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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Mag's
the united
Negative Ten.
Posted - 2009.05.30 13:25:00 - [211]
 

Edited by: Mag''s on 30/05/2009 14:11:52
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Eos was overpowered. There was no point using any other CS than eos.


Please read my post again, I was talking about it's role.
The only reason the EOS was used before it's nerf, wasn't anything to do with it's role.
I was simply pointing out CCPs sledgehammer approach, instead of improving it's role, they simply nerfed it to pointlessness.

Edit: Clarity

Perry
Amarr
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.05.30 14:20:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Eos was overpowered. There was no point using any other CS than eos.


This will probably derail the Topic but: Fleet Command Ships suffer from several aspects:

Problems:
1) Low DPS for their Class, making them less desireable for Killmail generating.
2) Half of the Ganglinks are pretty weak / useless in todays pvp (active tanking, ew)
3) min/gal active tanking bonus is too weak. Passive Tanking these ships is generally better in any thinkable way.

Solutions:
1) DPS is not really a problem, only in combination with 2+3 becomes a factor, so leave it low.
2) Redistributing and Recreating Ganglinks, eg delete the useless, Combine the weak, change some Links around:

Armored: armor resistance +2% , cap amount +2%, Tracking +2% (Renamed to "Imperial Warfare")
Siege: shield resistance +2%, EW-Strength +2%, missile precision +2% (Renamed to "State Warfare")
Information: armor repair amount and cap need reduction +2%, Propulsion Jamming Range +3%, drone damage +2% (Renamed to "Federation Warfare")
Skirmish: shield boost amount and cap need reduction +2%, Signature -2%, Speedmod Boost +2% (Renamed to "Republic Warfare")

3) Boost active tanking bonus on all ships to 10% like T3 and boost T3 to 12,5%. Thus active tanking Eos / Claymore is actually better then buffer tanking them, because they will generate huge amounts of hitpoints per cycle, reaching buffer equilibrium faster and without capping out before doing so. Also helps Astarte a bit (which should get +1 Hi Slot anyway).

Done, Command Ships fixed.

Now back to Weapons!

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.05.30 15:31:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: Perry
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Eos was overpowered. There was no point using any other CS than eos.


This will probably derail the Topic but: Fleet Command Ships suffer from several aspects:

Solutions:

Armored: armor resistance +2% , cap amount +2%, Tracking +2% (Renamed to "Imperial Warfare")
Siege: shield resistance +2%, EW-Strength +2%, missile precision +2% (Renamed to "State Warfare")
Information: armor repair amount and cap need reduction +2%, Propulsion Jamming Range +3%, drone damage +2% (Renamed to "Federation Warfare")
Skirmish: shield boost amount and cap need reduction +2%, Signature -2%, Speedmod Boost +2% (Renamed to "Republic Warfare")




Some nice ideas there actually. Although Caldari needs a rail bonus there, maybe switch the shield resist bonus to hybrid optimal.

Mohenna
Caldari
Knights of the Dark
Posted - 2009.05.30 16:13:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: To mare
Originally by: Mohenna
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) [...]
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.

Of course, but what about lvl V skills? Nobody has ALL lvl 5s... And every lvl V has to be valued singularly against the others. It's a matter of weight, and personal judgement and... *drumsroll* balance. This is more stuff that comes into play when balancing things, another reason to take things lightly rather than nerfbatting around.

Originally by: 1600 RT
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

Not a reason to ask more of the nerfbat... Let's SHOW THEM how it is done; after all I do believe that there are more game designers playing this game (from other games, because this is the best :) ) than designing it. Let's show them, redesign t2 short range ammo first...
Originally by: Perry
seriously well thought out stuff

...AND this. These two things will, imho, balance out weapons; or, better said: FINE-TUNE weapons, which is what we need. Even if it's not enough, later one more subtle tweaking can be done, until a general consensus of balance is agreed on ( ie, everybody whines equally for all the weapons Laughing )

NOT more friggin nerfsbat swings!!!




isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.30 19:05:00 - [215]
 

We are using all lvl 5 and t2 guns because that is the 'best case' scenario. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter what skill level we use, as long as we use the same skill level between all races.

Let's get back to the weapons systems, shall we? And perhaps its time to glance at the long-range variant of these races as well?

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.30 20:46:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
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.


Of course I expected people to respond just like this, because no matter what I explain they will disagree with me. Thats fine, but you seriously need to give some examples or something.
You are arguring with me against points I did not even make

"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."

