open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked It's time to rebalance the weapons.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.23 22:58:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Allen Ramses on 23/05/2009 22:59:07
It is in my opinion that it has been far too long since weapons systems as a whole got a good looking at. Blaster pilots are raging, projectile pilots are confused, and laser pilots are enjoying their FOTY very much. It is my intention to try and come up with a solution to this in one fell swoop.


Falloff
As it is now, short range weapons (with exception to lasers, and partially to blasters) are to be used in falloff. Because of the way falloff currently works, there is very little room for error.

Unless I am mistaken, the falloff equations look something like this (forgive my crappy equations):

Quote:
Damage = MIN(((Falloff * 2) - Range) / (falloff * 2), 1)
Hit chance = MIN(((Falloff * 2) - Range) / (falloff * 2), 1)
((Net DPS = Hit chance * Damage))



A ship firing its weapons systems at 50% falloff (or 25% of falloff+falloff) will net 56.25% DPS. At 100% falloff, it's 25% DPS. A pilot has a margin of error of 10% to maintain 80% DPS. This is unacceptable for ACs. What I'd like to see is the margin of error being widened by a fair bit.

One possible solution would be to push the chance to hit mechanic further back. This would require a third falloff stage with a reduced falloff range, or perhaps a different equation for chance to hit. Another option is to consolidate the falloff and use an entirely different method for determining damage output reduction.


Optimal/Falloff ranges
Dual 650mm AC - 3.6km optimal, 16km falloff
Ion Blaster Cannon - 5km optimal, 8km falloff
Mega Pulse laser - 20km optimal, 8km falloff

What a mess of inconsistency. There is one that REALLY stands out, though. The pulse laser has a MASSIVELY higher optimal range, and the same falloff as a the blaster. If I hadn't known better, I'd say this was a dread sized blaster weapon.

Something needs to be done about this. Now. I can't say what the appropriate values should be, but I can tell just by looking at it, lopping half the optimal and half the falloff from pulses would be a good start, to say the least. Blasters could also use a 25% buff to optimal.

Also, the way ammo works is somewhat flawed. The x% values only modify optimal range. And because of the way the weapons systems work, ACs are almost unaffected, while pulse lasers are massively affected. What I would like to see is the range being adjusted to reflect both optimal and falloff. I'm thinking a 0.6 scale (-30% - +37.5%) should work nicely without breaking too many things. For example, Phased Plasma would be -22.5% to optimal and falloff, while tungsten would be +25% to optimal and falloff.


Tracking Speed
Tracking speed has been a serious problem with short ranged weapons, especially blasters. By looking at the current mechanics, it's obvious as to why this is.

Dual 650mm AC - 460 transversal at optimal +37.5% falloff 1 (9.6km)
Ion Blaster Cannon - 230 transversal at optimal (5km)
Mega Pulse Laser - 540 transversal at 80% optimal (16km)

This essentially shows what's wrong with blasters. Their lower optimal, combined with their neccessity to border falloff, gives them a horrible ability to track their targets at practical range. Meanwhile, the pulse laser continues to lol at them both, while not needing to worry about falloff. The suggested range changes alleviate part of this imbalance, but tracking still needs looking at for their practical ranges.


If these changes are to be made, the following will be required:
* All weapon sizes, variations, and types must be looked at for similar consistency.
* Damage output needs to be looked at.
* Blaster pilots (I'm looking at you, Bellum) need to stop whining about the web nerf.
* Pulse lasers need oversized variants.


Discuss.

Commissar Kate
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2009.05.23 23:09:00 - [2]
 

You forgot Missiles as a weapons systems, how would they fall into your plan?

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.23 23:11:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Allen Ramses on 23/05/2009 23:15:40
EDIT: I was going to post this in its own thread, but screw it.

Missiles are in a state of lolfail right now. They have so many faults, it is disgusting to even think of them as a primary weapon system for ANY race. This needs to be fixed ASAP.

