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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Succubine
Caldari
Succubine Dynasty Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.31 18:32:00 - [241]
 

Edited by: Succubine on 31/05/2009 18:56:08
Edited by: Succubine on 31/05/2009 18:44:41
The problems are complex due to what players believe actually happens most often in PvP situations. In my opinion, having a 45km optimal range is a huge strength compared to the other weapon systems because of the ability to react instantly with high dps at much greater ranges. Even at gate crashes you often jump in at the opposite side of the enemy who is holding outside bubble range which can mean ranges of 20-60km.
We want to preserve the variation of each weapon while assuring balance of practical use.

My suggestions are:
Large Blasters:
-Increase large blaster optimal by ~2km, but reduce the falloff so that it clearly dominates within zero to ~11km, using t1 ammo, and then allow lasers to assume the dps crown after ~14km.
-A slight ~5-10% boost to large blaster dps in order to fully realize close range power.
-Tracking is no longer as great an issue with the optimal increase so no change.
Edit: reduce Null to 1.2x optimal, 1.2x falloff.

All Pulse sizes:
-Reduce Scorch optimal multiplier to 1.4x and perhaps add 1.1x falloff instead.
Great weapons, but getting top dps at 3x the top dps range of the other turret types seems a bit absurd.

Large Autocannon:
-A small dps increase by ~5-10%; *at its anemic optimal* AC should be equal to or slightly better, with t1 ammo, than lasers *after consideration for drones and other high slots*.
-Increase falloff by 5km; falloff is that bad.
-Increase tracking by ~10% for the short optimal range.

Unlikely to happen, but a mod that affects falloff (besides rigs) might help the balance situation.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.31 18:35:00 - [242]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 31/05/2009 18:39:16
I don't see 5% being sufficient enough of a boost for blasters. They're sacrificing 1/8 the range of geddon's optimal for 10% more damage? I'm not saying the correlation should be 1:1 range to dps, but that just seems really low. "Putting null on it" is a moot point, because that brings its optimal out to 11km, which is still less than half of the geddon. Could it hit a geddon at 22? Maybe. What kind of damage would it be doing? Like 200. Compare to geddon doing 900 the whole time.

Secondly, boosting autocannon falloff would also prove completely insufficient. Forcing them to fight in falloff is what is killing the minmatar. They're the worst dps to begin with, and forcing them to fight in falloff makes their dps even lower. I could care less if my maelstrom can do 200 dps at 20km or 200dps at 22km. It would still be as worthless as it is now. We need to either boost damage significantly, modify the falloff formula, or give minmatar some kind of racial bonus that decreases falloff penalties, because living in falloff is what makes minmatar so useless to begin with. Actually I really like the bonus that decreases falloff penalties racially, as long as its enough to make a difference. But anyway.

I agree that we need to remove the tracking bonus given to amarr pre-nano-nerf. But their damage still needs to be reconsidered, either by lowering Amarr's or boosting both minmatar and gallente.

Finally, discussing 'fleet fights' in this thread is in my opinion a completely unrelated issue. In fleet fight, which typically means snipe-fest, none of these ships will be fitting short-range weapons. In a gatecamp, the range needed is like 15k max, which is probably where we would see most of these changes most obviously.

Mes Ren
No Trademark
Posted - 2009.05.31 19:03:00 - [243]
 

Edited by: Mes Ren on 31/05/2009 19:12:24
I love how people take things out of context in this thread ... meaning not taking the entire ship into account. You CAN'T properly compare weapon systems without taking the WHOLE picture into account. Previous to the speed nerf patch, there wasn't a single complaint about blasters.... what changed this? -- webs and approach speed. All of a sudden, you couldn't get on top of your victim as quickly with that mega and hold them there, so everyone started going to Amarr. With lasers, you could start putting damage down immediately without have to deal with closing. Does this all of a sudden make lasers overpowered or blasters underpowered?

Lets look at the whole picture real quick:

Blasters: Their DPS versus operational range is fine (as it was previous to the speed nerf). Their problem now? -- It takes longer to approach your target and once there, you have a harder time tracking it due to web changes. Solution: Increase tracking a little bit (remember that while web effectiveness was reduced, speed for ships across the board was also reduced). One additional thing, you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that you are going to have a harder time dealing with ship classes smaller than you are.

