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: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.29 21:36:00 - [181]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 29/05/2009 21:42:32
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 29/05/2009 21:41:42
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
So pretty much up to around 15km mega outdamages everything.


That actually seems very very reasonable, though I might really prefer 11-12km.

Quote:

Mega pulse geddon:
726.75+317= 1043.75dps (at 15km)



That doesn't seem all that heinous to me. Maybe it's because I frequently fly Minmatar and we wish we could deal 1000 DPS at 15km.

Quote:
So whats the point of flying anything except mega after your "uber" changes?


I dunno.... engaging outside of scrambler range? Already most fights happen well outside of the 5-10km range (frequently well into the 20-40km range).

-Liang


If fight is outside scrambler range its usually sniper fest. The mythical "mid range" still doesnt exist (short range was just moved from 20 to 28km due to introduction of overheat and t2 scrams).

Whats wrong about that mega? Maybe:
- it can kill ANY cruiser in 20km without need of scrammer. Even geddon cant fry stuff that fast (tracking issue, something mega has aplenty)
- pretty much reverts the "web nerf" (so ability of cruiser to stay alive in BS gun range)
- reduces the "increased HP" effect CCP introduced a while ago. Result? If you boost DPS to 1600ish value next thing you will see is "HP buff patch" in next 6-24months
in results of above people will cry to boost damage again

So no, idea is bad. Also having 2x mega deal dps of sieged dread is wrong somewhere dont you think? Oh yea you dont... you fly mega.

EDIT:
CRAP I WAS WRONG !!!!

i forgot about null

null mega damage (in optimal): 1043+317 (1360) optimal 11km+16km faloff. 838dps (half of gun damage+full drones) at 27km.

scorch geddon (after change): 929.9 at 27km. Wow so after changes mega can almost take out geddon at 25km. Actually if we include resists... it can. So yeah, balance 4tw?

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.29 21:50:00 - [182]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 29/05/2009 21:53:30
Originally by: Deva Blackfire

So you create (3x damage mod+drones)
Blaster mega:
1309+317 = 1626dps close range (up to 4,5km). 2x blaster mega = sieged dread damage
654.5+317 = 971.5dps at 17,5km (opti+faloff, faloff included in damage calc)


That's innacurate. Its optimal would be 4.5km, and it would be doing full damage only within that range. By 8km, its doing half its blaster damage tops (650) + drones (317). By 17.5km, its doing 25% its blaster damage tops (327) + drones (317). Furthermore, I don't know where you're getting hte base number of 1309 anyway; at 25% increase over what we have now in damage my numbers (using t1 ammo) give me 1016 dps optimal, which would scale down with range. I don't see that as too ridiculous. A 40% increase probably would be, however.

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

In this range it vaporizes everything including cruisers and if wrecking hit including frigs. Cruisers melt in 5 seconds after being locked.


Its tracking is only slightly enhanced, so it is doubtful it would hit frigs and cruisers.

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

AC maelstrom:
1138 dps close range (20+20 as you say) with worse tracking than mega. So pretty much up to around 15km mega outdamages everything.


I don't know where you're getting 1,100 dps from (my numbers with 3 gyros give me 755 autocannon dps), and I didn't suggest 20+20, I suggested 15km max optimal. And being able to hit for full damage out to 15km, as compared to the mega's total range of 17ish with max damage inside 4, is a major advantage.

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

Mega pulse geddon:
726.75+317= 1043.75dps (at 15km)


This is the most problematic. This puts the geddon basically exactly the same with the mael in terms of damage and range. Perhaps AC's should be lowered to say 12.5km max, with amarr getting a slight increase in range - 10%? - (with a nerf to scorch, which is just absurd) and getting a minor reduction in damage.

So, to re-iterate, my changes would result in:

Mega (3dmg mods, neutrons):
- 1016 dps blasters, down to 500ish by 10km, and down to 250ish by 15km. Useless outside 17. Has drones to augment, of course.

Mael (3dmg mods, ac's):
- 755 autocannon dps out to 12.5km, down to 350 by 20, useless outside 30.

Geddon (3 pulses, ac's):
- 726 pulse dps out to 18km, down to 350 by 25 or so, useless outside 30.

and obviously all boats get drones.

25% may be too high an increase for blasters, maybe something like 15 would be more appropriate?

I'm no scientist or eve-genius, I pretty much made up the increase numbers, but if we can whittle them down / augment them to a good amount I think we'd have a viable solution.

Also, note that I'm only using t1 ammunition. I view t2 as an entirely different problem, which it is. Many of their bonuses are offset by their penalties and as a result aren't used, and t2 ammunition was one of the highest issues in the issue thread. Obviously when affecting these things we have to take t2 into account at some point, however.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.29 22:03:00 - [183]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 29/05/2009 22:12:42
Edited by: isdisco3 on 29/05/2009 22:08:34
And did some maths using the falloff formula posted in the OP.

Damage for the mega (just blasters):
4.5km - 1016dps
8km - 487 dps
12km - 294 dps
16km - 150 dps
20km - 54 dps
24km + - useless

wish i was uber at excel, and then i'd make a graph showing dps lines for each of the bs.