Tracking Mechanic
Because of the inherently flawed direct damage reduction based on signature radius alone, missiles often cannot

ever deal full damage to their intended target, specifically Minmatar ships which have much lower than average signature radii. It is in my opinion that this mechanic be removed from the game. There is absolutely no reason a direct hit on a stationary target would not deal full damage. The current mechanic is the following:
Quote:
Damage=Base_Damage*MIN(MIN(sig/Er,1),(Ev/Er*sig/vel)^(LN(drf)/LN(5.5)))

I'm not gonna beat around the bush on this one. The correct equation, which should have been from the beginning, is this:
Quote:
Damage=Base_Damage*MIN((Ev/Er*sig/vel)^LN(2.7))
This equation discards the horrible idea behind absolute damage reduction based on signature radius alone. The removal of the DRF number is two fold; For one, it ensures a 50% exponential reduction. Also, it allows for skills that modifies this new number.

Guided Missile Precision
The Guided Missile Precision skill currently only applies to long range missiles, and not to short range. This causes all kinds of balancing problems, notably cruise missiles being able to track better than HAMs under certain circumstances. What I propose is having it reduce the logarithmic number (2.7) by 5% per level. This skill will also affect short range missiles.

Target Navigation Prediction
10% explosion velocity per level is too much. Reduce it to 7.5%. Kthxbai.

Missile Ranges
Currently, missiles in and of themselves have a perfectly fine range. However, skills allow them to travel absurdly long ranges. What I propose is that the skill for flight time be reduced to 5% per level, and missile velocity be reduced to 7.5% per level. Doing this will allow for missiles to still reach their targets, but will put the ranges back in line with other weapons.

Better Missile Consistency
Quote:
All missile velocities doubled.
All flight times halved.
All missile volumes halved.

Light Missiles: 75 damage, 12 second ROF.
Heavy Missiles: 150 damage, 15 second ROF.
Cruise Missiles: 300 damage, 18 second ROF.

Rockets: 50 damage, 6 second ROF.
HAMs: 100 damage, 7.5 second ROF.
Torpedos: 200 damage, 9 second ROF.


Small missile tracking: 40m radius, 240m/s expl velocity
Medium missile tracking: 125m radius, 160m/s expl velocity
Large missile tracking: 400m radius, 100m/s expl velocity

fury/rage: +25% damage, -25% velocity, -33% expl velocity
Precision: -33% flight time, +37.5% expl velocity
Javelin: -15% damage, +50% velocity


Short range missiles deal 33% more DPS than their long ranged version, and fire twice as often. Missile velocities are doubled, so frigates can't outrun rockets anymore, and it doesn't take 10 years for long range missiles to hit. Flight times are halved to maintain range. Weapon sizes now reflect the 40/125/400 base, a la turrets, and have much more reasonable explosion velocities. T2 missile benefits/penalties are refined.

Discuss.

Bob Mc
Shade.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2009.05.23 23:12:00 - [4]
 

Comparing mega pulse (largest large pulse gun) with proj/blaster guns that arent the biggest size is pretty bad tbh :P

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.23 23:18:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Allen Ramses on 23/05/2009 23:18:17
Originally by: Bob Mc
Comparing mega pulse (largest large pulse gun) with proj/blaster guns that arent the biggest size is pretty bad tbh :P

Originally by: Allen Ramses
* Pulse lasers need oversized variants.


*Cough*

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.05.23 23:44:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 23:49:53
Blasters are totally fine.

If there is something that need to be looked at / changed / boosted, it's Artilleries and maybe Autocannons. Or maybe the tracking formula only.

By looking at numbers only is a stupid way to find out how the weapons works. Try using them / testing them against all kind of ships and then see how the weapons are working.

I can say right now that Artilleries or Autocannons is in need of a boost waaaaaaaaay way before Blasters even need to be looked at.

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.23 23:54:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Blasters are totally fine.
A statement without any kind of concrete argument is an empty one.