I don't even know what that means... I'm not sure if you think I said that or not.

Also I think you took me seriously when I said 200% damage increase wouldnt be fair. I dont want a HUGE bonus to hybrid tracking, FFS. People like Deva are not even comprehending what I'm posting.

Deva, In my opinion, if a... lets say Amarr cruiser, an Omen, encounters a megathron and tries to engage it, so it gets within 5-6km and gets webbed by a Mega, it should get OBLITERATED by a full rack of large blasters... it's a cruiser vs a Battleship, nearly any cruiser should be OBLITERATED by a battleship in its optimal range.

But just to try and get less flame next time someone responds to me, lets say a Stabber encounters the same megathron, and his setup is designed to orbit at 10km and deal damage. So the mega can't web it, and I do NOT think tracking on blasters should be buffed enough to hit a speed oriented ship that is INTENDED to dodge shots.

You guys laugh at me like asking for Blaster battleships and the cruiser "blaster boats" to get a damage buff is the most unbalanced idea ever. But you still don't read when I say, their INTENDED role, as far as I know, is to be the ships that you are afraid of if you are in their range and especially so if you're immobilized. Right now they dont do THAT much more damage than other ships in their class, so they are gimped.

"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?"

^^Nothing I suggested would result in that. And I am pretty sure on TQ today, no large blaster would hit anything at 20 km, ever. And I do not want them to be able to. Stop acting like I am requesting perfect tracking at any range, read my whole post and don't take all my suggestions to the extreme.


Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.30 21:06:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: Leto Aramaus

"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."

I don't even know what that means... I'm not sure if you think I said that or not.



You wanted 70% (lol) damage boost didnt you? I wrote more-less how damage over range would look like (slight mistake on my side, took 50% dps at opti+faloff, it is around 37-40% actually).

You see only "whoah 1700dps mega! thats awesome" yet you fail to see that blaster DPS increase doesnt work ONLY in 0-5km range. it also works for null ammo thus up to opti+2x faloff range (effective range being opti+faloff = around 26km). And i shown already that your 70% dps boosted mega will outdamage everything up to around 22km.

Quote:

Also I think you took me seriously when I said 200% damage increase wouldnt be fair. I dont want a HUGE bonus to hybrid tracking, FFS. People like Deva are not even comprehending what I'm posting.



As you can see i was only looking and commenting 70% damage increase. 200% damage increase would outdamage moros in normal fit.

Unless you mean 200% tracking. Still even ignoring tracking (lets say mega gets 70% damage 0% tracking boost) mega tracks 2x better than geddon. People always whine how fast geddons kill cruisers at 20km. Yet you are creating something which deals more damage at 20km than geddon AND tracks 2x better from start (thats TQ stats for you!) than said geddon. So no, you didnt say this. I just took your idea and explained it further, something you perhaps missed out or perhaps didnt want to tell.

Quote:

Deva, In my opinion, if a... lets say Amarr cruiser, an Omen, encounters a megathron and tries to engage it, so it gets within 5-6km and gets webbed by a Mega, it should get OBLITERATED by a full rack of large blasters... it's a cruiser vs a Battleship, nearly any cruiser should be OBLITERATED by a battleship in its optimal range.



And it wont die? Im fairly sure omen in blaster range will live for arond 5 seconds. BUT your thing creates 20km "death sphere". Also (im not some tracking formula genius here) isnt 10km+web (lets say 50%) tracking exactly same as 20km no web one?

Quote:

But just to try and get less flame next time someone responds to me, lets say a Stabber encounters the same megathron, and his setup is designed to orbit at 10km and deal damage. So the mega can't web it, and I do NOT think tracking on blasters should be buffed enough to hit a speed oriented ship that is INTENDED to dodge shots.



I think i dont understand you. Or you dont understand the game. At 10km mega will web it and kill easily (webs web at 10-13km due to overheat). Again not sure whats the break point at which stabber will evade blaster fire (under web) but id imagine its under 5km orbit.

Quote:

You guys laugh at me like asking for Blaster battleships and the cruiser "blaster boats" to get a damage buff is the most unbalanced idea ever. But you still don't read when I say, their INTENDED role, as far as I know, is to be the ships that you are afraid of if you are in their range and especially so if you're immobilized. Right now they dont do THAT much more damage than other ships in their class, so they are gimped.



Ok. 70% blaster buff. Taranis. My taranis does 200dps with blasters alone. With your buff its 340dps. Add 2 drones its 380dps. You just outdamage all t1 cruisers, some t2 using interceptor. So whats the point of using HAC over a ceptor now?