Suedomza Ralav
Posted - 2009.05.29 22:12:00 - [184]
 

Edited by: Suedomza Ralav on 29/05/2009 22:12:44
I'd be ok with giving large blasters a massive dps boost, but a falloff nerf. Let them deal significantly more damage in the 0-8kn range, with ACs taking over from 8-16, and lasers coming into their area from 16 on.

As for people saying there is no such thing as mid-range combat, they don't seem to understand what happens with small gangs. At a gate, someone can appear at a variety of ranges to you. Currently, a blaster ship has to burn towards the opponent to apply their damage, and often once that ship is popped, has to repeat to get into range of the next target. Laser ships are almost always within prime damage dealing range for gate combat without significant movement. Blasters need a dps boost to make up for this style of combat. During an engagement, the time spent traveling to optimal (even during gate fights, which are considered close-range), greatly reduces the amount of damage they can deal.

EDIT: Isdisco, I think you're forgeting to account for ammo changes depending on the range of combat. Even though types aren't used, they have to be considered or else changes will make these types overpowered.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.29 22:23:00 - [185]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 29/05/2009 22:31:50
Originally by: isdisco3
Edited by: isdisco3 on 29/05/2009 21:53:30
Originally by: Deva Blackfire

So you create (3x damage mod+drones)
Blaster mega:
1309+317 = 1626dps close range (up to 4,5km). 2x blaster mega = sieged dread damage
654.5+317 = 971.5dps at 17,5km (opti+faloff, faloff included in damage calc)


That's innacurate. Its optimal would be 4.5km, and it would be doing full damage only within that range. By 8km, its doing half its blaster damage tops (650) + drones (317). By 17.5km, its doing 25% its blaster damage tops (327) + drones (317). Furthermore, I don't know where you're getting hte base number of 1309 anyway; at 25% increase over what we have now in damage my numbers (using t1 ammo) give me 1016 dps optimal, which would scale down with range. I don't see that as too ridiculous. A 40% increase probably would be, however.



Isnt faloff on neutrons 12,5km (with skills)? Thus 4,5opti + 12,5km faloff = 17km half damage range? Im talking about current TQ mechanics not yet another random "rewrite everything" idea. So if faloff on neutrons is 12,5km then my point stands. Its stupidly overpowered.

Quote:

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

In this range it vaporizes everything including cruisers and if wrecking hit including frigs. Cruisers melt in 5 seconds after being locked.


Its tracking is only slightly enhanced, so it is doubtful it would hit frigs and cruisers.



Neutron tracking is around 0,075 on maxskill mega. Megapulse is around 0.031 on maxskill geddon. If you boost it by 20% or so you are getting close to 3x better tracking than geddon. Tell me how fast geddon kills cruisers at 15-20km range? And how fast will kill it mega with same (similiar) dps but 3x higher tracking?

Quote:

I don't know where you're getting 1,100 dps from (my numbers with 3 gyros give me 755 autocannon dps), and I didn't suggest 20+20, I suggested 15km max optimal.



3x gyro + rf emp + 800's + 4x ogre. Like i said earlier i added drones into all ships. Ya can remove em if you want, then do the same for all other values (every one i did was with drones).

Quote:

And being able to hit for full damage out to 15km, as compared to the mega's total range of 17ish with max damage inside 4, is a major advantage.



Yes but as stated above: said mega will outdamage mael even at maels optimal and into megas faloff if it ever gets 40% dps boost. Null makes wonders.

Quote:

Also, note that I'm only using t1 ammunition. I view t2 as an entirely different problem, which it is. Many of their bonuses are offset by their penalties and as a result aren't used, and t2 ammunition was one of the highest issues in the issue thread. Obviously when affecting these things we have to take t2 into account at some point, however.


I used faction. Thats why your numbers on mega are way off. T2 closerange cuts optimal and faloff on mega by 50%. Faction does not. And with faction ammo and 40% damage boost on mega it gets really stupid. Pretty much mega will dominate in (almost) whole disruptor range (leaving off 22-28km range for geddon/mael).

EDIT:
as for faloff. I used quick opti+faloff=50% damage. I know that in reality its around 46% but it doesnt change much.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.29 22:31:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: Suedomza Ralav

As for people saying there is no such thing as mid-range combat, they don't seem to understand what happens with small gangs. At a gate, someone can appear at a variety of ranges to you. Currently, a blaster ship has to burn towards the opponent to apply their damage, and often once that ship is popped, has to repeat to get into range of the next target. Laser ships are almost always within prime damage dealing range for gate combat without significant movement. Blasters need a dps boost to make up for this style of combat. During an engagement, the time spent traveling to optimal (even during gate fights, which are considered close-range), greatly reduces the amount of damage they can deal.



Its more about blob. But it also depends on gang size. if we have 50rr bs vs 50rr bs you can be damn sure that every mega WILL be in range of every other ship after 30seconds of combat. RR blobs dont move around usually. Thats why "gate range" argument is moot. If ppl who jump in are in RR BS they will get closer to each other, usually approaching gate thus getting into megas (standing on gate) range. And vice-versa. Mega gang jumping into geddon gang will approach and reform on geddons. Thus the time they lose their DPS advantage is said 30 seconds. After that they can melt anything because nobody manouvres around with rr gang.