Originally by: NightmareX
If there is something that need to be looked at, it's Artilleries and maybe Autocannons. Or maybe the tracking formula only.
If you're referring to their abysmal DPS, I agree. But the boost to falloff is already a significant favor to arties and ACs.

Originally by: NightmareX
By looking at numbers only is a stupid way to find out how the weapons works. Try using them / testing them against all kind of ships and then see how the weapons are working.
Numbers do not lie. Period. As for how the weapons work, I know exactly how they work, both from logic and experience. They're based on an equation of optimal range, falloff, and radial velocity. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not change from weapon to weapon.

Originally by: NightmareX
I can say right now that Artilleries or Autocannons is in need of a boost waaaaaaaaay way before Blasters even need to be looked at.
With exception to the DPS issue, do you care to back that up with anything at all?

Grez
Neo Spartans
Laconian Syndicate
Posted - 2009.05.24 00:09:00 - [8]
 

Mega pulses have extra range for a reason.

Lob off the range if you give it an extra damage type.

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.24 00:24:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Grez
Mega pulses have extra range for a reason.

Lob off the range if you give it an extra damage type.
By that logic, hybrids should already have 3 damage types.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.05.24 00:39:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 00:46:46
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Originally by: NightmareX
Blasters are totally fine.
A statement without any kind of concrete argument is an empty one.

Originally by: NightmareX
If there is something that need to be looked at, it's Artilleries and maybe Autocannons. Or maybe the tracking formula only.
If you're referring to their abysmal DPS, I agree. But the boost to falloff is already a significant favor to arties and ACs.

Originally by: NightmareX
By looking at numbers only is a stupid way to find out how the weapons works. Try using them / testing them against all kind of ships and then see how the weapons are working.
Numbers do not lie. Period. As for how the weapons work, I know exactly how they work, both from logic and experience. They're based on an equation of optimal range, falloff, and radial velocity. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not change from weapon to weapon.

Originally by: NightmareX
I can say right now that Artilleries or Autocannons is in need of a boost waaaaaaaaay way before Blasters even need to be looked at.
With exception to the DPS issue, do you care to back that up with anything at all?

1. Well, it's good enough argument that i have never had problems to hit the targets i'm shooting in a Blaster Mega.

Can you answer me why i don't have the problems with Blasters as you have?.

2. A boost to falloff will do nothing for Blasters at all. Blasters SHOULD be the king of DPS while having the shortest range of all weapons. If you want to have more range with Blasters, then the Rokh is there for a reason.

3. The numbers do lie enough for me, because the numbers is another story in real PVP than it is in EFT.

4. Since your asking me this, do you have any evidence at all from TQ that the tracking or performance on the Blasters is poor?.

When your in web range, the targets usually are going to melt in your face. And also remember that i have been testing Blasters in every possible ways on sisi for over 3 years now. I should know how they work by that.

EDIT: It would be idiotic to boost a whole weapon type only because Scorch is overpowered (it's the Scorch that really is saving the Lasers ass tbh). Maybe nerf Scorch a bit instead.

Blasters, Autocannons and Torps are pretty much balanced to each others now, so why not make the Lasers with Scorch balanced to the 3 other weapon types instead of messing with either Blasters, Autocannons or Torps and then make them out of balance to each others only because Lasers is as it is now.

Boost Blasters and the next big whine squad will come for 'BOOST AUTOCANNONS'. And when you then boost Autocannons, then there will be another 'BOOST TORPS' whine squad here.

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.05.24 00:50:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Blasters, Autocannons and Torps are pretty much balanced to each others now, so why not make the Lasers with Scorch balanced to the 3 other weapon types instead of messing with either Blasters, Autocannons or Torps and then make them out of balance to each others only because Lasers is as it is now.


Because there's more to it than just balance between weapon types, there's also balance for offense as a whole to consider. There's a huge difference between nerfing everything to the level of the weakest weapon and boosting everything to the level of the best weapon, one results in even worse tank/gank balance and more blobbing, one results in stronger offense and more options for solo players.

