open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Projectile Weapons - Balancing
 
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 (90)

Author Topic

Caroline Nikon
Posted - 2009.09.24 19:40:00 - [211]
 

The best par of these new INCREDIBLE changes by CCP is that they are focused on making projectiles superior on SMALL fleets, where alpha strike matters. Good to see some thinking on those scenarios, Leave the huge fleets for ammar....

A alpha boosted sniper boat will be useful when FC are smart enough to divide their fleets into different roles (good alliances have members that know how to operate by themselves and don need 100% babysitting)


Anyone that thinks that will make anything overpowered is completely NUTS! It adds FLAVOR to these weapons, make them DIFFERENT. They have huge drawbacks and some (with these changes) NICE advantages that can be explored with a good brain.


Its simply the ONLY way to balance arties that would not make them into CLONES of rails. Way to go CCP, possibly one of the BEST balance works you made so far.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.24 19:46:00 - [212]
 

Well CCP Nozh, I'm not sure you intended to open this large a can of worms. Laughing If the amount of Caps use is any indication, this is clearly a heated subject.

I've said it before but best of luck balancing, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

Gargamell Smurf
Posted - 2009.09.24 19:56:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: Caroline Nikon
The best par of these new INCREDIBLE changes by CCP is that they are focused on making projectiles superior on SMALL fleets, where alpha strike matters. Good to see some thinking on those scenarios, Leave the huge fleets for ammar....

A alpha boosted sniper boat will be useful when FC are smart enough to divide their fleets into different roles (good alliances have members that know how to operate by themselves and don need 100% babysitting)


Anyone that thinks that will make anything overpowered is completely NUTS! It adds FLAVOR to these weapons, make them DIFFERENT. They have huge drawbacks and some (with these changes) NICE advantages that can be explored with a good brain.


Its simply the ONLY way to balance arties that would not make them into CLONES of rails. Way to go CCP, possibly one of the BEST balance works you made so far.


signed!

Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.24 20:12:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Caroline Nikon
It adds FLAVOR to these weapons, make them DIFFERENT.


It's Matari FLAVAH, mon. Yeeah?

I disagree with the culmination of your thought recommendation, but the harmonisation of these weaponisations needs to stand the test of diversification and fully represent the anti-rail Matari nation.

Lili Lu
Posted - 2009.09.24 20:17:00 - [215]
 

I think you need to reread my post.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
50% is the BARE minimum to make alpha marginally useful, 100% would be better.


Alpha will never be what it used to be, nor should it. One volleying ships while fun for the volleyer is destructive of gameplay. Noone will want to fly the onevolleyed shipsWink. My post would still leave a volley buff, just a smaller one, while also including a dps buff.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
There is no reasonable motive NOT to balance ACs tiers. They are screwed and in need to be balanced. As it is now ther eis no motive to use the high tier weapons, and they are ridiculously underpowered when compared to mega pulses, for example.


Yes, and if you will reread what I said, I agreed tier balancing needs to be done.Rolling Eyes As to balance with megapulse how about the probability that tracking mods will have falloff bonuses/scripts. That would decrease the gap between megapulse and ac.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
You offer no reason for this to be "no good", except for your obviously bias toward amarr which can be seen in all your posts in Shops and Modules.


First off, I resent your characterization that I have a bias toward Amarr. As a noob I hated the Amarr slave-owning backstory. I chose Amarr because aestheticly and uninformedly I wanted to use lasers (when they really sucked, and before everyone thought they were so uber). I left Amarr space and went to work immediately for Freedom Extension. I do not roleplay to much degree anymore. I did however complain years ago about the sucktastic state of Amarr ships.

Most of my posts now complain about Minmatar's relative place and have been calling for Minmatar/projectile buffs regularly. As well I am constantly perturbed by Caldari centric players without experience of the other races complaining for buffs. At the same time I don't want Amarr and lasers re-nerfed. I and many other players suffered far too long with ****hole amarr ships and lasers, and those days should not come back just because uninformed people think amarr now is "all that" and should be nerfed.

If you will re-read my post without your mistaken bias about my opinions you will see I want a projectile buff, just a slightly different one than what has been proposed.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
The Apocalypse is betterthan the rokh, mostly because Beam lasers >>>> Rails...