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.30 21:07:00 - [218]
 

Quote:
"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?"

^^Nothing I suggested would result in that. And I am pretty sure on TQ today, no large blaster would hit anything at 20 km, ever. And I do not want them to be able to. Stop acting like I am requesting perfect tracking at any range, read my whole post and don't take all my suggestions to the extreme.


Id advise you to take neutron blaster t2 + null ammo and check again. You might get surprised.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.30 21:54:00 - [219]
 

First of all...

I was posting 70% damage increase stats to SHOW everyone what it would look like.

If you EVER read what I wrote, you would see I said I think 50% damage increase would be a starting point, and test from there.

You'r reply's are so ignorant I dont know if I even want to waste the time responding to explain myself.

"Unless you mean 200% tracking. Still even ignoring tracking (lets say mega gets 70% damage 0% tracking boost) mega tracks 2x better than geddon. People always whine how fast geddons kill cruisers at 20km. Yet you are creating something which deals more damage at 20km than geddon AND tracks 2x better from start (thats TQ stats for you!) than said geddon. So no, you didnt say this. I just took your idea and explained it further, something you perhaps missed out or perhaps didnt want to tell."

You completely missed what I said again, no I did NOT mean 200% tracking, but I'm going to let you think about it and figure it out yourself.

I keep talking about short range and you keep saying 20km death range.

I'm talking. about. close. range.

NOT Null ammo. I think blasters should do HIGHER damage and CLOSE RANGE. GET IT?????????

If the damage increase resulted in the ability to do their really high DPS at too high range, then a change would be needed to make that stop happening.

Changing Null Ammos attributes perhaps? I can't stress enough for you to stop assuming I wan't any change that would overpower blasters. If you can't get that, ignore my posts.
I never thought or implied that I wanted a mega to do 1700 dps at 20 km.


Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
Posted - 2009.05.30 22:33:00 - [220]
 

I would really prefer blasters to be "special" rather than more powerfull.

What about giving them bleed damage even at 100% buffer.

Bleeding into untanked layer is indirect DPS bonus. And since bleed goes into structure eventually, you better sort that ship out before it will inevitably kill you, no matter how strong spidertank you have.

Blaster currently do not warrant the limitations they have. They are not as bad as people paint them but they kinda lack merit.

Projectiles could have... say heat resistance. A heat treshhold where they do not take heat damage. That means that for a short amount of time you can overheat them without penalty. More spike DPS to artilery and more incentive to hit and run.

You can make those some easy skills just to give people something fun to train for.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.30 22:54:00 - [221]
 

Originally by: Leto Aramaus
First of all...

I was posting 70% damage increase stats to SHOW everyone what it would look like.



And i shown everyone it would look ******ed.

Quote:

If you EVER read what I wrote, you would see I said I think 50% damage increase would be a starting point, and test from there.



Same as above.

Quote:

I keep talking about short range and you keep saying 20km death range.

I'm talking. about. close. range.



20km IS CLOSE RANGE. CAPISHI? Everything inside 24km is CLOSE RANGE COMBAT. So called mid range is outside of point range but not yet sniper range. The MIDDLE ground as name suggests.

Quote:

NOT Null ammo. I think blasters should do HIGHER damage and CLOSE RANGE. GET IT?????????



See thats your problem. you want blasters to be uber close range yet you NEVER define what is your close range or what boosts/changes youd like to see. All you say is some random "damage boost in close range" idea. And again i shown you that even with null blaster mega operates within close range ammo.

Quote:

If the damage increase resulted in the ability to do their really high DPS at too high range, then a change would be needed to make that stop happening.



This is the FIRST time you actually posted something sensible. Next time try to put more sense into rest of your posts.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.30 22:56:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Forge Lag
I would really prefer blasters to be "special" rather than more powerfull.

What about giving them bleed damage even at 100% buffer.

Bleeding into untanked layer is indirect DPS bonus. And since bleed goes into structure eventually, you better sort that ship out before it will inevitably kill you, no matter how strong spidertank you have.

Blaster currently do not warrant the limitations they have. They are not as bad as people paint them but they kinda lack merit.

Projectiles could have... say heat resistance. A heat treshhold where they do not take heat damage. That means that for a short amount of time you can overheat them without penalty. More spike DPS to artilery and more incentive to hit and run.

You can make those some easy skills just to give people something fun to train for.