And if you have mega gang (rr) and enemy doesnt want to get close you can use null aswell and just kill everything one by one. RR will tank enemies will not.

And no mid-range is almost non existant. Just close range was moved a bit further due to 24+4overheat pointers. Mid range distance (25-45 so pulse range) is quite rare and usually used on approach. Most of the time i fight i use multi anyways (rr blobs like above).

Also someone before (cant remember who now) wanted to make pulses very weak but long (40km?) range. So... what about beams? Arent beams 40km optimal weapons? So here we enter beam range with pulses. And either pulses will be weaker = everyone uses beams or pulses will be better = everyone uses pulses.

When it comes to t2 ammo (and t2 long range ammo) its all borked. We have 9 ammo types per weapon (or 7... cant remember now). Anyways long range ammo does 2nd or 3rd best damage at range of 2nd or 3rd best ranged ammo. So its best of the both worlds... It could be like rages: +20% damage over faction ammo. Soe in scorch example it should deal 20% damage over amarr navy microwave (iirc... cant remember ammo types atm).

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.29 22:52:00 - [187]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 29/05/2009 22:58:17
I was using only turrets, and only t1 ammunition. The differences between using faction and t1 ammo, while noticable, should be more or less even across the board. I didn't include drones because all of these ships get 4-5 heavies, and those are essentially a shared damage increase.

Also, if you check the maths I posted using the falloff formula, you'll see that the mega does not hit full damage out to 15km. Max optimal on heavy neutrons (again, using t1 ammo) is 4.5km on a mega. As I recall, the instant you enter falloff you begin losing noticable dps; at halfway through your falloff you should be getting roughly half dps, and at the end you should be getting roughly 25%. That's what the formula posted in the OP results in, and I believe its the correct one. By all means let me know if its not.

I agree with you that 40% damage increase is too severe. We can toss that number out, I'm using 25% now. It could probably be lowered to 15% without much of an issue to be honest.

As for tracking, that's something I can't prove easily. Maths would need to be done to compare a typical cruiser orbiting at 20km and the new tracking of these guns. I do not want a mega to be able to insta-pwn frigs and cruisers, but I do want it to almost 100% hit battleships inside its optimal assuming they're not mwd'ing.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.29 23:14:00 - [188]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
as for faloff. I used quick opti+faloff=50% damage. I know that in reality its around 46% but it doesnt change much.


IIRC, Opt + Falloff = 37.5% DPS. You seem to have forgotten hit quality.

-Liang

Shana Lioni
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.05.29 23:22:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Shana Lioni
I remember not so long ago, when it was a joke to be an Amarr character. Amarr had the worst damage type, and we were the easiest to tank, especially against Minmatar class ships. Then we get reballanced. Now the complaints roll in.


Being underpowered for a year does not entitle you to be overpowered for a year. Two wrongs do not make a right.


More like being underpowered for 5 years versus being powered just right for a year. The problem is not with Amarr man. The problem is that people want to use the Deimos as a blaster boat, and as it is right now, sucks at it. That's what needs to be fixed.

Quote:



....
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Shana Lioni

The roles of these ships are clearly defined. Their weapons systems are defined around their roles. Its not the turrets that are broken, more than likely the role at which your are trying to play the ship. If the Amarr Turret Systems are screwed with, then it needs to be ballaned with ships that can use missiles more effectively. We are not a fast race, and using short range missiles is seriously broken as this requires a pilot to be able to get in and out very quickly. My suggestion is give the Sacrilege the same bonuses as the Cerberus and change the Prophecy to a Heavy Missile boat if you do. But ultimately I pray that you leave us alone, and figure out a way to make the others happy without gimping us back to 2008.



Let me ask you a question: if they boosted, say, the Naglfar so that it had a .01s rof with 5.5 tracking and could wtfpwn frigs at 100m or 250km, would it be better to nerf the Naglfar or boost everyone so that they could do something similar?

As it stands, there's no really good reason to use anything other than lasers in the BC+ department (yes, that even includes for close range ganking). So what you're effectively saying is that we should boost blasters by 60-70% damage, boost projectiles by about the same (heh, they start so freaking low just so that lasers can remain "unchanged". Or hell, let's suppose a 5% boost to both would "fix" the problem. Well, now lasers have just recieved an indirect nerf by virtue of everything else being adjusted up around them. Also, this even further skews the utility of tanking bonuses towards resist bonuses.

I dunno, I don't really wanna play the game of "never nerf anything" - because it really doesn't exist.

-Liang


The Naglfar question is not even in the same realm of this problem, however, the answer would be obvious. You fix the Naglfar. However, this is not the same problem. Because the Laser Turrets themselves are not over powered.

Take a look at a typical fleet battleship @ level 5 skills:

Apoc - 312/2287 @ 212+25 with Aurora L (tracks @ 0.00476)
Mega - 312/1747 @ 168+30 with Spike L (tracks @ 0.00453)
Rokh - 321/1942 @ 152+30 with CNL IL (tracks @ 0.00301)
Temp - 317/3287 @ 140+44 with Tremor L (tracks @ 0.00281)

The DPS of these ships are roughly all the same. Amarr is not even the highest here and is 2nd in Volley damage. We track the best, but I think you would expect that for a race that operates out the the long range. The Tempest tracking stats is with optimal range scripts with tracking scripts their tracking is 0.00461. Lets get vollied with now with that 3287 volley damage... Again, these ships have specific purposes, Tempest is not a long range sniper, but people use them as such. Same with the Rokh. The Mega tracks just about as well as the Apok, but at less range. This is more than likely a problem with the Ammo specs or ship bonus than with the turret itself. The numbers are not as dramatic as people seem to be making them out to be.