Lasers: All of a sudden people think lasers are overpowered, but they conviently forget about many of the drawbacks. For instance, it doesn't take a lot of neuting to completely shut down a laser boat. It is real easy to get under the tracking of lasers and most amarr ships don't have enough midslots to fit the required propulsion, cap-booster, and point AND still fit a web. EVERY other race is easily able to fit those items AND a web -- nevermind other important items like ECCM. Lasers don't need a change, the other weapon systems need tweaks.

Autocannons: This weapon system has suffered a similar problem to blasters, in that your closing speed has been reduced, and webs aren't as effective. At the same time, though, autocannons have the best tracking in the game. Solution to this problem? Maybe boost falloff -- This would solve the slower approach, the web changes and boost dps. People need to remember all the advantages of autocannons and not simply the lower dps: much better tracking, the ability to change damage types, operate at much better ranges than blasters, using a damage type that most don't tank for, NO CAP USE -- combine that with a neut and you shutdown the "Almighty Laser Boat", no damage hole in most t2 ship resists, smaller sig radius and faster speeds ... something that makes a much bigger difference in damage mitigation and damage dealing than most believe, ample slots to fit things like webs.

Missiles: People keep complaining that missiles suck, but again, I believe people like to take things out of context and not weigh all the factors. Missiles hit EVERY time, provided you are in range. For that matter, missiles do the SAME damage whether you are close range or far away ... even the "Almighty Laser Boat" does significantly less at range (being forced to use ranged crystals). With all the turret ships out there, fitting tracking disruption will ruin anyone's day, as it has been shown that turret ships are already on the edge of effectiveness with their current tracking. The same CAN NOT be said for missile boats ... defenders are still completely ineffective due to lag and the AI of defender missiles. Yes, it is possible to reduce the dps of missiles by 50% or more by simply fitting an AB, but again ... that is taken out of context. PVP ships that are fit with an AB generally signifcantly reduce the DPS of ALL ships shooting at them -- turret and missile alike. The reality is that most pvp ships fit a MWD (which gets missiles hitting at almost full damage for same ship class) or no propulsion at all. The slightly less dps and travel time of missiles is the trade off for 100% hit success and complete choice of damage type.

My opinion.

Succubine
Caldari
Succubine Dynasty Technologies
Posted - 2009.05.31 19:20:00 - [244]
 

Edited by: Succubine on 31/05/2009 19:22:57
Originally by: isdisco3
Edited by: isdisco3 on 31/05/2009 18:39:16
I don't see 5% being sufficient enough of a boost for blasters. They're sacrificing 1/8 the range of geddon's optimal for 10% more damage?


A hyperion already does close to 20% more dps up to ~12km compared to an abaddon (Null vs Scorch-2 dmg mods+drones) and are fairly close in dps at 20km. The problem is Scorch maintaining that dps all the way to 45km. Maybe 10% would be more suitable, however small steps are preferable.
Quote:

Secondly, boosting autocannon falloff would also prove completely insufficient.


You are correct, falloff is crap, but I interpret Minmatar as being able to have a choice of going in close and maximizing dps while transversal tanking or holding at range and breaking you down slowly. (After looking at the numbers again, I think my suggestions above still fail to balance the turrets enough.)

Quote:

Finally, discussing 'fleet fights' in this thread is in my opinion a completely unrelated issue.


Fleet fights are not the same as you may remember. Close/mid range remote repair BS are quite powerful and used often.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.31 19:44:00 - [245]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 31/05/2009 19:46:30
Originally by: Succubine

A hyperion already does close to 20% more dps up to ~12km compared to an abaddon (Null vs Scorch-2 dmg mods+drones) and are fairly close in dps at 20km. The problem is Scorch maintaining that dps all the way to 45km. Maybe 10% would be more suitable, however small steps are preferable.


I agree that there are problems with t2 ammunition, but see that as a separate issue. And the hyperion does not do 20% more dps up to 12km, its optimal is 2.5km as I recall so by 12km it would be doing something around 1/3 of its maximum dps (around 300 with just turrets).

Quote:
You are correct, falloff is crap, but I interpret Minmatar as being able to have a choice of going in close and maximizing dps while transversal tanking or holding at range and breaking you down slowly. (After looking at the numbers again, I think my suggestions above still fail to balance the turrets enough.)