Fun fact. Thats exactly what people proposed when lasers were "le suck". To give em bleeding/damage over time/vampire effects. So i doubt CCP will ever want to make such differences between weapon systems.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.30 23:24:00 - [223]
 

70%, we can agree, is far too high. I like my 25% number. Null won't make it *that* deadly, because null on a mega gives it 11km optimal max. That's almost equal ot my proposed minmatar optimal, and well short of the proposed amarr optimal.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.30 23:55:00 - [224]
 

Dev you didn't show anybody anything.

Here: I think blaster changes should look like this

small- 10-20% damage increase, optimal same as now (500m-2000m)
medium- 25-30% damage increase, optimal same as now (1500m-3000m)
large- 30-40% damage increase, optimal same as now (4000m-6000m)

tracking of all sizes- increased very SLIGHTLY so it is no longer terrible

Does that spell it out enough for you?

20km is close range? Yea no sh*t for capital ships, but I'm not talking about capital ships whatsoever.

If blaster t2 ammo increases the range the same way it does now, then the damage should be further reduced in my plan.

You seriously don't get a thing I say, and you have yet to mention a single real flaw in my ideas.

You just say it "looks f**ked"

ASNWER THIS: How am I wrong when I say blasters are supposed to be the highest damage dealing weapons in the game, and therefore need to be changed to reflect that and make their strategy useful.

Do you think they do enough damage already?
Do you think their inteded role was NOT to do the highest damage at very close range (under 7km) ?
Do you think blaster ships are balanced at the moment, and can fairly fight other ships of their class?

Try explaining to me your opinions of why blasters are currently "fine"
I would like to hear it.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.31 00:22:00 - [225]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 31/05/2009 00:22:52
Originally by: Leto Aramaus
Dev you didn't show anybody anything.

Here: I think blaster changes should look like this

small- 10-20% damage increase, optimal same as now (500m-2000m)
medium- 25-30% damage increase, optimal same as now (1500m-3000m)
large- 30-40% damage increase, optimal same as now (4000m-6000m)

tracking of all sizes- increased very SLIGHTLY so it is no longer terrible



What about faloff? What will happen if i load null? Again: you DID NOT RESPOND TO THIS. And again: it will be overpowered on mega if you load null with changes you proposed just now. Same problem will happen on medium blaster ship line. And exactly same thing will happen in small weapon range. Ceptor duels will be even more unbalanced on ranis side. No t1 cruiser will be able to win vs thorax unless heavily nanoed. etc.

Quote:

20km is close range? Yea no sh*t for capital ships, but I'm not talking about capital ships whatsoever.



No, 20km aka "disruptor range" is close range. Thats why ALL "closerange" battleship guns can hit up to 20km. The "mid range" starts where others cant reach but amarr still can. Around 20-60km range. Ofc some minnies can cover around half of "mid" range too thx to faloff.

Quote:

If blaster t2 ammo increases the range the same way it does now, then the damage should be further reduced in my plan.



And HERE is your wrong way of thinking. Yes range will be around 10k IF you use void. Problem is: NOONE uses void. So the "1500-1700dps at 10km" is balls. Because people WILL load navy antimatter and reach to around 15km (with opti+faloff). Or load NULL and go to 22ish km.

The ONLY way to stop this is totally kill faloff on blasters. And kill null range increases.

Quote:

You seriously don't get a thing I say, and you have yet to mention a single real flaw in my ideas.



Just mentioned more than one.

Quote:

ASNWER THIS: How am I wrong when I say blasters are supposed to be the highest damage dealing weapons in the game, and therefore need to be changed to reflect that and make their strategy useful.



Welcome to TQ. Blasters ARE highest damaging weapon. Go play with the numbers.

Quote:

Do you think they do enough damage already?



Yes they do. Maybe 5% damage boost could do it for all i care. Due to fact how RR bs gangs work (hello, you didnt even comment on it - total ignorance when i shown you the FACTS) the "pulse advantage" lasts till 1st enemy ship pops. Then Blaster DPS and tracking advantage > pulse range.

Quote:

Do you think blaster ships are balanced at the moment, and can fairly fight other ships of their class?



Yes they can, quite easily in fact. Next time learn from good blasterboat pilots.

Quote:

70%, we can agree, is far too high. I like my 25% number. Null won't make it *that* deadly, because null on a mega gives it 11km optimal max. That's almost equal ot my proposed minmatar optimal, and well short of the proposed amarr optimal.