Saint SaintaN
Posted - 2009.05.29 23:38:00 - [190]
 

Originally by: whoyoulookingat
Edited by: whoyoulookingat on 29/05/2009 09:10:49


I suggest the follow to fix close range guns (THESE ARE EXAMPLES):

Blasters:
up to max 7.5km Optimal / 2.5km falloff
x2 tracking
Leave damage types as they are

These are your up close, in your face, tear a new hole in your prey type of gun

AutoCannons:
Up to max 20km Optimal / 20km falloff (reduce falloff dps by half)
x1 tracking
Leave damage types / Adjust range modifiers to fit to new settings

AC's are your "I ain't getting close cos i ain't got a tank (or poor one) fitted" - Ships rely on speed & range yet currently suffer from the falloff syndrome which screws their DPS up.
Increased optimal rectifies this & the falloff is for those that are too nervous to get into tackling range.
Laughing

Pulse:
40km optimal / bugger all falloff
x.5 tracking
damage types the same / range multiplier possible tweaking required?

With the long optimal it's suffice to say that these should be used @ the maximum range for close combat (i'd be inclined to say they're more mid range though).
They shouldn't hit jack at up to 20km yet can tear things apart past this range or at the edge of the field.


Tracking wise, I kept to full digits instead of the usual 0.00whatevers to demonstrate the difference of each example type - obviously they are alot lower ingame but helps when trying to do examples.

TA DA - we now have 3 different weapons, all unique & all with a defined roll.

As for missiles - they have fof so can continue to spam even when jammed.. erm.. not sure what else!! hehe Laughing



I actually quite like your idea, it would give the weapons a set of unique roles whilst not gimping any of them however I would make a minor change.

At the moment you have:

blasters at 200% tracking
auto's at 100% tracking
pulses at 50% tracking

I would be more inclined to put

blasters at 125% tracking
auto's at 100% tracking
pulses at 50% tracking

My reasoning is that there are number of mods that will help blaster boats and not many that will help the people being tracked.

Otherwise I really like the way you have defined the weapons even if it is just an outline which ccp can add the figures to.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.29 23:40:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Saint SaintaN
Originally by: whoyoulookingat
Edited by: whoyoulookingat on 29/05/2009 09:10:49


I suggest the follow to fix close range guns (THESE ARE EXAMPLES):

Blasters:
up to max 7.5km Optimal / 2.5km falloff
x2 tracking
Leave damage types as they are

These are your up close, in your face, tear a new hole in your prey type of gun

AutoCannons:
Up to max 20km Optimal / 20km falloff (reduce falloff dps by half)
x1 tracking
Leave damage types / Adjust range modifiers to fit to new settings

AC's are your "I ain't getting close cos i ain't got a tank (or poor one) fitted" - Ships rely on speed & range yet currently suffer from the falloff syndrome which screws their DPS up.
Increased optimal rectifies this & the falloff is for those that are too nervous to get into tackling range.
Laughing

Pulse:
40km optimal / bugger all falloff
x.5 tracking
damage types the same / range multiplier possible tweaking required?

With the long optimal it's suffice to say that these should be used @ the maximum range for close combat (i'd be inclined to say they're more mid range though).
They shouldn't hit jack at up to 20km yet can tear things apart past this range or at the edge of the field.


Tracking wise, I kept to full digits instead of the usual 0.00whatevers to demonstrate the difference of each example type - obviously they are alot lower ingame but helps when trying to do examples.

TA DA - we now have 3 different weapons, all unique & all with a defined roll.

As for missiles - they have fof so can continue to spam even when jammed.. erm.. not sure what else!! hehe Laughing



I actually quite like your idea, it would give the weapons a set of unique roles whilst not gimping any of them however I would make a minor change.

At the moment you have:

blasters at 200% tracking
auto's at 100% tracking
pulses at 50% tracking

I would be more inclined to put

blasters at 125% tracking
auto's at 100% tracking
pulses at 50% tracking

My reasoning is that there are number of mods that will help blaster boats and not many that will help the people being tracked.

Otherwise I really like the way you have defined the weapons even if it is just an outline which ccp can add the figures to.


so whats the difference between pulses and beams now?


and to others: yeah checked, at 1x faloff ya get ~40% not 50% dps. My bad

Saint SaintaN
Posted - 2009.05.30 02:22:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: Saint SaintaN
Originally by: whoyoulookingat
Edited by: whoyoulookingat on 29/05/2009 09:10:49


I suggest the follow to fix close range guns (THESE ARE EXAMPLES):

Blasters:
up to max 7.5km Optimal / 2.5km falloff
x2 tracking
Leave damage types as they are

These are your up close, in your face, tear a new hole in your prey type of gun

AutoCannons:
Up to max 20km Optimal / 20km falloff (reduce falloff dps by half)
x1 tracking
Leave damage types / Adjust range modifiers to fit to new settings

AC's are your "I ain't getting close cos i ain't got a tank (or poor one) fitted" - Ships rely on speed & range yet currently suffer from the falloff syndrome which screws their DPS up.
Increased optimal rectifies this & the falloff is for those that are too nervous to get into tackling range.
Laughing

Pulse:
40km optimal / bugger all falloff
x.5 tracking
damage types the same / range multiplier possible tweaking required?

