open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [ISSUE] Blasters 2.0
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (26)

Author Topic

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.05.10 18:58:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
I notice some people discuss improving speed, agility, and weapon tracking. I believe those attributes should be for AC ships. Blaster ships should still be slow and cumbersome, they just need to have high damage as the main advantage over all other weapons.


This is a very valid observation, but ultimately shows that the biggest problems with blasters isn't their raw damage output. It's their ability to apply that damage effectively. This is why we see shield tanked Brutixes and Hypes - because they actually have a prayer of getting into range to deal some damage. So I think that if you don't increase blaster damage agility and speed, then you must *dramatically* increase their raw damage output (and maybe tracking).

And to whoever above said that blasters aren't a Caldari weapon... I LAUGH AT YOU GOOD SIR!

-Liang

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.10 19:49:00 - [302]
 

Speaking from personal preference as long time battleship user, I'd say a 20% raw dps increase for blaster will make me want to fly Megathrons again, even tho I'll still hate how hard it is to fit one.

Likewise, if blaster damage was increased 10%, I may try Mega and Hyperion once, but would stick to my preferred Dominix and Typhoon. Ability to fit heavy energy neutralizer >> extra dps.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.05.11 06:25:00 - [303]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

This is a very valid observation, but ultimately shows that the biggest problems with blasters isn't their raw damage output. It's their ability to apply that damage effectively. This is why we see shield tanked Brutixes and Hypes - because they actually have a prayer of getting into range to deal some damage.


It's not really just that. I mean, just try to fit a Brutix with any sort of armor tank and decent guns (like a neutron/ion mix or full rack of neutrons which you need a grid mod for even with a shield tank). It's just not going to happen, because of the horrible fitting. Plus, you need some speed to actually catch anything and the shield Brutix and Myrmidon have it.

Oh, about shield tanking stuff... with the advent of the scram, short range meshes with shield tank really well. For instance, I'm one of the people who has both a HG slaveset and a LG snakeset. Yet when fitting a, eg. short range AC Hurricane I'll very often just go with a shield tank with a scrambler, suck up getting half the EHP in order to be able to catch various speedy trash and hold it there. Look at Myrm fits; you can get a quite fast (particularly with snakes) ship which has very solid EHP and does 850+ DPS on top, to the point where despite having a HG slaveset (enabling you to have 100K EHP on it) if I wanted to go with blasters and stuff I'd go with snaked shieldfit.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.11 06:36:00 - [304]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
I notice some people discuss improving speed, agility, and weapon tracking.

I believe those attributes should be for AC ships. Blaster ships should still be slow and cumbersome, they just need to have high damage as the main advantage over all other weapons.

Cause if you improve blaster ships in those other ways, then the next thing we'll see is AC/minmatar 10+ page threads calling for fixes.

We should never lose focus of the relationships between 3 close range gun types. Each have advantages and disadvantages, which need to be emphasized, not made more similar.


I've said this before on the same issue. Skirmish ships can still be skirmish ships even if blaster ships are faster and more agile than them. The key part about being a skirmish ship is not just speed and agility, its speed, agility, and the ability to run when things turn against you.

Minmitar ships with their large number of free high slots(Neuts), range that allows them to effectively combat ships outside of web/2pt range, and med slots(shield tank allows more mobility), will still have that advantage even if they are not the fastest ships on the field.

Blaster ships can never benefit as much as minmatar ships because if things do go bad, they don't have the neuts to get rid of tacklers, and they're certainly not outside of web/2 pt range even if they run shield tanks and light tackle in order to maximize their speed advantage (which they aren't as good as due to having fewer med slots generally).

This means that even if you make blaster ships fast and agile, or faster and more agile than minmatar ships, the minmatar ships will still be the skirmish race and the blaster ships will still be the "Balls to the wall" race.

BUT. If you go the other way, and you have the short range ships slower than the longer range ships then there is no reason to ever choose that short range ship. In actual combat, when things are fighting back, no one will ever be in range except other short range ships. Everyone else will be using their higher speed to kite. Since no one is in range except short range ships, the advantage is to choose the longer range ships and kite like them.

Its the same strategic choice set that has spawned nano-fits each and every time they have been viable for each and every iteration. It is not a coincidence that they always choose to use long range options(and tracking free options when available) rather than short range.