You are still ignoring 16km faloff when null is loaded.

Leto Aramaus
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.31 00:24:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Forge Lag
I would really prefer blasters to be "special" rather than more powerfull.

What about giving them bleed damage even at 100% buffer.

Bleeding into untanked layer is indirect DPS bonus. And since bleed goes into structure eventually, you better sort that ship out before it will inevitably kill you, no matter how strong spidertank you have.

Blaster currently do not warrant the limitations they have. They are not as bad as people paint them but they kinda lack merit.

Projectiles could have... say heat resistance. A heat treshhold where they do not take heat damage. That means that for a short amount of time you can overheat them without penalty. More spike DPS to artilery and more incentive to hit and run.

You can make those some easy skills just to give people something fun to train for.


I think really cool features like this are great idea sometime after all the weapons are balanced with normal attributes.
But I really like the idea of giving each weapon set a strange unique role bonus like that.
The minmatar hit and run idea is something I really think should be built on.
Maybe blasters receive something like the bleeding damage you mentioned.
Missiles could have something like an alpha strike, where many missiles from the same launcher are fired at once, then need time to reload and cool down.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.31 01:28:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
You see only "whoah 1700dps mega! thats awesome" yet you fail to see that blaster DPS increase doesnt work ONLY in 0-5km range. it also works for null ammo thus up to opti+2x faloff range (effective range being opti+faloff = around 26km). And i shown already that your 70% dps boosted mega will outdamage everything up to around 22km.


70% is excessive, but part of the point of a DPS boost would be to emphasize close range damage and give it something at range. As things stand right now its really kinda questionable if I'd fly something that did even 2K DPS at <5km and was totally ineffective by 12-15km.

I mean, I might... but I doubt I'd do it in a battleship sized hull. They just can't get on target fast enough to make it matter.

-Liang

Electric Universe
The Choir
Posted - 2009.05.31 01:28:00 - [228]
 

Edited by: Electric Universe on 31/05/2009 01:29:26
Heh, Deva said all i really wanted to say here now.

I hope some of you here now realize why i'm totally against a tracking and DPS or range boost to Blasters.

I'm smart enough to see what will happen if those 3 things over happens.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.31 01:45:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

70% is excessive, but part of the point of a DPS boost would be to emphasize close range damage and give it something at range. As things stand right now its really kinda questionable if I'd fly something that did even 2K DPS at <5km and was totally ineffective by 12-15km.

I mean, I might... but I doubt I'd do it in a battleship sized hull. They just can't get on target fast enough to make it matter.
-Liang


And thats the problem why cutting range and improving DPS massively wont work. You could go for 1700dps with 4-6km range, sure. It would be VERY hard hitting in small RR gangs (10-15 people) but... thats it. Those ships would be pretty much useless in larger scale fights wheras like i stated earlier: current megas work nicely in up to 20km range. If you solo you need to survive till ya get close but at typical gate engagement its arund 13km from enemy. Thats not far and you can put web on him within first 5-10 seconds of combat. If its geddon you can be sure he wont counterweb. Laser boat dies.

In rr gangs sure laser boats have an advantage UNTIL rr gangs get close to each other. And then you dont have "jumping from target to target" anymore. Both blobs sit close to each other and dish it out close range trying to mantain 5km distance to operate RR.

Actually i cant think of many situations where mega would have to "mwd from target to target". Maybe capital ship ganks when there are 2-5 caps to kill and gang has to get close to each of em. Most of the time you will get ceptor MWD 200+km out, warp to ceptor and warp down to target anyways so whole laser boat range advantage dies.

And like i said: i use lasers heavily (amarr was my 1st race to train up to lv5+t2 guns) and use scorch rarely. usually to pop bombers/EAS if they dont move around and just sit there and spam missiles/ewar ;p

When it comes to megas IMO 5% damage boost would be enough. Would bring ~1250dps mega up to ~1320dps. Also slight tracking boost would be nice. But not 50%, 100% or 10000%, more like 10-15%.

Lasers? Just remove old tracking boost. Fixed.

ACs are harder to balance. I personally liked the idea of increasing optimals on them (the 15+15, 20+20 or something like that). Problem is if you change ACs this way you will have to review medium and small ACs (sleip might become WAY too good compared to astarte, so can be vaga vs deimos). But id have to take a look at dps at different ranges. Its too late now tho for me to check it.

Also like you say: speeds can also be reworked a bit. 10% increase for gall/min (to keep both in line) is okish.