Yet Throns use rails and they out dps Apocs because of the damage bonus with the naturally higher rof of rails. To go into the thron's deficiencies relative to the apoc however is a totally different issue. Anyway, beam lasers on an apoc outdamage rails on a Rokh, fine if damage is everything. That rokh has a better tank of course. Anyway, i'm sick of prople whining about the apoc.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
The tempest is not the only problem of the minmatar. lol. ALL projectile based shisp are broken, some more than others, but ALL of them need SOME improvement. The easiest way to fix it is to fix projectiles as a whole, which ccp balance team finally conceeded it seems.


Where did I say Minmatar's only problem was the tempest? WHere did I say projectiles as a whole shouldn't be buffed? Re-read my post and stop reacting with your own preconceived opinion of what I say.

Ath Amon
Posted - 2009.09.24 20:41:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Ekeim
I'm not very knowledgeable about projectile weapon systems in game currently, but after reading through this thread I wanted to ask if some of the discussed changes were implemented - what would the difference between hybrid turrets and projectile turrets be?

I've gathered from several posts that rate of fire is lower on projectiles than hybrids, but would that be the only drawback? If projectiles are brought in line to have the same range as hybrids, as well as the same damage per shot with equivalent hybrid range ammo, would the lower rate of fire be enough to balance against the ability to choose damage types and use no cap?

Another thing I was curious about was the focus on alpha damage. If a weapon system is designed primarily around alpha, doesn't that inherently limit it to a small range of situational effectiveness?


for blasters vs acs will not change much, few minnies factional ammos will deal more dps but thats mostly in close range so blasters will still lead the dps chart by quite big margin and for good range too

for artis yep, alpha is not hat usefull in eve and imo a weapon designed around that is going to fail... good thing is that they are going to make reload less frequent so boosting the overall dps of the weapon but we have no idea about how good this boost will be.

as said in other posts i'm not that impressed by these changes, is a step in the right direction but ac imo need some small boost too (we will see if they improve the tracking) and arty need a big overhaul (again my opinion)

instead it will be interesting if they will put a faloff bonus on various tc, but faloff is an ebil beast to balance so we will see

Uncle Smokey
Posted - 2009.09.24 20:52:00 - [217]
 

Edited by: Uncle Smokey on 24/09/2009 20:52:09
I propose an additional boost to artillery sound effects. We need a good, phatt and lasting *BOOM*, to keep us comfortable while we have to literally wait a minute for another. RL arty sample would be great.

Memnanan
Posted - 2009.09.24 20:56:00 - [218]
 

Tempest definitely needs more range to be comparable with other race snipers. I have flown a sniper Tempest and often enough found myself just a little too far away (that is just outside optimal+falloff) with a typical Tempest sniper fit. And there's no other choice but T2 1400mmm with Tremor ammo for sniping.

Here's a thought: what about a ship bonus that removes (part of) the penalty of one or more range mods? That way the bad snipe gun range can be offset by taking better advantage of tracking comps and enhancers. And it would make it a special thing of the Minmatar race.

Increasing alpha and increase the cycle would be a nerf in my opinion, not a boost. Unless you plan to use your Tempest as inty/ af killer....Laughing What's the use of bringing your enemy into 10% armour on first shot if you have to wait for ages for firing the next shot...

Damage types: hmm.. yeah always wondered why emp was the high damage ammo and not the explo type... The T2 high dmg ammo I find only usefull for shooting very big, (almost-)static targets you need to kill asap.

As for damage: some are ok i guess (seeing vaga's often enough). But Minmatar is supposed to be the "do or die" race, favouring speed and dps over tank. Speed was nerfed and thus made less important. In general Minmatar ships do have lesser tanks than other races, but as for damage: in hac fleets I keep seeing Zealots higher up on the killmails than the Muninns for damage done, so this isn't right. Also a crusader is capable of doing more damage than any Minmatar inty. As for the tier 1 BS: I've seen Armageddon fits that can do over 1000 dps. Still got to see the Phoon fit that can top that. So, currently Minmatar just isn't the "damage race" that it is supposed to be except for a few ships maybe.



Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:03:00 - [219]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 24/09/2009 21:06:27
Originally by: Lili Lu
Alpha will never be what it used to be, nor should it. One volleying ships while fun for the volleyer is destructive of gameplay. Noone will want to fly the onevolleyed shipsWink. My post would still leave a volley buff, just a smaller one, while also including a dps buff.


Even against your desires, yes, alpha will be almost what it was before, after the changes CCP is proposing. And that is a good thing. Alpha ONLY matters when you can one volley things, period. If that wasn't an acceptable result, then alpha os not a viable "advantage" to a weapon system.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Yes, and if you will reread what I said, I agreed tier balancing needs to be done. As to balance with megapulse how about the probability that tracking mods will have falloff bonuses/scripts. That would decrease the gap between megapulse and ac.