With the trichotomy that we have (consisting of short range/high damage/full tackle, med range/disengable, long range/unagile) if the short range/full tackle range ships are not the fastest, they never become a viable choice compared to the med range/disengagable ships.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.11 06:47:00 - [305]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 11/05/2010 06:47:46
Originally by: Cpt Branko

Oh, about shield tanking stuff... with the advent of the scram, short range meshes with shield tank really well.


Edit: All numbers are pre-overloading

E.G. Which would you rather have. This Thorax:

28k EHP, 550 DPS, 1112m/s, 10.9 align

[Thorax, Plate Gank]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Reactor Control Unit II
Damage Control II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I

10MN MicroWarpdrive I
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I


Hammerhead II x5


Or this Thorax:

22k EHP, 630 DPS, 1616m/s, 9.3 align

[Thorax, Shield Gank Ion]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Damage Control II
Overdrive Injector System II

10MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large Shield Extender II

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x5


Or this one:

19k EHP, 570 DPS, 1700m/s, 6.8 align

[Thorax, Shield Tank Alternate]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Damage Control II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

10MN MicroWarpdrive I
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
Large Shield Extender II

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I


Hammerhead II x5


If these thoraxes are fast and have a relatively decent amount of EHP, why are they sub-optimal (or are they are do people just not understand what they can do with them?)

The answer is that they probably are sub-optimal. But that has a lot to do with closing distance/damage/EHP times than it does to do with anything else. And that might be a bit beyond the scope of this topic. (long story short, giving up EHP means that unless they catch something unawares, a combat ship is likely to be able to kill the rax before the rax kills it, and that is in a 1v1 situation where raw damage has more of an advantage over range, as you start to add ships the ability to inflict damage now becomes a bigger deal with the exception of a very few edge cases involving big active tanked ships that can't run away and can't kill cruisers)

Alek Row
Minmatar
Silent Step
Posted - 2010.05.11 14:45:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: Alek Row on 11/05/2010 14:55:32
More faster AND agile than Minmatar? Not Supported.

High DPS, better drone bays, speed, how the hell do you disengage from that? Will you have time for it?
I understand that blasters/acs need to dictate range and that really should NOT be trivial for BOTH (it is trivial for Minmatar now), but with this it really looks you're just turning the table 180, nothing more.

Sorry but you can make better than that. You've done it before :-P
Play with drones perhaps?

OBS: Stupid stuff but speed changes always hurt a bit inside, only reason why I choose Minmatar when I created my 1st char.



Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.05.11 15:43:00 - [307]
 

You've got to be very careful when proposing ships that are both fast and agile, as unless that ship has serious weaknesses in DPS or tank, then it's going to be very powerful. The combination of good speed and good agility produces good acceleration - definable as 0.75 * (max speed with MWD on) / (align time with MWD on). Good acceleration and high speed means that you accelerate more quickly to a higher top speed than other ships, making such a ship very powerful. The Dramiel is a case in point.

In general, ships should be fast OR agile. Take Caldari ships, which tend to be agile but slow. This gives them good acceleration but a low top speed, which means that they can pull away from another ship briefly, but then get overhauled in the long run. This is well balanced. But how should the other races be?

Minmatar should be the fastest. But if Minmatar is faster, more agile and has weapons with longer range than Gallente, then there is very little reason to fly Gallente, assuming fairly similar tanks and DPS - as is broadly the case. This suggests that Minmatar should not be an agile race, and that Gallente ships should have an advantage in acceleration but a disadvantage in top speed.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.05.11 16:15:00 - [308]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
You've got to be very careful when proposing ships that are both fast and agile, as unless that ship has serious weaknesses in DPS or tank, then it's going to be very powerful. The combination of good speed and good agility produces good acceleration - definable as 0.75 * (max speed with MWD on) / (align time with MWD on). Good acceleration and high speed means that you accelerate more quickly to a higher top speed than other ships, making such a ship very powerful. The Dramiel is a case in point.

In general, ships should be fast OR agile. Take Caldari ships, which tend to be agile but slow. This gives them good acceleration but a low top speed, which means that they can pull away from another ship briefly, but then get overhauled in the long run. This is well balanced. But how should the other races be?