Ofc all above is ONLY on battleship level (unless stated otherwise).

One more thing: i liked Perry's idea on commands. Especially the rep amount thingy. Wont imbalance stuff and will just push gall ships into active tanks rather than buffer. There is only slight problem: hyperion. I guess bonus would have to be exclusive for BC class ships (and maybe smaller).

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.05.31 01:45:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: Shana Lioni
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.


They actually are.

Quote:

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)



I disagree with your standard battleship fits. The Apoc should be peeking at 400 DPS with Tach II's and Aurora. Also, the Rokh should have much better tracking than that if it's using faction ammo. Your fits... Are they fit to tank double DDD or something? At any rate, until we could agree on standard fits, I doubt we could possibly agree on your paragraph below.

Quote:
The numbers are not as dramatic as people seem to be making them out to be.


That's because people are concerned largely about PULSE LASERS. The arguments in this thread have almost universally been related to close range combat - and thus the difference between blasters/autos and pulse lasers. And in this arena, lasers are ridiculously overpowered.

And actually, I haven't even addressed the issue of whether or not beams are overpowered in this thread (I tend to reserve that for boost artillery threads).

-Liang

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.31 01:57:00 - [231]
 

And just to show how megas fare in RR gangs (vs other RR/close range gangs):

http://triumvirate-alliance.com/?a=kill_related&kll_id=2742021

Things worth noting:
vs battleships its quite balanced (sometimes megas dealt more, sometimes amarr ships - mostly dependant on where was target at the time of pewpew)

vs HICs/HACs: amarr ships had massive problems with... hitting them. As long as they kept orbitting at around 15km i couldnt hit em at all (there should be one deimos kill but he escaped me at struct :(


Saint SaintaN
Posted - 2009.05.31 04:05:00 - [232]
 

Edited by: Saint SaintaN on 31/05/2009 04:13:22

Okay, just looking at the weapons themselves (not including data from the ships).

Pulses, leave them alone imho although if you want to do something then lower their tracking a tiny bit (5% O_o) but really that would just be a token change to keep the whiners happy.

Blasters, 10% tracking increase

Auto canons, 25% falloff increase 10% damage modifier increase

Artillery, 15% duration decrease 50% capacity increase 15% falloff increase

Beams and rails, I don't use them enough to comment :(

After this fixing T2 ammo would be needed. As well as an across the board look at launchers. And a look at battleship balance just to make sure you don't have mega's tracking frigs :P

*puts fireproof suit on*

Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.05.31 05:52:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

Ofc all above is ONLY on battleship level (unless stated otherwise).



Medium blasters would need some love too IMO. And the Deimos separately.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.05.31 14:07:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Saint SaintaN
Edited by: Saint SaintaN on 31/05/2009 04:13:22

Okay, just looking at the weapons themselves (not including data from the ships).

Pulses, leave them alone imho although if you want to do something then lower their tracking a tiny bit (5% O_o) but really that would just be a token change to keep the whiners happy.

Blasters, 10% tracking increase

Auto canons, 25% falloff increase 10% damage modifier increase

Artillery, 15% duration decrease 50% capacity increase 15% falloff increase

Beams and rails, I don't use them enough to comment :(

After this fixing T2 ammo would be needed. As well as an across the board look at launchers. And a look at battleship balance just to make sure you don't have mega's tracking frigs :P

*puts fireproof suit on*


agree on everything except artillery that need a boost to volley damage not dps.

Saint SaintaN
Posted - 2009.05.31 14:20:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: Saint SaintaN on 31/05/2009 17:58:51
Originally by: To mare
Originally by: Saint SaintaN
Edited by: Saint SaintaN on 31/05/2009 04:13:22

Okay, just looking at the weapons themselves (not including data from the ships).

Pulses, leave them alone imho although if you want to do something then lower their tracking a tiny bit (5% O_o) but really that would just be a token change to keep the whiners happy.

Blasters, 10% tracking increase

Auto canons, 25% falloff increase 10% damage modifier increase

Artillery, 15% duration decrease 50% capacity increase 15% falloff increase

Beams and rails, I don't use them enough to comment :(

After this fixing T2 ammo would be needed. As well as an across the board look at launchers. And a look at battleship balance just to make sure you don't have mega's tracking frigs :P

*puts fireproof suit on*


agree on everything except artillery that need a boost to volley damage not dps.



Yeah fair enough I can't disagree.