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.24 01:07:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
1. Well, it's good enough argument that i have never had problems to hit the targets i'm shooting in a Blaster Mega.

Can you answer me why i don't have the problems with Blasters as you have?.

2. A boost to falloff will do nothing for Blasters at all. Blasters SHOULD be the king of DPS while having the shortest range of all weapons. If you want to have more range with Blasters, then the Rokh is there for a reason.

3. The numbers do lie enough for me, because the numbers is another story in real PVP than it is in EFT.

4. Since your asking me this, do you have any evidence at all from TQ that the tracking or performance on the Blasters is poor?.

When your in web range, the targets usually are going to melt in your face. And also remember that i have been testing Blasters in every possible ways on sisi for over 3 years now. I should know how they work by that.

EDIT: It would be idiotic to boost a whole weapon type only because Scorch is overpowered (it's the Scorch that really is saving the Lasers ass tbh). Maybe nerf Scorch a bit instead.

Blasters, Autocannons and Torps are pretty much balanced to each others now, so why not make the Lasers with Scorch balanced to the 3 other weapon types instead of messing with either Blasters, Autocannons or Torps and then make them out of balance to each others only because Lasers is as it is now.

Boost Blasters and the next big whine squad will come for 'BOOST AUTOCANNONS'. And when you then boost Autocannons, then there will be another 'BOOST TORPS' whine squad here.
WTF are you talking about? Did you even read my posts?

Tom Peeping
Posted - 2009.05.24 01:19:00 - [13]
 

If numbers tell the entirety of the story, then why are there so many mocking statements about EFT warriors? Maybe, just maybe, practical application should be considered. Also, maybe you should be comparing the largest short range weapon of one race to the largest short range weapon of another race if you want to actually make an attempt at a legitimate comparison.

Also, your numbers do not tell the entirety of the story... because you're missing some elements. Part of the balancing is not only the sheer DPS by each weapon, but also the available resistances to the DPS on all possible ships, as well as the impact of the various methods of ewar on each weapon.

Lasers for example, do have some significant advantages as you have indicated. They also have corresponding weaknessess. Just as one off the cuff example.

Let's look at the Megapulse Laser 2.

Rate of Fire is 7.875
Trackingspeed/accuracy is .03375
Optimal is 24,000 m
Falloff is 8,000 m
dmg mod 3.6

Fitting:
CPU - 53
PG - 2750 MW

And compare it to the largest Large Blaster, the Neutron Blaster Cannon

Rate of Fire is 7.875
Trackingspeed/accuracy is .0433
Optimal is 7,200 m
Falloff is 10,000 m
dmg mod 4.2

Fitting:
CPU - 61
PG - 2363 MW

First, we see some very interesting info... not least is the equivalent rates of fire, but higher dmg mod. The Neutron blaster is also easier to fit PG wise, though harder to fit CPU wise. Neutron blaster also has a difference in tracking

Now, to both these guns, let's apply a racking disruptor 2 and see what happens. Both optimal and falloff are reduced by -20.1% (unscripted) as well as a tracking speed reduction of -20.1%

The important thing to look at here is the optimal and falloff reductions. While the pulse laser will have it's optimal reducted by 4824 m, the blaster will have it's optimal reduced by 1447 meters.

As you can see, it will take the laser pilot 3 times as long as it will for the blaster pilot to re-position at the correct optimal. I don't mean this to be taken as exhaustive in any way... there's quite a bit more to the balancing equations... I just want to point out that you can't simply take the numbers that you're taking, and make an argument that these are the numbers that matter and therefore a change is needed. There's a LOT more involved in the balancing. Lasers for example are supposed to be very high damage... they are supposed to be excellent at shooting stuff and not much good at anything else... they are very easy to affect via other means, and their very strengths are the source of their weaknesses when those are turned against them. These facts need to be taken into account when you argue for a balance issue.