With the long optimal it's suffice to say that these should be used @ the maximum range for close combat (i'd be inclined to say they're more mid range though).
They shouldn't hit jack at up to 20km yet can tear things apart past this range or at the edge of the field.


Tracking wise, I kept to full digits instead of the usual 0.00whatevers to demonstrate the difference of each example type - obviously they are alot lower ingame but helps when trying to do examples.

TA DA - we now have 3 different weapons, all unique & all with a defined roll.

As for missiles - they have fof so can continue to spam even when jammed.. erm.. not sure what else!! hehe Laughing



I actually quite like your idea, it would give the weapons a set of unique roles whilst not gimping any of them however I would make a minor change.

At the moment you have:

blasters at 200% tracking
auto's at 100% tracking
pulses at 50% tracking

I would be more inclined to put

blasters at 125% tracking
auto's at 100% tracking
pulses at 50% tracking

My reasoning is that there are number of mods that will help blaster boats and not many that will help the people being tracked.

Otherwise I really like the way you have defined the weapons even if it is just an outline which ccp can add the figures to.


so whats the difference between pulses and beams now?


and to others: yeah checked, at 1x faloff ya get ~40% not 50% dps. My bad


Fair point, but the general gist behind it is right (not really the specific values although they are not terrible) you know, the way he/she has defined the roles well.

ChalSto
Galactic Shipyards Inc
Huzzah Federation
Posted - 2009.05.30 02:30:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: ChalSto on 30/05/2009 02:30:55
I dont know from where ppl have the myth that "Large Blasters did hit
Frigs if webbed before the web-nerf".

Oh wait...yes...I remember.......back in 2003 before CCP introduced tracking Rolling Eyes.

Large Blasters did track frigs ONLY if:

a) Dual-Webbed
AND
b)T1-Ammo
AND
c)the frig pilots was a complete idiot

So the statement-whine "Wahhhhh...large-blasters did hit frigs before the web-nerf"
is complete bull****.

Daemon Vlad
Posted - 2009.05.30 03:31:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: Daemon Vlad on 30/05/2009 03:32:05
My how this thread has turned hostile...

Anyway if the optimal and falloff ranges of lasers were reduced, their optimal tracking wouldn't be so high. This would solve the problem of Scorch as well as their unproportional effective range.

Also, I still think that range is the only thing that needs to be addressed. Tracking will fall into place once range is properly looked into.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.30 04:05:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Ranvaldy
Edited by: Ranvaldy on 29/05/2009 19:47:23
Originally by: Liang Nuren


Stop training overpowered weapons systems then? As it stands, there's very few reasons to ever use anything other than lasers.

-Liang

Stop ? Its the only weapon system i ever learned(tho maxed it) since i started as Amarr its pretty obvious Confused



Exactly, you dont wan't lasers changed because you have maxed skills on them, and right now they are far unbalanced and superior to all other turrets. Thats really fair, for sure.
Well I have been maxing out my skills on blasterboat pvp and I think I deserve to have a chance in combat. It is absolutely selfish and absurb to say not to change lasers because you have maxed out skills.

****** Anyone, at all, saying that blasters do not need "fixed", "changed", or "balanced", is 100% utterly wrong. There is no question about it, im sorry. I am a specialized gallente character, and my ships are SHAFTED at the moment. NO i am not flying them "wrong".

I've said it before and I'll keep posting it:

Blasters need improved

If you disagree, its because you dont wan't a fair game, and you dont want balance.
It seems like Min guns need improved as well, but I can't speak for them, I dont use them and don't see their stats. All I know is that the "blasterboat" class ship, is not worth flying at all with its current abilities. This should not be, it is not fair to people like myself who have trained specifically for gallente blaster-pwning, they can't pwn at all right now, except against noobs, and ships with no tank.

Right now, any gallente gank boat cant fit enough tank to fight any other pvp ship with a decent tank and decent dps. The blaster dps is not higher enough than other weapons to give a close fight. And when the tracking is complete rubbish like it is now, ships like my thorax are nearly useless against anything with a decent setup.

To CCP and the Devs here... please, do some balancing soon. All the guns that need it, I dont MY race to be the new lasers, I want BALANCE. Please please please, make gallente ships worth flying. The Deimos is supposed to be a deadly ship, I just finished HAC 5, and I couldnt hope to fight even most Battlecruisers... come on

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.05.30 04:10:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: Daemon Vlad
My how this thread has turned hostile...

You must be new here.

Originally by: Daemon Vlad
Anyway if the optimal and falloff ranges of lasers were reduced, their optimal tracking wouldn't be so high. This would solve the problem of Scorch as well as their unproportional effective range.