Minmatar should be the fastest. But if Minmatar is faster, more agile and has weapons with longer range than Gallente, then there is very little reason to fly Gallente, assuming fairly similar tanks and DPS - as is broadly the case. This suggests that Minmatar should not be an agile race, and that Gallente ships should have an advantage in acceleration but a disadvantage in top speed.


This is an interesting comment, but I think falls short a bit. Minmatar is the small/fast/agile race, and I hope they stay that way. You cite the Dramiel as proof that something shouldn't have good DPS and be both fast and agile... but the Jaguar and Vagabond (while good) are nothing approaching overpowered - while embodying all of the core concepts of being Minmatar. Even with all that, it wasn't Minmatar that kept people from flying blaster ships - it was lasers (which projectiles have been balanced against recently).

IMO I think it depends what role you're trying to go for... and with blaster and laser ships that's the "damage dealer" role. Minmatar ships as a rule don't really fill this role. As I said, there's only a few options:
- Make blaster ships able to get to their targets in a timely manner and without expending 2-3 cap booster 800s to do it. (Read: Make them faster and/or more agile)
- Make blaster ships have nuts high DPS to offset the time it takes to get into range.
- Extend blaster range so that they come into range sooner
- Make lasers (and therefore projectiles and torps and pretty much everything else) do less damage.

-Liang

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.11 18:17:00 - [309]
 

Edited by: Ephemeron on 11/05/2010 18:19:15
Quote:
- Make lasers (and therefore projectiles and torps and pretty much everything else) do less damage.
I want to point out why that would be a horrible idea, in case someone may accidentally take it seriously.

Not only that is unrealistic request due to overwhelming protest it would cause from entire community. But you need to understand that tanking has been continuously boosted for last several years, while weapon damage seen much smaller increases.

The latest boost was to make 15% buffer rigs for cruisers, bc, frigates very affordable - essentially giving everyone who wants another free Full Grade Slave Set or equivalent shield tank set. Something that normally would cost at least 1500 million now costs 9 mil. And that's just one of the many tanking boosts.

And in case it's not clear to some people, excessive tanking ability leads to blobbing - as it both requires more people to efficiently kill the target and gives victim more time to call in friendly blob from nearby. I was under impression we didn't like the blobbing trends.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.11 20:13:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Even with all that, it wasn't Minmatar that kept people from flying blaster ships - it was lasers (which projectiles have been balanced against recently).
This is entirely untrue. Some people might have thought it was true, but it assumes that gallente should be gang damage dealers. They should not be. The problem has always been ships with longer ranges that cannot be caught by the blaster ships.
Quote:
IMO I think it depends what role you're trying to go for... and with blaster and laser ships that's the "damage dealer" role. Minmatar ships as a rule don't really fill this role.
Bull If you consider blaster ships as a "damage dealer role" then you must also consider minnie in that role. You have to define the roles more closely to properly understand what is happening here. Each of the ships discussed does deal damage as their primary function. Each just does so optimally in different situations.

Those different situations are the key.

Quote:

- Make blaster ships have nuts high DPS to offset the time it takes to get into range.
- Extend blaster range so that they come into range sooner
- Make lasers (and therefore projectiles and torps and pretty much everything else) do less damage.

These are pretty much right out. Falloff means that blaster ship dps increases necessarily nullify non-TE autocannon range.

Adding range is also right out, this negates the role of blasters as solo/small gang damage dealers and moves them right into skirmish options.

Ditto number three since it has the same effect as number one

That means that the only proper response is to make them faster and more agile.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.11 21:14:00 - [311]
 

Edited by: Ephemeron on 11/05/2010 21:17:11
Originally by: Goumindong
That means that the only proper response is to make them faster and more agile.
Once again I'm reminded how messed up in the head Goumindong is. I haven't forgotten the Nano Nerf fiasco. The sad part is that CCP game designer seem to be just as messed up as this guy.

He simply cannot be reasoned with, cause his logic obeys the rules of some parallel universe, not quite like ours.

There's really no point arguing with him. But if the devs are messed up in similar ways and they follow this bad advice, I can assure you that the next big threads are going to be cries of the minmatar. The game will shift one more notch toward boredom, as the differences between ships are erased. Balance through sameness is achieved.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.05.11 23:09:00 - [312]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Minmatar is the small/fast/agile race, and I hope they stay that way. You cite the Dramiel as proof that something shouldn't have good DPS and be both fast and agile... but the Jaguar and Vagabond (while good) are nothing approaching overpowered.