Halycon Gamma
Caldari
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.24 02:04:00 - [14]
 

I also agree that this is a tad over simplified. My reasoning is about the same as the posters above. It doesn't take into account the affects of different types of ewar(which, I think allowing certain full strength flavors of ewar to be fit on all ships is the most game breaking unbalanced thing in Eve today) or ship bonuses. Static numbers on weapons are only part of the story, since most people fit weapons by the ships they are flying.. not base characteristics of weapons systems. There are of course a couple of exceptions.

Also, while I agree the sig radius piece of missile damage formula is the dumbest decision since Germany invaded Russia... I'm a big fan of The Devil You Know, and don't particularly want to see it changed. I also don't particularly blame CCP for it, stuff happens, and in games this complex you can't always see the long term effects of a base change of that magnitude. So lets not go changing it again, who knows what could be found thats faulty with the new one a month down the line. Instead change the missiles to fit the system you have. And I'm not saying there is anything wrong with "all missiles". Only missile type I think is utterly busted is rockets.

Lady Aja
Posted - 2009.05.24 03:35:00 - [15]
 

OP FAILS! not just a little bit.. but by a long shot...

Try using the same types of weapons... all the largest ones not just middle of the scrap pile blasters and ac's then compare themto the biggest pulse lasers has for battleships.

redo youre post by comparing Nuetron blasters, AC 800's and mega pulses... then you might have a point.. well not really as you suck just like a paid hooker in heat!

Grez
Neo Spartans
Laconian Syndicate
Posted - 2009.05.24 04:16:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Tom Peeping
[..]


That's not even taking into account cap usage.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.05.24 05:38:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Allen Ramses

* Blaster pilots (I'm looking at you, Bellum) need to stop whining about the web nerf.



Lol. I've given up b#tching about the web nerf months ago.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.05.24 05:52:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 24/05/2009 05:54:42
Originally by: NightmareX

3. The numbers do lie enough for me, because the numbers is another story in real PVP than it is in EFT.



Theory in the absence of experience can lead to mistaken conclusions. But those conclusions can easily be disproven by tests. It is a very efficient method and corrects itself very quickly.

Experience in the absence of theory is trial and error, the most inefficent method of doing anything in this world.

Any pet will realize sooner or later that touching an electrified fence is a bad thing and will stop doing that. What makes us, human beings, different is that we are capable of understanding these "useless" numbers and realize things without having to be electrified in the process.

Holy Lowlander
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.05.24 07:59:00 - [19]
 

/me still does not understand why his lasers would need a nerf Rolling Eyes

Lewyrus
Argent Moon
Posted - 2009.05.24 08:18:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Allen Ramses
Falloff
As it is now, short range weapons (with exception to lasers, and partially to blasters) are to be used in falloff. Because of the way falloff currently works, there is very little room for error.

Unless I am mistaken, the falloff equations look something like this (forgive my crappy equations):

Quote:
Damage = MIN(((Falloff * 2) - Range) / (falloff * 2), 1)
Hit chance = MIN(((Falloff * 2) - Range) / (falloff * 2), 1)
((Net DPS = Hit chance * Damage))





AFAIK the damage isn't scaled by the distance, but there is a thing called hit quality, witch randomly multiplies the hit's damage. This hit quality ranges from 0,5 to 1,5 in optimal and 0,5 to 1 in falloff. In both cases there is 1% chance for doing a 3x damaging wrecking hit.

eliminator2
Gallente
Vindicated Blast.
Posted - 2009.05.24 08:24:00 - [21]
 

i like how you looked at ALL the weapon's not just the one and take the rest down

but yea you have good points with all of them they all need a boost in one point and 1-2/4 need a nerf in some points

i use all weapon systems and i find that a blaster boat carnt hit a sat still ishtar for its life

and yea i have good skills for gunnery.

and proj all good with the ableness to change dmg type ammou which is a big bonuse for a gun type weapon but they are missing something badly maybe the moe range and less falloff will help