Also, I still think that range is the only thing that needs to be addressed. Tracking will fall into place once range is properly looked into.
This may be true (or not), but tracking still needs to be tweaked.


As far as missiles are concerned, I'm rather surprised there is next to no discussion of their significantly flawed and inconsistent mechanics. Cruise missiles don't have a role, rockets suck, torps are (a little) overpowered, and none of them can hit the broad side of a barn. Anyone care enough to mention this?

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.30 05:13:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Allen Ramses
As far as missiles are concerned, I'm rather surprised there is next to no discussion of their significantly flawed and inconsistent mechanics. Cruise missiles don't have a role, rockets suck, torps are (a little) overpowered, and none of them can hit the broad side of a barn. Anyone care enough to mention this?


Yeah - but I haven't put enough thought into the cruise missile problem, and I could simply care less about rockets (Kan Ya Tell, I'm Caldari?! :p). It's really hard to do anything to missiles because they aren't really affected by a 'blind spot' in the same way that turrets are. They also aren't affected by ewar to the same extent (FOF > ECM/RSD, Missile in general are immune to TDs).

I have just unmothballed my missile pilot from Mission Hell, so I may quickly develop an opinion about this. On the other hand, Liang just started crosstraining.... lazers. ;-)

DONT NERF LAZERS I JUST STARTED TRAININGZ THEM AND ULL NERF THEM RIGHT AS I FINISH!!!!

-Liang

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.05.30 05:45:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
Edited by: isdisco3 on 29/05/2009 19:02:42
I do agree that we need to decide on clear roles for each race, but we must remember that within every race there are differing types of weapons. Giving amarr's short-range weapons an optimal of 40k seems a bit much, even if damage and tracking are compensated to make up for it. If its short-range are 40km, how long should its long-range be?

I also don't think we need to increase the optimal on blasters. They are short-range on purpose, but I do think the damage needs to be greatly enhanced to compensate for their utter lack of range, along with better tracking so that if you're in a battleship and you're in a blasterboat's optimal, you're either ballsy, stupid, or dead - or all of the above.

My suggestions:

Blasters:
- increase base damage by 25-40% to compensate for lack of range. falloff stays the same
- increase tracking by 20-30%, or some number which lets them hit bs in their optimal but not frigates.
- result is that it does sick dps within 4km, and decent to bad beyond that.

Autocannons:
- increase base damage marginally (10% or so), and change the tempest
- increase its optimal to 10-15km varying by size, give it a matching falloff
- result is a skirmish, standoff weapon with medium-high dps which helps engage at decent range.

Lasers:
- lower damage by 15%
- nerf scorch, no short-range weapon should have a 45km optimal
- result is a longer-range, but not unreachable, BS with decent damage

Do that, and we'll have as new roles:

Blasters:
- in your face pwnination, if you get inside its 2-3km optimal, you're probably boned.

Autocannons:
- standoff weapons, doing good damage at decent range, but nothing excessive

Lasers:
- longer-range weapons, doing 2nd-to-3rd damage, able to engage at decent ranges.


I like this one as a starting point...

Tho maybe if ACs are getting only 10% more damage and lasers are getting a damage reduction even 25% blaster damage is a bit too much.

OTOH, give blasters the +25% DPS, don't nerf laser damage and give ACs +15% DPS (and look at missiles and drones separately) maybe?

place1
Amarr
Orion Ore Industries
Posted - 2009.05.30 06:41:00 - [199]
 

It seams that blasters are fine for DPS and Tracking, that most of you say its out of balance because you have to move into position and it takes so long. Well then wouldn't it stand to reason that maybe instead of changing the weapon's them self's that the ships need a bit of a speed increase?

maybe a boost of the mega from base 105 to 115 this would then need to boost the speed of minmatar as well say boosting the tempest from base 120 to 140. Following this for the rest of the race ships as well. don't go so far as to totally reverse the speed nerf but readjust the speed nerf values.

Not a blaster pilot so don't know just making observations and suggestions off what I have read.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.30 08:36:00 - [200]
 

Edited by: Leto Aramaus on 30/05/2009 08:37:02
Originally by: place1
It seams that blasters are fine for DPS and Tracking, that most of you say its out of balance because you have to move into position and it takes so long. Well then wouldn't it stand to reason that maybe instead of changing the weapon's them self's that the ships need a bit of a speed increase?

maybe a boost of the mega from base 105 to 115 this would then need to boost the speed of minmatar as well say boosting the tempest from base 120 to 140. Following this for the rest of the race ships as well. don't go so far as to totally reverse the speed nerf but readjust the speed nerf values.

Not a blaster pilot so don't know just making observations and suggestions off what I have read.


No place, the issue is not speed, and giving a speed increase to gallente ships, would not at all bring them into their intended role in combat. People are not saying it is out of balance because the blaster ships have to move into position and it takes too long. Right now blasters are out of balance because of a combination of range, tracking, and damage.

Let me explain: Gallente ships such as the thorax are intended to be good at close range, by doing lots of DPS before the enemy has a chance to kill what little tank or buffer the thorax has. The time it takes to approach a target SHOULD be the thorax's weakness. That is one of its disadvantages, is doesnt have range. BUT, it's supposed to do tremendous damage if it does reach and lock down its target.