-Liang


I don't think the Vaga is overpowered either. But I do think that the Deimos is underpowered. Given that both of these ships are best utilised in solo or small-gang combat, how should they be balanced against each other?

I don't think a Deimos fix will come via fiddling with its DPS - the Deimos would have to have an immense DPS advantage to be rated alongside the Vaga, given the Vaga's mobility and DPS-projection advantages. To me, this suggests that the answer to balancing these ships is something to do with their mobilities. Now it's obvious that the Vaga should be faster than the Deimos. So just leaves acceleration as the advantage that Deimos could have. With reasonable fits, currently they compare like this:

Dual-poly Vaga: speed 2750 m/s, average acceleration 298 m/s/s.
800 mm dual-poly Deimos: speed 1712 m/s, acceleration 157 m/s/s.
Shield nanoDeimos: speed 1961 m/s, acceleration 226 m/s/s.

The problem is - what numbers would a faster-accelerating Deimos have? Let's assume that speeds remain the same. If we give the shield Deimos an acceleration of 350 m/s/s, then it requires a align time with MWD on of 4.2 s, which is probably silly. Alternatively, if we nerf the Vaga's acceleration to 175 m/s/s, then it gets a MWD-on align time of 11.8 s, which would probably give a MWD-off align time of 8.2 s ish. Unfortunately, this, too, is probably silly... Sad

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.11 23:22:00 - [313]
 

Gypsio III, I believe that a 20% damage increase (a free damage mod) would go a long way to helping Deimos, without making that ship overpowered due to its other shortcomings.

There's an alternative solution tho - changing MWD bonus to 90% web bonus, it would make Deimos highly desirable in small gang pvp. But then it takes away from Vigilant advantage.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.12 09:30:00 - [314]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Edited by: Ephemeron on 11/05/2010 21:17:11
Originally by: Goumindong
That means that the only proper response is to make them faster and more agile.
Once again I'm reminded how messed up in the head Goumindong is. I haven't forgotten the Nano Nerf fiasco. The sad part is that CCP game designer seem to be just as messed up as this guy.

He simply cannot be reasoned with, cause his logic obeys the rules of some parallel universe, not quite like ours.

There's really no point arguing with him. But if the devs are messed up in similar ways and they follow this bad advice, I can assure you that the next big threads are going to be cries of the minmatar. The game will shift one more notch toward boredom, as the differences between ships are erased. Balance through sameness is achieved.


Do you have any argument other than "nuh uh"? or "its goumindong"? Anything other than your unsupported claim that balance will be the way you say?

Any change you make is going to have people whine. If you have fast and agile blaster boats people will whine. If you have slow and more damaging blaster boats, people will whine.

The question is rather "where do you have balance" and you only have balance with the trichotomous system that we have where the blaster boats are able to catch targets. They will still be sub-optimal in a skirmish gang since they can't run away. They will still be sub-optimal in a big gang because they can't get DPS on target instantly. But they will also not be obsolete solo/small gang where the ability to full tackle and get DPS on a target is a valuable addition.

Spugg Galdon
Posted - 2010.05.12 12:47:00 - [315]
 

Edited by: Spugg Galdon on 12/05/2010 12:48:24
Look, Leave the high agility and good speed to Minmatar ships, Give the Gal blaster ships a higher speed and greater inertia/lower agility. So blaster ships can out run anything but a nano, but they have a turning circle of a moon. Making piloting skill key rather than just clicking "keep at range" or "orbit at".

I really think straight line speed is key and looks like the balls to the wall, full frontal naked assault Gal war fighting ideology seems to be.


Edit: Terribad England

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.12 14:09:00 - [316]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 12/05/2010 14:10:21
High speed with low agility (I.E. high align times) isn't high speed.

The advantage to minnie ships will still be that they are typically going to be shield tanked rather than armor tanked and that going into full tackle range necessitates a significantly higher amount of risk than a pilot that does not.

In a comparison of a skirmish ship solo vs the blaster solo the blaster indeed will have the advantage(provided the minnie ship isn't using its utility highs wisely), they should. But once numbers start to increase, the ability to get tackles at close range starts to significantly diminish compared to the ability to focus fire. Either the blaster ships have to tackle 1 by 1 in order to focus fire or they have to target ships one by one. The first means that they have to re-close to damage range on each target since the rest of the skirmish gang which is not tackled will be keeping range. Giving up the ability to focus fire is the other option, and certainly not the stronger of the two.