Kweel Nakashyn
shadow and cloaking
Yggdrasill.
Posted - 2009.05.24 08:43:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 24/05/2009 08:45:03
CCP, why these three unrealistic things still exist in 2009 :

1/ why ships are shooting through others (aka "nerf blobs", and put formations for "need for speed")
2/ why ramming damage doesn't exist (aka nerf blobs", and put formations for "need for speed")
3/ With turrets, why a "25m signature ship/100m.s-1 transversal @ 1km" have the exact same chances to hit than a "25m signature/100m.s-1 transversal @ 200km"

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.05.24 10:30:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 23:49:53
Blasters are totally fine.

If there is something that need to be looked at / changed / boosted, it's Artilleries and maybe Autocannons. Or maybe the tracking formula only.

By looking at numbers only is a stupid way to find out how the weapons works. Try using them / testing them against all kind of ships and then see how the weapons are working.

I can say right now that Artilleries or Autocannons is in need of a boost waaaaaaaaay way before Blasters even need to be looked at.

Just because projectiles are worse than blasters doesnt mean blasters are fine. Perhaps they are great when compared to projectiles, but that doesnt mean they arent completely inferior to lasers.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.05.24 10:43:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 10:47:43
Originally by: oniplE
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 23:49:53
Blasters are totally fine.

If there is something that need to be looked at / changed / boosted, it's Artilleries and maybe Autocannons. Or maybe the tracking formula only.

By looking at numbers only is a stupid way to find out how the weapons works. Try using them / testing them against all kind of ships and then see how the weapons are working.

I can say right now that Artilleries or Autocannons is in need of a boost waaaaaaaaay way before Blasters even need to be looked at.

Just because projectiles are worse than blasters doesnt mean blasters are fine. Perhaps they are great when compared to projectiles, but that doesnt mean they arent completely inferior to lasers.

Blasters are fine. The problems you are thinking of most likely are in the tracking formula. Or the issues are in the players it self tbqh.

I see no problems with the highest DPS, shortest range weapon type in EVE.

But i would still like to see the web strenght boosted to 70%, because that would be better than boosting the tracking on Blasters.

But still, i have no issues at all with Blasters, so that's not really needed.

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.05.24 11:08:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 10:47:43
Originally by: oniplE
Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 23/05/2009 23:49:53
Blasters are totally fine.

If there is something that need to be looked at / changed / boosted, it's Artilleries and maybe Autocannons. Or maybe the tracking formula only.

By looking at numbers only is a stupid way to find out how the weapons works. Try using them / testing them against all kind of ships and then see how the weapons are working.

I can say right now that Artilleries or Autocannons is in need of a boost waaaaaaaaay way before Blasters even need to be looked at.

Just because projectiles are worse than blasters doesnt mean blasters are fine. Perhaps they are great when compared to projectiles, but that doesnt mean they arent completely inferior to lasers.

Blasters are fine. The problems you are thinking of most likely are in the tracking formula. Or the issues are in the players it self tbqh.

I see no problems with the highest DPS, shortest range weapon type in EVE.

But i would still like to see the web strenght boosted to 70%, because that would be better than boosting the tracking on Blasters.

But still, i have no issues at all with Blasters, so that's not really needed.

What problems am i thinking of? Im thinking of a serious balancing issues that has nothing to do with tracking. Why on earth would i use blasters when i can use pulse lasers which provide 92% of the DPS with three times the optimal range? AND the ability to switch to long range ammo which allows you to hit out to 45km instead of 11km with Null.

Noone in the right mind will chose a marginal damage increase over a much greater range and far superior flexibility.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.05.24 11:18:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 11:25:50
Originally by: oniplE
What problems am i thinking of? Im thinking of a serious balancing issues that has nothing to do with tracking. Why on earth would i use blasters when i can use pulse lasers which provide 92% of the DPS with three times the optimal range? AND the ability to switch to long range ammo which allows you to hit out to 45km instead of 11km with Null.