I agree that minmatar has the advantages you stated. However, what difference does it make that they can switch damage types when they're doing 200 dps? And the option of 'getting in close' isn't really that effective, because their dps is lower than both amarr and gallente, their tanks are worse (excepting a crystal mael), and they would have to be in closer than even gallente to get in their optimal. They need a boost to their optimal (I suggested 12 optimal + 12 falloff as a starting point) to let them fly in what their role is supposed to be - a mid-range, mid-damage skirmisher. At present, they are either a extreme-short-range, mid-to-low-damage ship or a mid-range, awful-damage ship. Increasing their falloff doesn't do anything to fix that.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.31 19:48:00 - [246]
 

Originally by: isdisco3

I agree that there are problems with t2 ammunition, but see that as a separate issue. And the hyperion does not do 20% more dps up to 12km, its optimal is 2.5km as I recall so by 12km it would be doing something around 1/3 of its maximum dps (around 300 with just turrets).



Stop. Using. Void.
Noone. Uses. Void.
Dont. Ever. Use. Void. To. Prove. A. Point.

And then suddenly optimal is much bigger than you think. So is faloff.

bubbly bird
Posted - 2009.05.31 20:08:00 - [247]
 

Edited by: bubbly bird on 31/05/2009 20:09:38
Originally by: isdisco3

I agree that there are problems with t2 ammunition, but see that as a separate issue. And the hyperion does not do 20% more dps up to 12km, its optimal is 2.5km as I recall so by 12km it would be doing something around 1/3 of its maximum dps (around 300 with just turrets).


You recall wrong as void ammo gives 6.8km optimal and 6.3 falloff.

And with 3 mag stabs it does 1084 turret dmg out to 6.8km and 662 dps at 12km.

The 3 x HS abaddon (with faction MF) does 916 turret dps out to 15km and from 20ish km it drops to 730 turret dps and switches to scorch to continue to do 730 turret dps out to 45km.


PS: Do not use void.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.31 20:29:00 - [248]
 

Thb i started to wonder. Does every "boost blaster tracking" poster use void instead of navy antimatter? If yes TADAM i found the blaster fix!!! Use navy ammo...

I also think 1st step ccp could do to fix the guns is to remove void from TQ. Less whines from wannabie pilots who use wrong ammo.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.31 23:10:00 - [249]
 

lol. if you guys actually read what i've written, you'd see that i've posted all my stats using base t1 ammunition, and the "but wat about void?" arguments came from others.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.31 23:30:00 - [250]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
lol. if you guys actually read what i've written, you'd see that i've posted all my stats using base t1 ammunition, and the "but wat about void?" arguments came from others.


void argument came out because quite a few people posting here still try to convince me that neutron blaster cannon has 6km faloff (where in fact it is 12,5km and when you load void it is 6km indeed).

So the 1/3 (actually ~40%) damage thing from guns (with navy AM) happens not at 12km but at 17km. With void it does happen at 13km.

Also id advise to use navy ammo for calculations. If we want to play numbers game it should be as close to TQ as possible.

JonnyKay
Gallente
Capital Construction Research
Posted - 2009.06.01 01:45:00 - [251]
 

Edited by: JonnyKay on 01/06/2009 02:03:07
Mes Ren a few post above me speaks more truth than most of the dumbasses on this thread saying things like "BOOST BLASTERS DPS"...

Here's what I've gathered from sitting back and taking both sides of arguments into thought and if I was a developer, this is how I'd start thinking about balancing blasters + projectiles mainly:

Blasters
-Need increased tracking to counter for the reduction in webs effectiveness (~25% increase)
-Mayby increase optimal slightly (~10% increase)
-they already have more than enough DPS, gallente BS have devastating dps.

Autocannons
-needs increase to base dps, the cons outweigh the pros* (~5% increase)
-increase base falloff slightly (~10% increase)

*yes they have multiple damage types and high falloff, but their optimal is ****en low which means that their amazing multiple damage types still do reduced damage at most normal fighting ranges (3+km)*

Artillery Cannons
these weapon types need several changes
-Firstly their dps sucks compared to other long range weapon systems (~10% increase)
-After dps has been increased, increase rate of fire and the damage mod (keep dps same) to give them back their alpha strike!
-Falloff needs to be increased somehow (i personally dont believe that making a new mod for it will work because thats a vital mod slot on minmatar ships used up)

There is a whole thread on how to fix artillery cannons in game development.