Time and time again it has been shown that the "burn towards a target" is a recipe for disaster against longer ranged gangs that are able to take a majority of their gang outside of the range of the opponent.

Fast and agile blaster ships do not change that scenario, nor do they effectively change the scenario against a heavy gang of longer ranged ships that is sitting still (since the "first mover advantage" will still outweigh the raw damage advantage. there are also gang homogeneity issues) tears them up.

It only changes the game when its a very small gang, where targets can be isolated and a follower will not be slaughtered before it can do effective damage.

This is especially true since the only time that blaster ships can field an effective tank(to make them a heavy tackle that might have a chance of surviving in a gang scenario where they have to chase a skirmish gang)they will have to be running armor(not really enough slots for shield for the cruisers) and that means eating up low slots with plates and modules that aren't speed modules... eating away at any speed advantage they are given.

Belsazzar
Posted - 2010.05.12 16:04:00 - [317]
 

I support this, CCP needs to at least let us know if they agree there is a problem, so we can have an end to this ever recurring subject

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:36:00 - [318]
 

Quote:
High speed with low agility isn't high speed.

i see what you did there...

Anyone thought of "charge mode?""
We have triage module, should we have "charge module" that would make your speed go though the roof, but have a big reactivation delay?

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:59:00 - [319]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Anyone thought of "charge mode?""
We have triage module, should we have "charge module" that would make your speed go though the roof, but have a big reactivation delay?
It is an interesting idea, but it would mess up PvP dynamics badly.

People would us it to get past gate camps, usually charging back toward the gate for jump out. That tactic is already powerful with MWD. But at least MWD can be turned off by scramble. The webs are too weak to stop anything. Such a module would become a must-have for all PvP.

It may also lead to new bumping tactics, with unexpected results.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.05.12 18:32:00 - [320]
 

And this is the issue these threads keep reaching:

  • Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank.


  • Blaster ships can't have more speed/agility because then Minmatar ships don't have a speed/agility niche.


  • Blasters can't have more range because then AC (and?) pulse would lose their niche.


  • Railguns can't have more damage because then Caldari railboats become OP at long range and Gallente become OP at medium range.


  • Railguns can't have more range because even though this would fix Gallente, it would render the bonuses on Caldari ships worthless.


  • Hybrids in general cannot have more tracking because that would allow OP fits - blaster BS that kill tacklers and mid-range rail BS/HACs that can kill tacklers.


  • Hybrids (railguns) cannot have penetration as this would make even low damage guns OP in certain situations.


So, currently, hybrids remain without a functional niche because there are so many different problems with them that blanket changes will not fix the problem without making something OP. A proper fix would be TL;DR, but CSM isn't willing to go to CCP with a general suggestion for CCP to fix hybrids.

Does Assembly Hall have to debate balancing changes for each hybrid ship/gun/ammo? There was already a consensus that hybrids need to be reviewed and balanced. Isn't the actual job of balancing the responsibility of CCP, not assembly hall or CSM? Can't CSM simply tell CCP that hybrids need to be reviewed for balance and leave it in the hands of CCP (with oversight and input - usually given when things hit SISI)?

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2010.05.12 18:46:00 - [321]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
And this is the issue these threads keep reaching:

  • Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank.


  • Blaster ships can't have more speed/agility because then Minmatar ships don't have a speed/agility niche.


  • Blasters can't have more range because then AC (and?) pulse would lose their niche.


  • Railguns can't have more damage because then Caldari railboats become OP at long range and Gallente become OP at medium range.


  • Railguns can't have more range because even though this would fix Gallente, it would render the bonuses on Caldari ships worthless.


  • Hybrids in general cannot have more tracking because that would allow OP fits - blaster BS that kill tacklers and mid-range rail BS/HACs that can kill tacklers.


  • Hybrids (railguns) cannot have penetration as this would make even low damage guns OP in certain situations.


So, currently, hybrids remain without a functional niche because there are so many different problems with them that blanket changes will not fix the problem without making something OP. A proper fix would be TL;DR, but CSM isn't willing to go to CCP with a general suggestion for CCP to fix hybrids.