That is a good start, but even with this change falloff still needs improvement. If high tier weapons are given more falloff AND the trajectory analysis skill is changed to 10% per level balancing it with Sharpshooting, which not only is a lower rank skill, but gives a much greater benefit, then we MAY have an end result that balances ACs and Lasers, where ACs would have a range of damage superiority a little bit more than point blank.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

If you will re-read my post without your mistaken bias about my opinions you will see I want a projectile buff, just a slightly different one than what has been proposed.



Fair enough. But in a balanced game each option must have its advantages, and it must be more than an unlikely situational advantage. As of now, Lasers dominate projectiles in about everything from close range to midrange to sniping to alpha-striking. Without homogenizing the weapons systems the only suggestion that is able to reach this result is to make the strong points of projectiles strong enough to dominate in SOME situations.

Raising alpha makes the minnie sniper ships deadly against smaller targets even if it doesn't really help much against targets of the same size. It is a good thing. You already can be one volleyed in frigs and destroyers by ANY battleship in the game. I don't see any problem in unplatted cruisers getting one volleyed too by minnies.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Yet Throns use rails and they out dps Apocs because of the damage bonus with the naturally higher rof of rails. To go into the thron's deficiencies relative to the apoc however is a totally different issue. Anyway, beam lasers on an apoc outdamage rails on a Rokh, fine if damage is everything. That rokh has a better tank of course. Anyway, i'm sick of prople whining about the apoc.


No they don't. Not if they intend to have ANY buffer at all. Fleet battleships are as dependent of EHP as they are of DPS. The Apocalypse can have the highest dps with an acceptable EHP in the game. If the Mega wants to best its dps it has to pay a lot of EHP to do it which is a very bad thing.

There is no way to contend it. Apocalypses are the best fleet battleships in the game. Period.

Undertow Latheus
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:09:00 - [220]
 

Great that you're finally giving some attention to projectiles. However..

Making Artillery more alpha-strike oriented will finally give it a niche to make it more useful in certain applications, however it will still have by far the worst dps, range, and tracking. /sarcastic cheer.


You've said that you're interested in giving falloff some love with tracking computers, but what about tracking enhancers?? A vaga will never sacrifice a LSE and half its tank for a tracking computer, while a tracking enhancer instead of the 3rd gyro could actually let the vaga apply more dps overall. Of course this doesn't just apply to the vaga but it was just a good example. Bottom line, let tracking enhancers and tracking computers give falloff bonus, using falloff already instantly gimps ac's enough.

I am, however, loving the ammo changes YARRRR!!


AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:21:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: AstroPhobic on 24/09/2009 21:22:29
Originally by: Vrabac
ACs do less dps in falloff, but I suppose blasters shoot at optimal by default?


Er, yes. They have more DPS and more tank-ability to be able to sit in that range.

Quote:
For some reason you assume minnie ship is in notable falloff, but gallente one isnt.


Er, yes. It's unreasonable for a minmatar ship to be at autocannon optimal, the ships are made with less EHP and generally confused slots so you can't exactly fit a 6 slot buffer and throw on some damage mods. The typhoon and rupture make exceptions (due to torps/7 lows and a 1600mm plate), but for the most part minnie ships get melted up close.

Quote:
Gallente need 10 seconds to reload too. But get this funny detail: They don't have anything to reload. They do kinetic and thermal and that's their one and only choice. Not to mention it's usually done ahead of fight.


You missed the point: damage "selection" by minmatar is fairly trivial. It's guessing at best, and you have to know which target you're engaging before hand, and then depending on the ammo you lose range/and or damage, and then you have split damage types within there... most people I know (myself included) fly with only RF EMP and barrage, occasionally RF PP/fusion.

Quote:
Other than that, try comparing dps values of BSs and BCs and see. Gallente won't notably out-dps the minmatar (or amarr for that matter) with realistic fits. Triple mag stab mega isn't really such a fit, triple mag stab neutron hyperion even less. And even when they do out-dps them by some pitiful percentage, it gets offset by horrible dmg types they get stuck with, as well as total lack of options when it comes to deciding do they go balls deep or keep away.


They will notably out-dps minmatar with realistic fits (read: no hail/rage missiles). I'd like to see your fits for comparison tbh.


Quote:
So what we might get now is minie ammo that does hail-like damage with emp-like falloff and tracking. Is this ok?