In which case (after a lot of consideration)

Artillery, 25% duration increase 50% capacity increase (that still only gives it what 15 shots) 15% falloff increase 25% damage modifier increase

This gives it a 25% alpha increase and a 0% DPS increase; it would take a decent amount of time to empty the entire clip (3 minutes on a rack of 1400's with 3 gyro's ???) so the reload wont be as much of a problem.

Thoughts?

Mana Sanqua
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:21:00 - [236]
 

Personally, I would like to see each weapon type be made more role specific.

Blasters - Incredible high dps, poor tracking and range. (1)
Autocannons - Much higher tracking, average tracking and dps (2)
Lasers (Pulse) - Left alone, or maybe slight range increase and falloff drop. (3)
Short Range Missiles (Torpedoes, rockets yadda yadda) - Increase the consistency of these. Reduce the scatter/distribution of the damage. (4)

Actual balancing of these figures* I leave to the posters in this thread who have shown a good level of mathematics and spreadsheet skills, but here I discuss concept and implementation of the roles of each of these weapons.

(1) For this I would consider a considerable damage boost, but drop the fall off and maybe leave the tracking alone or reduce it a little to compensate. Makes these ships role as a real dps giver, but unsupported less useful. It would make these weapons seem to be a great damage per second, but this is in effect reduced due to poor tracking. Of course, in a gang with additional tackling, these ships become a focal center point in terms of the dps givers. Also makes combat with them more exciting in the sense that you know you have to avoid the "kill zone " or well, you know the rest.

(2) Boost the tracking, leave dps alone, maybe increase fall off a little to keep the character there. For hit run, and skirmish warfare this make these guns (and ships) the most flexible in targets, which combined with the speed of mini ships, makes the most sense. This clearly differentiates them from lasers and blasters roles and provides a role for these guns which the other two guns shouldn't and wouldn't cover, namely the ship that best adapts to dealing with its smaller foes.

(3) These ships roles would remain the same as they are now, with the possibility of reducing fall off to emphasis on these guns always being in range (hell, maybe boost the range slightly to compensate). Emphasizes the long range dps (hah, i mean of the short range guns of course) and makes these ships in effect kiters and also makes them able to do there damage almost instantly, whilst others still have to close.

(4) Unlike the above weapons, these do not have an "optimum" so to speak, they have an on/off (either in range or out). As such, I feel these should be also the most consistent in damage. Maybe lower, but they should be able to always keep the consistence and pounding up regardless of whether in blaster or laser range. Hence, fighting these ships is predictable in what you'll receive, but as they can adjust damage type, it means that the constant pounding these weapons give will wear you down eventually. For dps, thes should be balanced against the laser levels if the other receive the boosts suggested above.

The guns and missiles are already half leaning towards these roles, with a suitable boost/nerf directed to making these weapons fit these roles more specifically then players get more choice in terms of weapons and styles, and also reduces direct comparison as a weapon is designed for a precise role.


I throw in here some suggested figures for these role adjustments. Please think of them as ball park figures and not balanced.
(1) dps +40% Falloff -20%, tracking -10%
(2) tracking +20%
(3) Range +10%, fall off -10%
(4) Exact implementation not sure, but suffice to say that the number of low quality hits should be reduced.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:34:00 - [237]
 

Originally by: Mana Sanqua
Personally, I would like to see each weapon type be made more role specific.

Blasters - Incredible high dps, poor tracking and range. (1)
Autocannons - Much higher tracking, average tracking and dps (2)
Lasers (Pulse) - Left alone, or maybe slight range increase and falloff drop. (3)
Short Range Missiles (Torpedoes, rockets yadda yadda) - Increase the consistency of these. Reduce the scatter/distribution of the damage. (4)

Actual balancing of these figures* I leave to the posters in this thread who have shown a good level of mathematics and spreadsheet skills, but here I discuss concept and implementation of the roles of each of these weapons.

(1) For this I would consider a considerable damage boost, but drop the fall off and maybe leave the tracking alone or reduce it a little to compensate. Makes these ships role as a real dps giver, but unsupported less useful. It would make these weapons seem to be a great damage per second, but this is in effect reduced due to poor tracking. Of course, in a gang with additional tackling, these ships become a focal center point in terms of the dps givers. Also makes combat with them more exciting in the sense that you know you have to avoid the "kill zone " or well, you know the rest.