Does Assembly Hall have to debate balancing changes for each hybrid ship/gun/ammo? There was already a consensus that hybrids need to be reviewed and balanced. Isn't the actual job of balancing the responsibility of CCP, not assembly hall or CSM? Can't CSM simply tell CCP that hybrids need to be reviewed for balance and leave it in the hands of CCP (with oversight and input - usually given when things hit SISI)?



This is what I wrote pages ago , hybrid ships/weapons need to be redesigned and CSM only needs to push the issue to CCP . It is CCP job to fix this.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.05.12 19:44:00 - [322]
 

Quote:
Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank.
I fail to see this as a valid point. Anyone care to enlighten me?

I have seen many gank squads in my time, and I have not noticed any emphasis on blasters. Even if you ignore all the practical hurdles of getting perfect blaster damage, it's still only marginally better than ACs and lasers after ship bonuses. And a damage mod makes more difference in ship dps than weapon type.

Very few "practical" Gallente ships utilize 3 damage mods (for short range), because that would leave them with very weak tanks. But likewise, all other factions can achieve same type of DPS with 3 damage mods on short range weapons. And actual dps of theirs will match that of blasters when you factor in fall off and tracking.

So no, I just don't see any significant differences in practical or theoretical damage output of blasters relative to other ships.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.05.12 19:59:00 - [323]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 12/05/2010 20:01:23
Originally by: Ephemeron
Quote:
Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank.
I fail to see this as a valid point. Anyone care to enlighten me?

I have seen many gank squads in my time, and I have not noticed any emphasis on blasters. Even if you ignore all the practical hurdles of getting perfect blaster damage, it's still only marginally better than ACs and lasers after ship bonuses. And a damage mod makes more difference in ship dps than weapon type.

Very few "practical" Gallente ships utilize 3 damage mods (for short range), because that would leave them with very weak tanks. But likewise, all other factions can achieve same type of DPS with 3 damage mods on short range weapons. And actual dps of theirs will match that of blasters when you factor in fall off and tracking.

So no, I just don't see any significant differences in practical or theoretical damage output of blasters relative to other ships.


You are talking about the current situation. The statement is referring to blasters that did more damage than they currently do. Already, when a blaster boat warps to you at 0 (or near 0), they melt your face. If CCP boosted their damage output, there would be giant emo tears and OP outrage. Even a 1% boost to damage would cause this because people talk hypothetical situations on here while disregarding the normal state of affairs (look at all the "not support" posts in this thread).

Again, I think the case has been made repeatedly that CCP needs to address hybrid guns and make adjustments to fix the imbalance.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2010.05.12 20:38:00 - [324]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Does Assembly Hall have to debate balancing changes for each hybrid ship/gun/ammo?
Yes. The Assembly Hall is not where you go to whine to CCP with no suggestions. Its a place where you can articulate exactly what is wrong and exactly how it can be fixed and exactly why this is so.

Why? Whines waste CCP's time. Without clear articulation on what is wrong, why its wrong, how it can be fixed and why CCP has to justify all of the missing points before they can act. If they end up doing it in a way that was contrary to the point of the thread? Well then its back to square one with more whines.

Quote:
Blaster ships can't have more speed/agility because then Minmatar ships don't have a speed/agility niche
Speed and Agility are not "niches". Minmatar are the skirmish race and that niche is maintained even if blaster boats are faster and more agile than the skirmish ships for all the reasons already outlined.

If you have two ships. One that has long range and is slow, and one that has medium range and higher damage but is fast. A third ship that is short range must be faster than the medium range ship or it will be obsolete. The medium range ships can kill the longer ranged ships in small gangs. The long range ships can kill the medium and short in larger gangs. The short range ships can kill the long range ships in small gangs...

Except that if you have the option of flying a ship that can destroy the long range ships in small gangs and loses to the medium range ships in small gangs, or a ship that can destroy the long range ships in small gangs and ties the medium range ships in small gangs you're always going to choose the medium range ships.

Quote:
Blasters can't get a increase in damage because then they are OP when they land on ships in a gank.
No, they can't get a damage increase because a damage increase is both a range increase(effective DPS @ range goes up over falloff, increasing the distance required by minmatar before they have a damage advantage) which is a no-no, and won't do anything to alleviate the problem of minnie ships obsoleting them in combat except as a function of the range increase.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.05.13 11:04:00 - [325]
 

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/05/2010 11:06:39
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/05/2010 11:06:14
Quote:
Hybrids in general cannot have more tracking

YOu are horribly wrong. Blaster tracking SUCKS. It needs to double to make them effective. It is embarrassing, because when you get to your optimal you cannot hit anything, due to trasversal, so you have to operate in faloff, which reduces your damage.
Quote:
when a blaster boat warps to you at 0 they melt your face.