It's not hail-like damage, it's the same damage that you get from antimatter or MF.

Quote:
Might be for minmatars alone, but if blasters don't get boosted in some fashion I really fail to see their point any more, and already messed up ballance gets even worse. What might happen is that devs listen to blaster whiners too, which isn't impossible of course.


I understand that you want blasters to be balanced, but this is certainly no fault of projectiles. "Blasters suck" isn't really a good reason for projectiles to continue their fail streak, if you know what I'm sayin'. I don't really fly any blaster ships minus the odd taranis so I can't much comment, but looking at the numbers, you're overshadowed by lasers, not autos.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:29:00 - [222]
 

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 24/09/2009 21:29:26
Originally by: Lili Lu

Yet Throns use rails and they out dps Apocs because of the damage bonus with the naturally higher rof of rails. To go into the thron's deficiencies relative to the apoc however is a totally different issue. Anyway, beam lasers on an apoc outdamage rails on a Rokh, fine if damage is everything. That rokh has a better tank of course. Anyway, i'm sick of prople whining about the apoc.


Sorry, but this is incredibly incorrect.

A perfect Thron with two damage mods, 425mm rails, and using Spike does 299 DPS.
A perfect Apoc with only 7 Tachs, two damage mods, and using Aurora does 312 DPS.

Apoc wins. Without a damage bonus.

EDIT: Emphasis.

Ath Amon
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:30:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Raising alpha makes the minnie sniper ships deadly against smaller targets even if it doesn't really help much against targets of the same size. It is a good thing. You already can be one volleyed in frigs and destroyers by ANY battleship in the game. I don't see any problem in unplatted cruisers getting one volleyed too by minnies.



on paper... then with the crap tracking of arties i dont see such "small ships" in big danger if the pilots dont have the bad idea to stand still or run straight at you

and how many ehps have nowaday cruisers? 30k? 50k? 80k? probably a maelstrom will deal around 5k with tremor and 2-3 gyros and the next volley will arrive in 12-13sec so you will need 6 volleys to pop a cruisers or more than a minute (if you hit it will all your guns ofc)... i think cruiser pilots can sleep well, whitout the nightmare of crappastrom gank fleets that chase them :P

as said Lili Lu...
Quote:
Alpha will never be what it used to be, nor should it.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:32:00 - [224]
 

I just want to say that I'm very excited by the prospect of using a Muninn and not having Astro laugh at me.

Arty thrasher w/o any changes will be OP. I have a 1389 alpha on my thrasher right now. I'll also say that my arty jaguar after Dominion is going to be sick. 1700m/s while having a signature radius of 34m. 898 alpha BEFORE any boost mentioned here.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:35:00 - [225]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2009 21:40:21
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2009 21:39:44
To sum op my position on the changes:

I'm 100% fine with ammos as they are if they get boosted to CN AM/AN MF standards, really. Nothing wrong with EMP damage types, it's useful.

It's the TC/TE boosting which is very good (if it extends to TEs) because it enables various fitting options as well as boosts arty ranges towards more competitive levels, and removes one of the horrible downsides of falloff compared to optimal.

Arty clip size has been loooong overdue. Alpha is nice, but I don't find it as essential a change as is ammo damage (which is a indirect arty DPS boost in close-range scenarios), TEs/TCs boosting falloff (which is indirect arty range boost, even though it only adds more falloff) and more clipsize.

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
I just want to say that I'm very excited by the prospect of using a Muninn and not having Astro laugh at me.

Arty thrasher w/o any changes will be OP. I have a 1389 alpha on my thrasher right now. I'll also say that my arty jaguar after Dominion is going to be sick. 1700m/s while having a signature radius of 34m. 898 alpha BEFORE any boost mentioned here.


There is nothing particularly OP about having 2083 alpha vs 1389 alpha on a Thrasher, much less on the Jaguar which is really only going to alpha strike a Ibis. A Rifter with only a Damage Control I has 2291 EHP. Unfitted Malediction is 2497. In fact, you will take longer to kill both of these ships now - 50% longer to be precise.





Lili Lu
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:41:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Even against your desires, yes, alpha will be almost what it was before, after the changes CCP is proposing. And that is a good thing. Alpha ONLY matters when you can one volley things, period. If that wasn't an acceptable result, then alpha os not a viable "advantage" to a weapon system.