Lasers
-probably the best working weapon system in the game, this is what other weapon systems SHOULD be measured by
-think about lowering dps slightly (but see how other turrets work after changes before doing this)

missiles
-a good weapon system, doesn't really need much done to it
-Defender missiles are quite useless and probably dont really need to be included in the game anymore because noone uses them lol.

**FIGURES QUOTED HERE ARE ROUGH ESTIMATES, BUT IF DONE RIGHT I BELIEVE IT'LL FIX THE WEAPONS**

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.06.01 02:30:00 - [252]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

stuff


Your maths are correct. At 17km, the mega would be doing 1/3 of its maximum dps, or circa 300ish from turrets.

Originally by: JonnyKay

Blasters
-Need increased tracking to counter for the reduction in webs effectiveness (~25% increase)
-Mayby increase optimal slightly (~10% increase)
-they already have more than enough DPS, gallente BS have devastating dps.


I agree that more tracking is required. I disagree that optimal is needed, because the point of the weapon is to be devastating at the closest ranges. I do think that damage should be boosted to compensate better for this lack of range (they trade 1/8 the optimal of amarr for 10-15% more dps), but I'm not going to stick by it hardcore.

Originally by: JonnyKay

Autocannons
-needs increase to base dps, the cons outweigh the pros* (~5% increase)
-increase base falloff slightly (~10% increase)


Falloff is what is killing AC's. Increasing its falloff means my maelstrom does 200 dps at 22km instead of 20km. It still makes the race useless. They need their optimals doubled (or higher, on the smaller-caliber ac's) and falloff made to match, with dps remaining more or less the same (ideally somewhere between gallente and amarr). This proposal is a bad one.

Originally by: JonnyKay

Artillery Cannons
artillery stuff
There is a whole thread on how to fix artillery cannons in game development.


My comments are, I think, in that thread. They're pretty easy to fix, we all agree on the need to increase alpha.


Originally by: JonnyKay

Lasers
-probably the best working weapon system in the game, this is what other weapon systems SHOULD be measured by
-think about lowering dps slightly (but see how other turrets work after changes before doing this)



Agreed on both counts, and look at tracking as well. They shouldn't be able to hit orbiting cruisers at 10km.

Originally by: JonnyKay

missiles
-a good weapon system, doesn't really need much done to it
-Defender missiles are quite useless and probably dont really need to be included in the game anymore because noone uses them lol.


I disagree, missiles aren't used in pvp very much for a reason. I don't know how to fix them, so I'm not touching them, but I don't think they're fine.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.06.01 02:36:00 - [253]
 

To re-iterate:

Autocannons - mid-range, mid-dps weapon:
- 200% increase to optimal, falloff made to match. should end up around 12km and 12km with 800's.
- 5-10% increase in dps, as they're currently 3rd.

Blasters - short-range, high-dps weapon:
- 10-15% boost to tracking (or enough to hit orbiting bs in their optimal)
- 5-10% increase in damage to compensate for lack of range

Lasers - long-range, low-dps weapon:
- decrease tracking by 5-10% to make them more of a sniper weapon
- decrease overall damage by 5-10% to put them more in line with the others
- look at scorch as it is completely loloverpowered at present.

Alex Raptos
Caldari
Phoenix Rising.
Posted - 2009.06.01 04:21:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
- look at scorch as it is completely loloverpowered at present.


Funny. If T2 ammo is bad, everyone shouts "BOOST BOOST" But if its "Good" then everyone shouts "NERF NERF".

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.06.01 06:30:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: Alex Raptos
Originally by: isdisco3
- look at scorch as it is completely loloverpowered at present.


Funny. If T2 ammo is bad, everyone shouts "BOOST BOOST" But if its "Good" then everyone shouts "NERF NERF".


The difference is that not everyone has a 'scorch' equivalent. They have what's supposed to be a scorch equivalent that fails hard.

I think we'd see less whines about Overpoweredness if there was.... balance (everything is good, or everything is bad, or everything is meh).

