cyna/rapier/loki whatsoever. How much does your proteus needs has buff range to deal with those? (you're not alone but doesn't matter you'll be primary any way)

40% optimal, -/+ 25% falloff with the crappiest tech 2 long range ammo.
And this is just an example why you'll have more fun when you buy 3 fitted cynas or 6 vagas than one proteus. Because for the same time investment, isk related, you'll play and have fun 3 to 6 times better, and have a lot more kills too.
Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2011-12-27 02:23:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Sebastian N Cain
Mfume Apocal wrote:
Sebastian N Cain wrote:

So Liang hasn´t proving anything, instead he is evading again and again my question: what are the design features that optimize Gallente for close combat? I have pointed out that minmatar has multiple ones, and that at least one of them -capless weapons- are indispensable for close combat in fleet warfare.


A weapon's cap usage (or lack thereof) is nearly always irrelevant in fleet situations. I can't think of a single fleet comp outside of supercap killing Tempests that includes neuts and the Amarr based comps are either cap stable (AHACs) or have a cap booster (Hellcats). The only time where cap is a concern is when grinding sov/pos with subcaps.

It´s irrelevant now, yes.
But if the devs ever find a solution for the current problem of blasterboats in fleets(targets already dead before they are in range), they will probably be used in quite some numbers in fleetfights.
At which point reconfiguring fleet composition that its nos/neut capabilities are greatly enhanced (either by using minmatar ships or dedicated neutships or both...whatever turns out to be more effective) will be worthwile.

So blasters that are getting in range of such a fleet are inevitably getting capped out. They don´t even need to be destroyed to be taken out of the fight, the dps can be applied to ships that wont closing in. Blasters will either keep out of range and do no damage or closing in and do no damage (or negligible damage by burning through capboosters at a higher rate than ammo). And very soon the idea of using blasters in fleetfights will be dead again.

So you see, right now it isn´t an issue because no one really tries to get close in fleetfights and nos/neut isn´t really worth the effort, but as soon as close combat will become viable in fleetfights, needing cap and the availability of nos/neut can be used against you by the other fleet in quite a fatal manner.
Having capless weapons will be required for avoiding this nasty little obstacle.

I got lost in thought... it was unfamiliar territory.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#220 - 2011-12-27 03:47:19 UTC
Sebastian N Cain wrote:
It´s irrelevant now, yes.
But if the devs ever find a solution for the current problem of blasterboats in fleets(targets already dead before they are in range), they will probably be used in quite some numbers in fleetfights.


This single point is THE point that has no solution has it stands.

Results in meaningless updates and duct tape, in wasted time invested for no significant changes, nothing that will make you decide when you want to pvp, to choose hybrids over projectiles lasers or missiles.

The only fields where these changes have significant impact is still to frigate size, that weren't those who people complained about in the first place, gate/Station undocks games and high sec silly pawn wars where no neutrals can come in to the play field and mess everything without your permission.

Does this means that we're about to get to the point you'll never want to jump thrum any gate or stress yourself at the undocks because of those?

Waw what a game improvement, from gates and station undocks to uber gates and station undocks. Nice stuff, very interesting and game variety. By the way no other race weapon system can do the same, can they?