I don't agree. You are taking alpha in isolation. In a fleet situation alpha is additive. If you make alpha too strong we will just replace Apoc as fotm with Tempest or Maels as fotm. Target caller: "Beta is primary" Fleet of Tempests: (after Beta alpha'd) "what is secondary?". At a certain size fleet, alpha will be all that matters, because opposing BSs can get alpha'd. If you make that threshhold very much lower there will be no reason not to fly fleets of all Minmatar all the time.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
That is a good start, but even with this change falloff still needs improvement. If high tier weapons are given more falloff AND the trajectory analysis skill is changed to 10% per level balancing it with Sharpshooting, which not only is a lower rank skill, but gives a much greater benefit, then we MAY have an end result that balances ACs and Lasers, where ACs would have a range of damage superiority a little bit more than point blank.


Well, without addressing everything, I will say that yes having the fall-off affecting player skill take so much longer to train than the optimal affecting plyer skill is odd and requires some explaining by the game designers.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Fair enough. But in a balanced game each option must have its advantages, and it must be more than an unlikely situational advantage. As of now, Lasers dominate projectiles in about everything from close range to midrange to sniping to alpha-striking. Without homogenizing the weapons systems the only suggestion that is able to reach this result is to make the strong points of projectiles strong enough to dominate in SOME situations.

Raising alpha makes the minnie sniper ships deadly against smaller targets even if it doesn't really help much against targets of the same size. It is a good thing. You already can be one volleyed in frigs and destroyers by ANY battleship in the game. I don't see any problem in unplatted cruisers getting one volleyed too by minnies.


I do. Might not tech I cruisers totally disappear as a pvp option? And yes frigs can be alpha'd by any BS, but what about the thrasher eating frigs much more easily. No noob will be useful for anything in his tech I frig or cruiser. It would affect faction warfare most, probably. No more tech I frig tacklers is not a good thing imo.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
No they don't. Not if they intend to have ANY buffer at all. Fleet battleships are as dependent of EHP as they are of DPS. The Apocalypse can have the highest dps with an acceptable EHP in the game. If the Mega wants to best its dps it has to pay a lot of EHP to do it which is a very bad thing.

There is no way to contend it. Apocalypses are the best fleet battleships in the game. Period.



Well, that does appear to be the prevailing opinion of the present relative utility of the fleet snipers, although I disagree. Will it be so after a projectile buff + Tempest re-work? ALso, the rokh will remain with much more survivability (and to DDs, although that will shortly not be an issue). The megathron will be next on the list I bet for a buff plea once Projectiles and the Tempest are buffed. The question remains, how could you nerf the Apoc's bonuses and not have it land in the toilet again? I think anyone calling for a laser/apoc/zealot nerf needs to wait for the projectile buff to go through and see how the tempest/munnin fare in comparison with the change.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:48:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko


There is nothing particularly OP about having 2083 alpha vs 1389 alpha on a Thrasher, much less on the Jaguar which is really only going to alpha strike a Ibis. A Rifter with only a Damage Control I has 2291 EHP. Unfitted Malediction is 2497. In fact, you will take longer to kill both of these ships now - 50% longer to be precise.




My thrasher almost always two volleys any interceptor silly enough to approach. I most cases I can get it into low armor or even structure in one volley. I don't fit a point on my thrasher b/c with only two volleys I usually don't give them a "run" option. On two occassions I've instapopped an interceptor. Chalk it up to the tracking or crits to explain it. With a new alpha that high I can almost guarantee one shot one kill.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.09.24 21:54:00 - [228]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2009 22:01:50
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 24/09/2009 22:00:12
Originally by: Lili Lu
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Even against your desires, yes, alpha will be almost what it was before, after the changes CCP is proposing. And that is a good thing. Alpha ONLY matters when you can one volley things, period. If that wasn't an acceptable result, then alpha os not a viable "advantage" to a weapon system.


I don't agree. You are taking alpha in isolation. In a fleet situation alpha is additive. If you make alpha too strong we will just replace Apoc as fotm with Tempest or Maels as fotm. Target caller: "Beta is primary" Fleet of Tempests: (after Beta alpha'd) "what is secondary?". At a certain size fleet, alpha will be all that matters, because opposing BSs can get alpha'd. If you make that threshhold very much lower there will be no reason not to fly fleets of all Minmatar all the time.



Alpha is also wasteful at times.

Let us look at a arty thrasher firing at a hull tanked Rifter.

New thrasher fires a volley, leaves the Rifter with a few structure hitpoints. Takes two volleys to kill it, right?