-Liang

Mr Ignitious
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.06.01 06:52:00 - [256]
 

it's highly unlikely this post will be widely seen, but liang mentioned prevalence of shield tanked everything. I would like to stand before you today to say that I whole heartedly agree. Liang said amarr was still mostly armored tanked but hell, i fit shield extenders on all my zealots since plating yourself poops on your speed and agility. If I do that I am most likely to die in any given sniper or nano hac gang. The shield tanked myrm isn't used widely yet, but anyone can quickly eft up the shield buffer myrm and appreciate it. If I were ludicrous enough to buy a deimos I'd put a shield extender on it as well. Scimitars are becoming my best friends. I can agree that shield buffered amarr bs seems a bit silly though =P

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.06.01 07:01:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: Alex Raptos
Funny. If T2 ammo is bad, everyone shouts "BOOST BOOST" But if its "Good" then everyone shouts "NERF NERF".


I see t2 ammunition as a separate issue, but I see it as absurd that a ship can get 45km optimal with its short-range weapon variant.

Anyway, avoiding the derail.

Mr Ignitious
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.06.01 07:29:00 - [258]
 

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


I agree with the T2 ammo component, I mean ( I forget which close range ammo it is for, beams or pulse) but a shield hp reduction on an amarr ship... buhahah. What I'm thinking though is perhaps a structure HP reduction for void and probably a dps increase for the ammo. It's a significant penalty but not crippling.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.06.01 09:24:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Mr Ignitious

I agree with the T2 ammo component, I mean ( I forget which close range ammo it is for, beams or pulse) but a shield hp reduction on an amarr ship... buhahah. What I'm thinking though is perhaps a structure HP reduction for void and probably a dps increase for the ammo. It's a significant penalty but not crippling.


Gleam = close range sniping ammo. As useless as void. When it comes to t2 CLOSERANGE ammo penalties could stay the same as they are now. Just give them additional damage bonus over faction ammo (10%?). And suddenly it becomes useful in some cases.

t2 long range ammo was a joke from the start. Its damage is based on short range ammo yet its "range modifier" is based on long range ammo. It should be just normal ammo with slightly higher dps (10%?) than same type faction long range ammo.

Beverly Sparks
Posted - 2009.06.01 11:04:00 - [260]
 

Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 01/06/2009 11:11:20
Originally by: Mes Ren
webs and approach speed. All of a sudden, you couldn't get on top of your victim as quickly with that mega and hold them there, so everyone started going to Amarr. With lasers, you could start putting damage down immediately without have to deal with closing. Does this all of a sudden make lasers overpowered or blasters underpowered?


Yes, that is exactly what it does.

Tracking: Slow down the ships, and ships with lower tracking become better : advantage Amarr.
Range: Slow down the ships and it will keep ships in medium range longer: Advantage Amarr.


Originally by: Mes Ren
People need to remember all the advantages of autocannons and not simply the lower dps: much better tracking, the ability to change damage types, operate at much better ranges than blasters, using a damage type that most don't tank for, NO CAP USE -- combine that with a neut and you shutdown the "Almighty Laser Boat", no damage hole in most t2 ship resists, smaller sig radius and faster speeds ... something that makes a much bigger difference in damage mitigation and damage dealing than most believe, ample slots to fit things like webs.


Rubbish. Yea, that is the way it looks on paper. But lets break down all of these benefits, in context with the most common form of PvP in EvE. (gang warfare, no solo crap, since why would you balance the ships around anything but the most common form of PvP)

1. Much better tracking. Yea about 25% better tracking then lasers. Which can be compensated for in a single module. Not to mention, that the whole mechanic is dependent on transverse velocity. Bring that down and both weapons are likely to be well within their tracking operational range. Hmmmm, I know lets start using bubbles and Rapiers, that should help us **** them... you think?

2. The ability to change damage types. Damn, I would give this one away in a heart beat. Show me one person who is swapping ammo in between targets. Most just use EMP CL, Barrage and Tremor. Some use PP and Fusion. I would be happy if they locked our damage type to Exp/EM/Kin(EMP), or to Exp/Kin(Fusion). The only time I actively match ammo type to target is when I am shooting towers, which is moot, because I am going to be in the lower 1/3 of the KM anyway.