Right now I believe the damage to range ratio is not quite balanced. I think if the range is to stay as short as it is, the damage needs to be increased a some amount.

Some numbers to compare:
35% damage increase
now 529 dps thorax = 727 dps
now 740 dps deimos = 999 dps
(gank setups with FACTION ammo and IMPLANTS)

now 1023 dps Mega = 1381 dps
(T1 antimatter gank setup)

70% damage increase
now 529 dps thorax = 925 dps
now 740 dps deimos = 1295 dps

now 1023 dps Mega = 1790

Keep in mind that all 3 of these setups are gank, with armor buffer and no active tank. Now I even think 925 dps on a thorax is quite high, but 1700 dps on a full gank mega sounds about right to me. After doing those calculation I might suggest that the different sizes of blasters be changed individually. I think a roughly 50% damage increase for all blaster sizes would be a good start on the test server so see how it works.

For those of you that scoff at any damage increase at all, and say blasters have enough damage advantage already, you have to realize that with both rigs and the HP buff, damage-centered vessels were really hurt. Almost any ship can fit a tank that can withstand a full gank blaster boats damage long enough to kill the blaster pilot. The blaster boat was intended to use the strategy of doing so much damage you can kill your enemy faster than he can kill you.

With the current game most ships can fit a terrific tank and still do a several hundred DPS, enough to kill any gank blaster boat, even in superior ships and more skilled pilots. Some t1 cruisers can fit tanks that will withstand Deimos fire long enough to kill it, very gimped if you ask me. Blaster damage needs increased to give them their intended role in the game back.


Now, this doesnt even address tracking. Even if the damage of blasters was increased 200%, i would not consider that fixing them at all.

The tracking of blasters needs to be fixed to balance them, no matter what range or damage change is made. If they can't hit barely moving targets, at their own optimal range, there is a problem.

So lastly i need to stress that range is the LAST issue with blasters right now, the real problems are what I have just posted about, damage and tracking.

^^^^I dont see how some of you dont see that ^^^^^

I am trying to compile a base of video evidence of blaster insuffiencies from the test server.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.30 08:47:00 - [201]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 30/05/2009 08:50:49
Quote:
Keep in mind that all 3 of these setups are gank, with armor buffer and no active tank. Now I even think 925 dps on a thorax is quite high, but 1700 dps on a full gank mega sounds about right to me. After doing those calculation I might suggest that the different sizes of blasters be changed individually. I think a roughly 50% damage increase for all blaster sizes would be a good start on the test server so see how it works.


You didnt read what i wrote did you? Or just ignored the fact that adding 40% to blaster mega damage using current tq stats and current tracking will OBLITERATE any cruiser in 0-24 (point range) radius? Due to how tracking works you will end up with same DPS as geddon does at those ranges (or higher) and 2x better tracking.

And how does "no active tank only buffer" balance it out when everyone uses buffers nowadays and has quite similiar tank?

Also how can you kill 30mega RR gang (with your stats) using ANY other ships? Well except maybe for multiple titans or huge carrier rr blob.

Quote:

Now, this doesnt even address tracking. Even if the damage of blasters was increased 200%, i would not consider that fixing them at all.


Tbh you arent even funny. Good thing ppl working at CCP have at least half a clue and know how unbalanced it would be thus it will never happen.

EDIT:
o yea this could be actually doable. If small blaster optimal was around 1km and faloff around 0 metres. Mediums maybe 2km, large blasters 3-4km. Then even tracking boost would work. Extreme dps at extremely short ranges with no faloff.

Gavin Darklighter
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.05.30 08:50:00 - [202]
 

70% blaster damage buff, ya, keep dreaming. I would love for my hype to dish out 2700dps though.....

Mohenna
Caldari
Knights of the Dark
Posted - 2009.05.30 09:28:00 - [203]
 

Edited by: Mohenna on 30/05/2009 09:43:50
The ONLY problem with lasers is that all T2 ammo sucks, but scorch and null are ok.
Scorch is particularly good NOT for stats, but for the purpose of lasers: as midrange weapons, using longrange ammo on a shortrange weapon works particularly well.
The solution is simple. Short range ammo should also be good. Combine it with blasters, that are intended for short range, and you get the same level of synergy for other t2 weapons. (How? Imho, by changing its penalty to one that while significant, does not go against its role for starters! short range hybryd ammo that wreaks tracking?! that is the problem come on)

This alone will probably solve every possible problem. Even if it doesn't, you test it first, and after some time of live testing on TQ you consider moving on!

About this thread. Everytrolly seems to think only about the best case scenarios, but
- not everybody has lvl V gunnery in all weapons
- not everybody has even t2 guns
- not everybody has all support skills at V: amarrians need capacitor, gallente need tracking (and webbing), and so on
- you must account for many possible scenarios, lowsec, nullsec, highsec, fleets, smallgangs, solo: the 9 combinations already give you 8 different scenarios that nobody accounted for. PLUS the different needs of skilling up for every weapon; PLUS the capacitor needs; PLUS the need of being in a fleet or not...