Old thrasher fires a volley, leaves the Rifter somewhere in low armour/hull, fires again, takes two volleys to kill it... only, old thrasher fires more often and actually kills it sooner.

Alpha boost is awesome for the times where it means the difference between alpha-striking something and not. It's not when it leads to the same number of volleys needed to score a kill (eg, 1,2). Etc.

Don't think it's gamebreaking, but I don't really care all that much whether it gets implemented or not.

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
Originally by: Cpt Branko


There is nothing particularly OP about having 2083 alpha vs 1389 alpha on a Thrasher, much less on the Jaguar which is really only going to alpha strike a Ibis. A Rifter with only a Damage Control I has 2291 EHP. Unfitted Malediction is 2497. In fact, you will take longer to kill both of these ships now - 50% longer to be precise.




My thrasher almost always two volleys any interceptor silly enough to approach. I most cases I can get it into low armor or even structure in one volley. I don't fit a point on my thrasher b/c with only two volleys I usually don't give them a "run" option. On two occassions I've instapopped an interceptor. Chalk it up to the tracking or crits to explain it. With a new alpha that high I can almost guarantee one shot one kill.


Well, I actually use the Thrasher for solo frig hunting (insert derisive comments here) so it's 250s for me, and they're not really one-volleying anything. Still, I prefer to be able to kill tanked frigs as well (which you can never alpha), so it's point/mwd/web for me. Actually nice solo frig hunter, although ceptors generally just refuse to engage or do it smart and at full speed out of range if they do Very Happy

As long as it's a ceptor with a DC, I can't see it popping to a new Thrasher.



Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.09.24 22:02:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Lili Lu
At a certain size fleet, alpha will be all that matters, because opposing BSs can get alpha'd. If you make that threshhold very much lower there will be no reason not to fly fleets of all Minmatar all the time.


Those Minmatar fleets would still be very vulnerable to range. Apocs and Rokhs sniping them from 60KM beyond their optimal could just laugh. What you're describing sounds like tactics to me. I think instead what you'd end up seeing is an Apoc/Rokh/Mega wing in fights, and a Minmatar/Mega wing that's dependent on a good drop in point. Mega being the switch-hitter based on its ammo selection.

Compared to Minnie ships just being laughed at now, that sounds good to me.

Quote:
I think anyone calling for a laser/apoc/zealot nerf needs to wait for the projectile buff to go through and see how the tempest/munnin fare in comparison with the change.


This I agree with. One balance-affecting change at a time, please.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2009.09.24 22:04:00 - [230]
 

Edited by: Lubomir Penev on 24/09/2009 22:07:21
Originally by: Blazde
Edited by: Blazde on 24/09/2009 16:03:42
Originally by: Lubomir Penev
If you did so you may discover the a Maelstron with megapulse is better than one with 800mm AC, which is a definite proof of projectiles issue...

Megapulse Maelstrom has less dps over (almost) all it's range profile, less tracking, and is cap unstable while using more CPU and PG, what are you referring to?




Edit: sorry 17km optimal, is with a locus rig, you actually got the grid to locus rig lasers on a mael
Mega Pulse Mael, 3 damage mods, Amarr Navy MF: 730 turet [email protected] optimal
800mm Mael, 3 damage mod, RF EMP, 760dps @ 3km optimal

Only way to get useful range on the mael is to use Barrage in which case you get worst tracking and less damage at all ranges...

Damage bonused and it does 30dps more in a very narrow range window that off races guns, but projectiles are fine.

(grid is actually a non issue fitting any race short range guns on a Mael, since it got lots of it for being ablem to fit arty)

Lili Lu
Posted - 2009.09.24 22:05:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
In fact, you will take longer to kill both of these ships now - 50% longer to be precise.



Yes, i totally agree. Go back to my first post, on the previous page. There is a downside to too much emphasis on alpha with a further reduced rof.

I think many that are salivating at a huge alpha buff are overlooking the increadible nerf that the rof decrease will be in smaller scale engagements.

Lili Lu
Posted - 2009.09.24 22:26:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Lili Lu
At a certain size fleet, alpha will be all that matters, because opposing BSs can get alpha'd. If you make that threshhold very much lower there will be no reason not to fly fleets of all Minmatar all the time.


Those Minmatar fleets would still be very vulnerable to range. Apocs and Rokhs sniping them from 60KM beyond their optimal could just laugh. What you're describing sounds like tactics to me. I think instead what you'd end up seeing is an Apoc/Rokh/Mega wing in fights, and a Minmatar/Mega wing that's dependent on a good drop in point. Mega being the switch-hitter based on its ammo selection.