Noone in the right mind will chose a marginal damage increase over a much greater range and far superior flexibility.

Yeah until you get a Cruiser / Battlecruiser to orbit you at 2-3 km, then your in troubles if your alone.

Anyways, by the numbers you are showing from how Lasers are over, clearly shows that a weapon type are in need of a nerf instead of a weapon type to get boosted.

Let me say this to you. The tracking boost Lasers got some time ago was so they could hit HAC's better because they was so fast.

Now when the speed is nerfed a bit, the tracking Lasers got should be taken away, because just face it. If the HAC's haven't been so fast that time Lasers got the tracking boost, then the Lasers wouldn't get the tracking boost at all.

So today, the tracking boost Lasers got should be taken away. Because the tracking boost Lasers got that time is making the Lasers overpowered today.

oniplE
MeMento.
Posted - 2009.05.24 11:32:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: NightmareX
Edited by: NightmareX on 24/05/2009 11:25:50
Originally by: oniplE
What problems am i thinking of? Im thinking of a serious balancing issues that has nothing to do with tracking. Why on earth would i use blasters when i can use pulse lasers which provide 92% of the DPS with three times the optimal range? AND the ability to switch to long range ammo which allows you to hit out to 45km instead of 11km with Null.

Noone in the right mind will chose a marginal damage increase over a much greater range and far superior flexibility.

Yeah until you get a Cruiser / Battlecruiser to orbit you at 2-3 km, then your in troubles if your alone.

Anyways, by the numbers you are showing from how Lasers are over, clearly shows that a weapon type are in need of a nerf instead of a weapon type to get boosted.

Let me say this to you. The tracking boost Lasers got some time ago was so they could hit HAC's better because they was so fast.

Now when the speed is nerfed a bit, the tracking Lasers got should be taken away, because just face it. If the HAC's haven't been so fast that time Lasers got the tracking boost, then the Lasers wouldn't get the tracking boost at all.

So today, the tracking boost Lasers got should be taken away. Because the tracking boost Lasers got that time is making the Lasers overpowered today.

Nerf lasers or boost hybrids/projectiles, either of those options is fine with me. And yes, blasters are better when you have a cruiser orbiting you @ 3km. But i'd still prefer the characteristics of lasers.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2009.05.24 11:51:00 - [28]
 

Lasers are indeed the most powerful weapons in eve atm, I know, I use them all the time. I also agree that scorch gives lasers much greater range than the other turrets which is a bit unfair. However, nerfing lasers really isn't the solution. The real problem is scaling. CCP has taken a very simplistic approach to scaling the ships up. Minmatar have low dps, weak tank speed demons. This works well for frigs and cruisers but falls apart with BC's and BS's. Let's not even go into the capitals.

Amarr have slow, heavily buffer tanked medium to long range gunboats. This murders them in the realm of frigs and is of limited use in cruiser hulls. However the BC's and BS's really excel with this type of setup.

Gallante are high dps close range fighters, This works just fine at the cruiser level but due to the web nerf, they suffer at BS level a bit since tracking is harder to control through maneuvering.

This is where the problems lie, minmatar have great small ships since those can take advantage of their speed advantage. Their BS's can't since the nano days are long gone. Gallante got royally screwed with the web nerf at BS level, thus destroying their ability to effectively track anything but King Rothgar's abaddon that goes under 90m/s even without being webbed Laughing.

Rectifying the problem is complicated I think. Minmatar need a larger speed advantage for the bigger ships to make it significant and large blasters need better tracking to atleast partially counter the web change. Amarr ships are fine as is I think. I won't comment on caldari.

Grez
Neo Spartans
Laconian Syndicate
Posted - 2009.05.24 12:15:00 - [29]
 

No-one ****ing takes cap usage into account.

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.05.24 14:44:00 - [30]
 

I pretty much agree with the OP, but thread became TL:DR when TrollmoreX showed up, sorry.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (22)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only