3. Operate at much better ranges then Blasters. Yea, the Blaster/AC balance is not that bad. But I think we can all agree that it is neither Blasters nor AC's that are causing disharmony. Which leads me to believe you feel these 2 weapons are fine, and it is the 3rd weapon that needs to be brought in line.

4. Uses a damage type that people don't tank for. This is true in some cases, but then many times people do tank for it. In large fleet warfare I agree, but most SR/RR gangs have a strong omni tank, so especially for AC's this is probably not going to be the case.

5. No damage hole in T2 ships??? Go fit a wolf or a Muninn.

6. No Cap use. Nice, but personally I don't get neuted that much.... Usually they just kill me. And in many cases an Amarr ship's Cap buffer is enough for them to get through the fight even with a neut. A bit more of a pain in fleet combat and places where you are continuously firing for a long time, although again we are talking AC's.

The other problem is that most other weapons have a way to work around there shortcomings, not much you can do about having crappy DPS, except train for lasers, which is what I have finally decided to do.

So if you want to look at the whole picture, lets look at the meta game, and see why most of what you say is simply not true in game.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.06.01 11:28:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: Beverly Sparks

2. The ability to change damage types. Damn, I would give this one away in a heart beat. Show me one person who is swapping ammo in between targets. Most just use EMP CL, Barrage and Tremor. Some use PP and Fusion. I would be happy if they locked our damage type to Exp/EM/Kin(EMP), or to Exp/Kin(Fusion). The only time I actively match ammo type to target is when I am shooting towers, which is moot, because I am going to be in the lower 1/3 of the KM anyway.



I do swap ammo depending on target. 10 second ammo change will usually (unless its 3 second gank) be worth it.

Quote:

4. Uses a damage type that people don't tank for. This is true in some cases, but then many times people do tank for it. In large fleet warfare I agree, but most SR/RR gangs have a strong omni tank, so especially for AC's this is probably not going to be the case.



If its omni tank (DC, EANMs) then explo is armor tanker hole. So explo damage is especially effective against omni tankers. Additionaly explo damage is one of best damage types vs T2 ships (only amarr has natural explo resist, everyone else needs to fix it).

Quote:

6. No Cap use. Nice, but personally I don't get neuted that much.... Usually they just kill me. And in many cases an Amarr ship's Cap buffer is enough for them to get through the fight even with a neut. A bit more of a pain in fleet combat and places where you are continuously firing for a long time, although again we are talking AC's.



Then why we dont reintroduce cap use on ACs? the 1 cap per shot (or 0,5 on frigs... dont remember how much it was). And then maybe you will understand how good capless thingy is.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2009.06.01 11:56:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: Mr Ignitious

I agree with the T2 ammo component, I mean ( I forget which close range ammo it is for, beams or pulse) but a shield hp reduction on an amarr ship... buhahah. What I'm thinking though is perhaps a structure HP reduction for void and probably a dps increase for the ammo. It's a significant penalty but not crippling.


Gleam = close range sniping ammo. As useless as void. When it comes to t2 CLOSERANGE ammo penalties could stay the same as they are now. Just give them additional damage bonus over faction ammo (10%?). And suddenly it becomes useful in some cases.


We all know how good this works with Hail. Rolling Eyes
T2 close range Amno will allways be a very limited Amno at its best with the tracking penalty(where Hail packs the better damagetypes vs Armor and a 10% higher Basedamage as RF EMP allready).

You need fare more damage(25% at least) or give it another purpose(like less damage and more tracking for fighting smaller ships).

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.06.01 12:29:00 - [263]
 

Amarr spec don't want their OP weapons nerfed

Minmatar spec are unhappy with losing 60% of thier DPS as they have to fight in falloff all the damn time.

Galente spec need a tracking boost- or they need to start fitting dual webs and stop whining

Caldari spec moan about the missile nerf that means they have to fit webs or TP's and drop some tank- just like other shield tankers have always done.

This thread has run its course, its about time there was some more Dev. feedback.

Malena Panic
Gallente
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.06.01 14:31:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Perry
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.


Awesome! This needs a thread of its own. To the forums!

Beverly Sparks
Posted - 2009.06.01 14:50:00 - [265]
 

Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 01/06/2009 14:59:43
Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 01/06/2009 14:54:22
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
I do swap ammo depending on target. 10 second ammo change will usually (unless its 3 second gank) be worth it.