Compared to Minnie ships just being laughed at now, that sounds good to me.


Well I am concerned that a dramatic change like what is being proposed could be unbalancing. It seems to be the way these things go though. For once why can't CCP look at a problem and try a measured adjustment of present game parameters instead of a radical alteration.

For instance Falcons simply needed a measured nerf in range with a concurrent buff in range for other recons' ew. WHat we got instead was large reduction in range, with a wtf buff in strength. Didn't really fix ew/recon imbalance, only got the Falcons out of fleet fights, which really was not the best thing. What we needed more was other recons and the snipers themselves as counters. So many other examples.

Wouldn't it be better here to adjust upward the volley damage to a lesser degree but leave the rof as is. See how it goes. If it is not enough do another round. I still think in smaller battles many minmatar pilots will regret 50% longer wait time between volleys no matter how much more alpha they get. Arty rof is already glacial.

ANd in larger fleets we may all regret a 50% volley boost as we stare blankly into the eighteenth-nineteenth century mechanic of shoot once to kill or be shot once to die fleet battles.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.09.24 22:47:00 - [233]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 24/09/2009 22:51:37
Originally by: Lili Lu

Well I am concerned that a dramatic change like what is being proposed could be unbalancing. It seems to be the way these things go though. For once why can't CCP look at a problem and try a measured adjustment of present game parameters instead of a radical alteration.



The only way to know if something is really imbalanced is by testing it. That is why the test server exists. The odd possibility that something COULD be imbalanced, which is NOT the case here, is not an excuse to not even try it.

Quote:

For instance Falcons simply needed a measured nerf in range with a concurrent buff in range for other recons' ew. WHat we got instead was large reduction in range, with a wtf buff in strength. Didn't really fix ew/recon imbalance, only got the Falcons out of fleet fights, which really was not the best thing. What we needed more was other recons and the snipers themselves as counters. So many other examples.



I always defended falcons. Falcons were perfect before and are even better now. Falcons are great as they are now. Anyone that is complaining about them, be it for or against, doesn't have a clue. Amarr and Caldari recons are as they should be. The minnie and gallente recons are the trash that needs improvement, in much the same way as projectiles and blasters.

Lets hope blasters are improved after projectiles.

Quote:

Wouldn't it be better here to adjust upward the volley damage to a lesser degree but leave the rof as is. See how it goes. If it is not enough do another round. I still think in smaller battles many minmatar pilots will regret 50% longer wait time between volleys no matter how much more alpha they get. Arty rof is already glacial.



Sure, but IF you increase the alpha and leave the dps as it is you will increase dps proportionally balancing weapons towards homogeneity, which is a way of doing it, just not the best way. We could as well have all our skills converted to amarr ships and lasers and get done with it. It would be even simpler to balance and even less risky to cause a misterious and ethereal imbalance.

Quote:

ANd in larger fleets we may all regret a 50% volley boost as we stare blankly into the eighteenth-nineteenth century mechanic of shoot once to kill or be shot once to die fleet battles.


This statement is completely incomprehensible.

Suboran
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.09.24 22:51:00 - [234]
 

Edited by: Suboran on 24/09/2009 22:51:33
Increase arty damage and optimal range by 10-20% and lower the refire rate slightly

Lili Lu
Posted - 2009.09.24 23:15:00 - [235]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
The only way to know if something is really imbalanced is by testing it. That is why the test server exists. The odd possibility that something COULD be imbalanced, which is NOT the case here, is not an excuse to not even try it.


I agree. Unfortunately, it seems often the change is put onto the test server for "testing", and then introduced to Tranquility without alteration.Confused Also, I'm arguing for smaller initial change that could/will be adjusted upward on the test server if necessary, instead of a large initial change that may or most likely won't be adjusted downward on the test server.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
I always defended falcons. Falcons were perfect before and are even better now. Falcons are great as they are now. Anyone that is complaining about them, be it for or against, doesn't have a clue. Amarr and Caldari recons are as they should be. The minnie and gallente recons are the trash that needs improvement, in much the same way as projectiles and blasters.

Lets hope blasters are improved after projectiles.