Because that's not what's suppose to happen, right?
And what about those 99% of the cases when you are not sitting with no motion at 0 at the gate and wait to get tackled?
Quote:
No, they can't get a damage increase because a damage increase is both a range increase

again, wrong,get out of 1x faloff and the damage becomes paint scratching, because damage decreases exponentially with range.

Alek Row
Minmatar
Silent Step
Posted - 2010.05.13 14:44:00 - [326]
 

Edited by: Alek Row on 13/05/2010 14:46:39

I still think it's a half-assed solution.

Minmatar always had the fast, rusty, primitive look'n'feel, maybe niche is not the correct word I would call it a major feature :P

All solutions I see are always in the same line of though but with different attributes, replace speed with damage or range or tracking and in the end you just have 'Give it 50% more of X and everything will be ok'. Maybe the solution will be more in the AC line of though, a bit more here, a bit more there, I mean a full weapon system redesign that doesn't change the basic principals of blasters - it must hurt up close.
Maybe the 'definition' of close range must be increased just like the range of falloff was a few time ago, give it a bit more range, tracking, damage, and even a bit of speed in some ships if you still have to.

I'm not the excel/eve expert guy to do nice graphs to show how much should be given to each weapon/ship to make it work, and a full re-design (calibration) really looks like a very difficult task but they did it to ACs didn't they?

Please make it work without giving major features to other races, otherwise in 1 year Gallent will be speed, Amarr shield tanking, Caldari drones and Minmatar target painters - just exaggerating a bit :-P

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2010.05.13 14:53:00 - [327]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/05/2010 14:59:15
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/05/2010 14:57:35
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/05/2010 14:56:38
Originally by: Goumindong

E.G. Which would you rather have. This Thorax:

28k EHP, 550 DPS, 1112m/s, 10.9 align

Or this Thorax:

22k EHP, 630 DPS, 1616m/s, 9.3 align



The latter, of course. The reason people don't fly shield fit Gallente more is that they suck and don't know how to play. In fact, IF Gallente could fit neutrons without lol RCUs and if they didn't have ships which are sometimes ******ed stat wise (eg. Brutix uses that so potentially useful utility high over Cyclone to get a awesome 10m3 more dronebay, seriously now?), they would (in shield fits) be passable. If they got a DPS boost on top they'd be more then passable.

The only Gallente T1 ships which you can fit reasonably with neutrons is the shield Myrmidon and the Megathron, the rest of them require glass-cannon fits or RCUs. Which made sense in the age when the Neutron blaster was the top dog, but laser dps got boosted since that day, AC DPS got boosted, torp DPS got boosted... these fitting stats are completely unjustified in this day and age.

By the way; when you look at those (sad) DPS/EHP stats, don't you feel horrible about the fact that a equivalent Minmatar ship has very good odds of BBQ-ing you point blank, or that the Vexor will just **** the Thorax at any range (most likely a Moa and Arbitrator, too, haha)? That is highly indicative of the fitting (and to some extent DPS) issues I'm talking about.

I do a lot of upclose murdering, and I have never considered flying Gallente for that because they simply do not offer a tangible advantage in the zone where they're supposed to be superior.

Also, devil's advocate: sub-BS blasterboats would be 11ty billion times better with more mids for shieldtank fits, since shieldtank takes a lot of the blaster woes away, and naturally removal of stupid active rep bonuses which prevent you from fitting damage mods and decent guns if you take advantage of the bonus.

No, seriously; most medium sized blaster boats are better with shield buffer as things are (case in point Brutix). People just insist on doing the wrong things, but that's not a ship problem, you still have people who fit purger rigs and SPRs to Drakes and take them out to PVP (granted, fairly rare these days) and complain how Caldari suck. People are just not comprehending how scrambler only for tackle works just fine.

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev

YOu are horribly wrong. Blaster tracking SUCKS. It needs to double to make them effective. It is embarrassing, because when you get to your optimal you cannot hit anything, due to trasversal, so you have to operate in faloff, which reduces your damage.