(2) Boost the tracking, leave dps alone, maybe increase fall off a little to keep the character there. For hit run, and skirmish warfare this make these guns (and ships) the most flexible in targets, which combined with the speed of mini ships, makes the most sense. This clearly differentiates them from lasers and blasters roles and provides a role for these guns which the other two guns shouldn't and wouldn't cover, namely the ship that best adapts to dealing with its smaller foes.

(3) These ships roles would remain the same as they are now, with the possibility of reducing fall off to emphasis on these guns always being in range (hell, maybe boost the range slightly to compensate). Emphasizes the long range dps (hah, i mean of the short range guns of course) and makes these ships in effect kiters and also makes them able to do there damage almost instantly, whilst others still have to close.

(4) Unlike the above weapons, these do not have an "optimum" so to speak, they have an on/off (either in range or out). As such, I feel these should be also the most consistent in damage. Maybe lower, but they should be able to always keep the consistence and pounding up regardless of whether in blaster or laser range. Hence, fighting these ships is predictable in what you'll receive, but as they can adjust damage type, it means that the constant pounding these weapons give will wear you down eventually. For dps, thes should be balanced against the laser levels if the other receive the boosts suggested above.

The guns and missiles are already half leaning towards these roles, with a suitable boost/nerf directed to making these weapons fit these roles more specifically then players get more choice in terms of weapons and styles, and also reduces direct comparison as a weapon is designed for a precise role.


I throw in here some suggested figures for these role adjustments. Please think of them as ball park figures and not balanced.
(1) dps +40% Falloff -20%, tracking -10%
(2) tracking +20%
(3) Range +10%, fall off -10%
(4) Exact implementation not sure, but suffice to say that the number of low quality hits should be reduced.


no

blaster are already the the turret weapon with highest dps in the game (torps have more dps but missile have other problems) if they need something is to deliver their full dps to the target.
AC tracking is already good enough they need more dps so you dont get better dps fitting others weapon system on projectile bonused ship.
yeah good idea lets give to laser even more range to make them even more awesome, because a 4.5km optimal gain at the expense of 1 km falloff lost is a fair trade Rolling Eyes

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:35:00 - [238]
 

Edited by: Rip Minner on 31/05/2009 15:38:15
You did not even hit some of the main draw backs of the full weapons systems or the ships there made to work with.

Why do pulse track so well and have that range its becouse Amarr ships are the slowest ships in space man.

And Artilery/Auto cannon have biger problems in my opion with how much ammo they hold and a 10 sec reload timer.

But what your realy tring to do is make all ships and weapon systems the same and I dont like that. But I dont think it can harm anything to load more ammo into projectil weapons but I could be wrong.

You should also take a look at Lazer crystals you will see that Lazers by means of there ammo are all heavly loaded with base shield damg and Mostly EM damg with a small bit of base armor and thermal. This makes short work of shields long work on armor.


were sa blaster ammo works just as well on shields as it dos on armor.

You are not looking at the big picture here.

Mafaka
Amarr
The 5th Freedom
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.05.31 15:54:00 - [239]
 

well gimping lazes will not do any good , we v got our issues

the only thing out of all your posts is clear that

minmatar guns need more optimal then fall off , which will result in higher dps

and for blasters im not really sure, give every blaster + 3% or + 5 % speed bonus for every blaster equipped - so they simply move faster to the target- speed tank

simple and easy solution - maybe t2 ammunition bonuses change for particular weapons

Saint SaintaN
Posted - 2009.05.31 17:24:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Mafaka
well gimping lazes will not do any good , we v got our issues



^ This

Originally by: Mafaka

minmatar guns need more optimal then fall off , which will result in higher dps



If you give them optimal they will do full damage out to the optimal which gives more DPS great woooooo etc but it also means that their fall off comes into play later than before... it would effectively work out to be a double buff.

Instead it is better to increase falloff which will increase DPS whilst still keeping projectiles in their role, of course because you are increasing a negatively applied attribute you need to give it a large increase (hence my 25% number).

Of course you could increase optimal by a small amount but really what's the point in buffing making it similar to other weapons when you can keep it in it's role and still get the desired effect.

Originally by: Mafaka

and for blasters im not really sure, give every blaster + 3% or + 5 % speed bonus for every blaster equipped - so they simply move faster to the target- speed tank



A unique idea, but it would have some serious connotations for ships which are already pretty fast. A smallish tracking increase has a similar effect without adversely buffing other ships

Originally by: Mafaka

simple and easy solution - maybe t2 ammunition bonuses change for particular weapons


A different issue but one which needs looking at, however this isn't the place; in-fact someone needs to make a thread about it imho.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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