Falcons were a problem, but yes oddly they are better now for a different purpose. And yes, minni and gallente recons need a buff as well. I will at some point make an op, my firstEmbarassed, about recons. As for blasters give them some falloff (again measured change). Anyway, this is off topic and was just using Falcons as an example.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Sure, but IF you increase the alpha and leave the dps as it is you will increase dps proportionally balancing weapons towards homogeneity, which is a way of doing it, just not the best way. We could as well have all our skills converted to amarr ships and lasers and get done with it. It would be even simpler to balance and even less risky to cause a misterious and ethereal imbalance.


No. A smaller alpha and the same rof would boost dps, but it would still leave projectiles with the big hit difference. I see nothing wrong with some narrowing the gap tween dps on weapons systems if they arrive at it in different ways. Rails will still get dps from rof, projectiles from volley.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
This statement is completely incomprehensible.


I guess what I meant to say was two lines firing at each other with no possibility of warp out or RR-ing extending your time on the field. Was analogizing the one musket ball ending the life of a musketman to one volley of the opposing fleet ending your time on the internet spaceship battlefield. Does not for an exciting internet spaceship fleet battle make imo. If lag hasn't hit a fleet battle can be quite exciting as targets are called and take a few seconds to go down, or are driven off the field and a new target is called.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2009.09.24 23:16:00 - [236]
 

FINALLY! It's kind of incredible how long it took for something that will get first airing next week already. But I will certainly give it a spin. Damn it's nice not to be the game's dog food for a change.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.09.24 23:25:00 - [237]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
I just want to say that I'm very excited by the prospect of using a Muninn and not having Astro laugh at me.


These changes don't really affect the muninn in 100km sniper HAC gangs, so I may be laughing yet. Laughing Zealot will still be faster, quicker locking, have better tracking, and put out more DPS.

Sitting on a gate though... new muninn should out-alpha the old cane, with mobility and tracking(?) to spare.

Kai Lae
Gallente
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.24 23:48:00 - [238]
 

I'll point out that another thing that needs looking into with regards to autocannons (large ones at least) is that upgrading sizes has basically no effect on range. The differences between dual 425 II, dual 650 II, and 800mm II range is only a few KM. This, and the very small differences in damage, mean that there's very little advantage in fitting larger autocannons over smaller ones.

This should be looked into as an area that should be improved.

drake duka
Minmatar
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.09.25 01:11:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Wensley
Originally by: Thorvik
Agree with this one as well as the damage/utility slot. Make the Trajectory Analysis skill harder to get at or add another training Tier so that it makes it that much more difficult (and rewarding) to get to the bonuses.


Trajectory Analysis is already a rank 5 skill compared to Sharpshooter as a rank 2. Making it a 10% boost would justify the fact that it is harder to train.

I've got used to EMP being the best damage type but I would love it if Fusion took its rightful place at the top of the damage charts.

This(except maybe 7.5), haven't read all of this 6 page thread but this seems to make sense. Arty should be much more interesting now, but may need a little more range to compete or maybe extend falloff a little so it can at least reach range of beams even if only fighting in falloff. I'm really liking the idea of tracking comp/enhancer finally affecting falloff.

Also lovin fusion being on top, great idea, I have always hated EMP's hybrid damage type.

Gargamell Smurf
Posted - 2009.09.25 02:12:00 - [240]
 

Edited by: Gargamell Smurf on 25/09/2009 02:45:28
Originally by: Memnanan

Increasing alpha and increase the cycle would be a nerf in my opinion, not a boost. Unless you plan to use your Tempest as inty/ af killer....Laughing What's the use of bringing your enemy into 10% armour on first shot if you have to wait for ages for firing the next shot...


seriously? sounds pretty dam good to me. I'll take the "into 10% armor on first shot" any time.
imagine warping into a fight, a red box appears on the overview, and you are sitting in 10% armor.
I would be spamming the warp like crazy. any enemy support ships in range would be the end of you.
smaller ships, like Battlecruisers, cruisers, could theoretically be popped on one shot with a few arty snipers. sounds pretty dam effective to me.
Quote:

As for damage: some are ok i guess (seeing vaga's often enough). But Minmatar is supposed to be the "do or die" race, favouring speed and dps over tank. Speed was nerfed and thus made less important. In general Minmatar ships do have lesser tanks than other races, but as for damage: in hac fleets I keep seeing Zealots higher up on the killmails than the Muninns for damage done, so this isn't right. Also a crusader is capable of doing more damage than any Minmatar inty. As for the tier 1 BS: I've seen Armageddon fits that can do over 1000 dps. Still got to see the Phoon fit that can top that. So, currently Minmatar just isn't the "damage race" that it is supposed to be except for a few ships maybe.



you make a point.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (90)

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