You're doing it wrong, that is not a turret problem.

Although you are correct that a damage increase is not honestly a range increase because at 1x falloff the DPS is negligible.

NightmareX
Nomads
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2010.05.13 15:20:00 - [328]
 

Edited by: NightmareX on 13/05/2010 15:20:18
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/05/2010 11:06:39
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 13/05/2010 11:06:14
Quote:
Hybrids in general cannot have more tracking

YOu are horribly wrong. Blaster tracking SUCKS. It needs to double to make them effective. It is embarrassing, because when you get to your optimal you cannot hit anything, due to trasversal, so you have to operate in faloff, which reduces your damage.

ROFL, talk about being a total noob with Blasters.

You know there is something called to move around while you fight to lower your transersal right?.

If you just sits there and just shoot, you deserve to die in a big ass fire to stupidity.

And if you double the Blaster tracking, then what is the point with the web nerf earlier?.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.05.13 16:54:00 - [329]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 13/05/2010 16:55:06
Originally by: Cpt Branko
I have never considered flying Gallente for that because they simply do not offer a tangible advantage in the zone where they're supposed to be superior.


This. Why fly a blaster boat if you can fly an AC or pulse boat? If there isn't an answer, it doesn't have a niche.

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Also, devil's advocate: sub-BS blasterboats would be 11ty billion times better with more mids for shieldtank fits, since shieldtank takes a lot of the blaster woes away, and naturally removal of stupid active rep bonuses which prevent you from fitting damage mods and decent guns if you take advantage of the bonus.

No, seriously; most medium sized blaster boats are better with shield buffer as things are (case in point Brutix).


The brutix is a fine example of either-or bonuses (almost like the classic split-weapon Minmatar ships). Potentially this would be different if active tanking was more on-par with buffer/passive tanks. Without work on active armor tanks, Gallente ships would be better off without the rep bonuses.

I am guilty of shield+speed+blasters on Gallente ships in most cases. It is simply a better fit for the role they are supposed to fill. However, the comparable Amarr/Minmatar ships do it better because you don't waste bonuses.

Xultanis
Posted - 2010.05.15 05:48:00 - [330]
 

I read a few posts so I apologize ahead of time if I'm repeating anything anyone has said. I've noticed people saying that if the damage is increased then Gallente would be too powerful upclose. However, we all do agree that something has to be done with the damage. I mean even with Void which only does the -25% range instead of the Antimatter(also faction) -60%, the maximum range even with falloff is between 12km and 16km.

I would much love for them to increase the damage output outright but then we run into everyone just switching to close gank gallente. If they lower everyones resists to meet the damage output then that doesn't only help gallente out it helps everyone which in turn gets us back to square one. I would suggest of a complete system overhall, which would take way too long and too many resources, but it would be nice to have a completely different combat system. Where you have points to put in whichever resists you want and whatnot but thats for another post of maybe even for EvE II. Who knows.

My suggestion to have Gallente ships naturally resisted to the speed reduction of webs and scrams. While increasing their tracking, agility, and normal speed values.

This would fix both problems and be pretty simple but I have a feeling everyone is going to say its overpowered. With the mobility amarr lasers and minmater guns would be at a disadvantage because of the movement causing their already low tracking to hurt them in the long run, which would in the end require more pilot capability to even out the transversal when attacking. The other condition would be the webs and scrams, it doesn't help if we can't get in range. If Gallente ships were resisted to webs and scrams speed reductions to a degree then it would help with the range problems. Gallente speed value can only be reduced to 80% of their total speed value. So if the top speed with an AB is 500 then speed doesn't drop below 400 regardless of the amounts of webs on the ship. Same thing with scrams'. Speed can not be lower then 80% of total speed value. If the tracking, speed values, and agility were to increase to meet these needs then I think the whole issue is solved.

I know this all sounds a little crazy, more then welcome to omit or change things, but I think it leads to a good direction. This all plays more into pilot capabilities while giving us the tools we need to make up for the horrible damage output. We stay out of low transversal lowering the damage output on us while keeping our damage output pretty much the same. This way everyone damage overall is the same only thing that changes is the mechanic.

Well thats it for now. I hope I made some sense. I post when I'm dead tired and I always pray it sounds the way I planned it too.


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (26)

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