It will take a hell of a lot longer then 3 seconds to make up for the lost damage of a entire volley, by matching damage type. The only case where it might payoff is if you are trying to kill a T2 Amarr cruiser with Fusion. Which is one of the reasons EMP is a good choice in nearly all occasions. Very rarely does anyone ever have super high EXP and EM resists at the same time. And assuming they are Armor tanked, at least the EM component will strip their shields off fast.

So no, I don't think it is worth it.

Originally by: Deva Blackfire
If its omni tank (DC, EANMs) then explo is armor tanker hole. So explo damage is especially effective against omni tankers. Additionaly explo damage is one of best damage types vs T2 ships (only amarr has natural explo resist, everyone else needs to fix it).


Hardeners are a lot more commonly used in RR fleets, then they are in fleet fits. Since Cap is usually less of a problem, due to everyone having injectors. And usually since RR gangs are built on defense, gank will be sacrificed to build larger resistances, thus making the RR more effective.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.06.01 14:55:00 - [266]
 

Originally by: RedSplat
Amarr spec don't want their OP weapons nerfed

Minmatar spec are unhappy with losing 60% of thier DPS as they have to fight in falloff all the damn time.

Galente spec need a tracking boost- or they need to start fitting dual webs and stop whining

Caldari spec moan about the missile nerf that means they have to fit webs or TP's and drop some tank- just like other shield tankers have always done.

This thread has run its course, its about time there was some ANY Dev. feedback.


Probably the best summary of the thread. Fixed the dev feedback part :)

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.06.01 15:37:00 - [267]
 

Originally by: RedSplat
Amarr spec don't want their OP weapons nerfed

Minmatar spec are unhappy with losing 60% of thier DPS as they have to fight in falloff all the damn time.

Galente spec need a tracking boost- or they need to start fitting dual webs and stop whining

Caldari spec moan about the missile nerf that means they have to fit webs or TP's and drop some tank- just like other shield tankers have always done.

This thread has run its course, its about time there was some more Dev. feedback.



minmatar specced are also bored as hell to see artillery utterly useless at everything.

Mes Ren
No Trademark
Posted - 2009.06.01 16:29:00 - [268]
 

Originally by: JonnyKay
Edited by: JonnyKay on 01/06/2009 02:03:07

Blasters
-Need increased tracking to counter for the reduction in webs effectiveness (~25% increase)
-Mayby increase optimal slightly (~10% increase)
-they already have more than enough DPS, gallente BS have devastating dps.

Autocannons
-needs increase to base dps, the cons outweigh the pros* (~5% increase)
-increase base falloff slightly (~10% increase)

*yes they have multiple damage types and high falloff, but their optimal is ****en low which means that their amazing multiple damage types still do reduced damage at most normal fighting ranges (3+km)*




Most of what you wrote I agree with. I don't think autocannons need a dps boost though. I believe an increase to the falloff is all that is really needed. In addition to this I think they need to either change tracking enhancers and computers to effect falloff in addition to optimal or introduce new modules that do the same thing as tracking enhancers and tracking computers except they effect falloff instead of optimal.

I think your Blaster suggestion is good. I'm not going to bother with artillery as it really is beyond the scope of this discussion (though my suggestion would be to increase the base damage but leave the rate of fire alone ... get the volley higher).

Your laser comments are spot on though I really don't think their damage needs tweaking ... one thing that I believe is still being overlooked is damage types. Everyone likes to look at raw numbers but always seems to overlook the damage type - which the dps numbers are most definately balanced to. EM is the most heavily tanked resists in the game (also, for those that scream about scorch,... it does almost exclusively EM damage). This is the same reason I believe that the damage increase to autocannons as the result of a falloff increase in more than enough.

Finally, like you, I agree that missiles are fairly balanced (and defenders are useless).

Malena Panic
Gallente
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2009.06.01 17:24:00 - [269]
 

Originally by: Mes Ren
EM is the most heavily tanked resists in the game.


In practice this is almost never the case. Most of the time EM is the very best damage type to use in PvP.

Kytanos Termek
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2009.06.01 18:14:00 - [270]
 

I agree, it's time for a weapon rebalance. All of them, don't rebalance one system to fit the others, but adjust the whole system until each side has clear benefits, drawbacks, but they are all "in balance"


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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