Quit with the whining and don't ask for more swinging of the nerfbat, that's silly. Balance after 5 years in a game should be done with smaller and smaller, cautious steps. The nerfbat changes completely roles, you all know that after a nerfbat swing there is a mass migration of FOTM. Why would you want that? The only possible answer is - you want to be the OP one this time.

edited for clarity

Gavin Darklighter
Ministry of War
Posted - 2009.05.30 09:45:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: Mohenna
Balance after 5 years in a game should be done with smaller and smaller, cautious steps.


QFE

place1
Amarr
Orion Ore Industries
Posted - 2009.05.30 09:52:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: Leto Aramaus


No place, the issue is not speed, and giving a speed increase to gallente ships, would not at all bring them into their intended role in combat.

......... Needed space ..........





I still don't see how giving a small speed boost would not fix most of the problems.
Increased speed means your in your op range faster less tank needed to get there. Also once you are there your going to be orbiting faster making other weapons feel how slow there tracking is. Blasters have the best tracking out of all the guns so if your orbit is affecting your ability to hit due to tracking it is having a even greater effect on all other weapon system.

Blasters also have the best DPS of all weapon system and once in your op range your putting energy weapons into there falloff so there reduced damage combined with there slow tracking and your new increased speed should give you the leg up.

Next seeing how fast Large blasters already track giving them a increase even more (not even considering the huge tacking the mega would have) would seam to me that there ability to hit cruiser would just be to good.

As for damage increase there already the heaviest hitters but a small increase maybe would work though the 70% that you suggested even if was only example seams just insanely huge, maybe another 10-15% would be ok.

Agene not a blaster pilot so I may be totally off just stating it how it appears to me.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.05.30 09:52:00 - [206]
 

Edited by: To mare on 30/05/2009 09:54:16
Originally by: Mohenna
Edited by: Mohenna on 30/05/2009 09:43:50
The ONLY problem with lasers is that all T2 ammo sucks, but scorch and null are ok.
Scorch is particularly good NOT for stats, but for the purpose of lasers: as midrange weapons, using longrange ammo on a shortrange weapon works particularly well.
The solution is simple. Short range ammo should also be good. Combine it with blasters, that are intended for short range, and you get the same level of synergy for other t2 weapons. (How? Imho, by changing its penalty to one that while significant, does not go against its role for starters! short range hybryd ammo that wreaks tracking?! that is the problem come on)

This alone will probably solve every possible problem. Even if it doesn't, you test it first, and after some time of live testing on TQ you consider moving on!

About this thread. Everytrolly seems to think only about the best case scenarios, but
- not everybody has lvl V gunnery in all weapons
- not everybody has even t2 guns
- not everybody has all support skills at V: amarrians need capacitor, gallente need tracking (and webbing), and so on
- you must account for many possible scenarios, lowsec, nullsec, highsec, fleets, smallgangs, solo: the 9 combinations already give you 8 different scenarios that nobody accounted for. PLUS the different needs of skilling up for every weapon; PLUS the capacitor needs; PLUS the need of being in a fleet or not...

Quit with the whining and don't ask for more swinging of the nerfbat, that's silly. Balance after 5 years in a game should be done with smaller and smaller, cautious steps. The nerfbat changes completely roles, you all know that after a nerfbat swing there is a mass migration of FOTM. Why would you want that? The only possible answer is - you want to be the OP one this time.

edited for clarity


any competent pvp player will have at least T2 guns if not he better use something else.
capacitor skills is something anyone should have not only amarr, max tracking skill are a prerequisite for large T2 guns and i just lolled at webbing skill.
the problem about scenarios have already been discussed and with the current state of things laser rules all around.
scorch isnt the only problem even w/o T2 skills laser kick the crap out of AC.


ed:
on your clarification i agree we need to leave laser as they are and bring other weapons system in line with them with a unique flavor.

1600 RT
Posted - 2009.05.30 10:02:00 - [207]
 

Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Originally by: Mohenna
Balance after 5 years in a game should be done with smaller and smaller, cautious steps.


QFE


as you can see thats not th CCP way.
point -> nanonerf

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2009.05.30 12:26:00 - [208]
 

Edited by: Mag''s on 30/05/2009 12:26:45
Originally by: Mohenna
Balance after 5 years in a game should be done with smaller and smaller, cautious steps.


CCP don't make changes in small cautious steps, things usually get nerfed to hell and then take another 2 years get get put right, if ever.

The EOS being a prime example, it was found lacking at it's role before the nerf and it's still found lacking after. The only reason to use it before the nerf was it's great solo and small gang damage output. The Damnation is so much better now, there's no point using the EOS at all.

Tell me, how often do you see an EOS out in space now?
That's a prime example of the CCP sledgehammer nerf approach.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.30 12:50:00 - [209]
 

Eos was overpowered. There was no point using any other CS than eos.

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.05.30 13:01:00 - [210]
 

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

Please attempt to come up with a consensus opinion or recommendations for developers to move forward, otherwise this is just a waste of time for all concerned.


We cant realistically come to a community consensus on what specifically needs to be changed to re-balance weapons systems.

We are not in full possession of the same Data CCP employees are.

What we can do is point out the imbalance in the current divisions between weapons systems and roles.

This process requires that Devs read the thread in depth, rather than skim it looking for 'community consensus'


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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