open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Radical Hybrid fix
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.24 22:03:00 - [1]
 

As we're all constantly hearing, Hybrids just aren't very good right now. Blasters suffer from lack of range as well as inadequate tracking within that range. Rails suffer from heavy cap use, mediocre DPS, weak alpha, and poor tracking - all of which is supposed to be compensated by extreme range - currently useless in today's fast-probing combat environment. Either lasers or projectiles are more effective in just about any high probability combat environment.

Time for a fix.

In order for a fix to be implemented, it needs above all to be easy for CCP to implement. The fewer things it changes, the more likely to be implemented.

We also need to avoid making hybrids a pale copy of either of the other two kinds of turrets. We don't want "lasers with ammo", or "cap-using autcannons". Ideally, hybrids should be as distinctive from lasers and projectiles as they are from each other, not a pointless halfway house.

With all that in mind, here is my proposal.

Currently, hybrid ammo, like the other types is ranged on a damage vs range continuum. Lower range = higher damage, and vice versa. My proposal is that we change that to a tracking vs damage continuum. All T1 hybrid ammo would have a 0% range modifier, with the lower damage ammo having a higher tracking bonus, and vice versa.

Rails:

This will have a dramatic effect on railguns. They'll be doing their best damage to the most distant targets, but they'll lose effectiveness as targets close in. It'll be a little harder to get completely "under the guns" of a railboat because they can switch to high tracking ammo, but they'll sacrifice a lot of DPS to do so. What we'll see is almost a reverse of fall-off. They wont obsolete arty, because arty will retain the advantage of high alpha. They wont obsolete beams because beams wont lose tracking/DPS as they close in. This change will restore rails as the kings of extreme range turret combat, but it will redefine that range to be within the paramaters of fights that actually occur these days.

Blasters:
This change will solve (or at least mitigate) the two biggest problems that blasters currently have: range and tracking. By switching to a lower damage ammo, the baster user will be more able to hit similar - or even smaller - size targets. With no range penalties, BS sized blasters at least will start to have a somewhat useful range. A Rokh with no range mods will have a 7+13Km range; this will put it within 50% falloff on jumping in from a gate even using Antimatter. With tracking enhancers, we'll see blaster BS actually be able to usefully engage outside web range.
On a personal side note, the poor old Megathron, with it's whopping tracking bonus, will once again become awesome with these changes.

Tracking mods - Tracking enhancers, tracking computers and target painters - will become as useful to hybrids boats as they currently are to projectile platforms.

It is also worth noting that if it becomes difficult to balance rails with blasters (egL the one becomes overpowered with ammo bonuses that are appropriate to the other) we could also add a falloff modifier to the ammo as well as the tracking modifier. Ideally I would prefer not to do this, as projectiles are supposed to be the falloff weapon. But the option is there.

I have deliberately avoided putting any specific numbers in to my proposal, because really that kind of detail is for the balance teams to work out. But I think the core of my proposal could be at least a good starting point to reviving the poor, neglected hybrid turrets. (For instance blaster boats could still need some tweaking with respect to agility or mass to be effective.)

Comments and suggestions?

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2011.02.24 22:28:00 - [2]
 

This is a fairly radical proposal, interesting nevertheless. Definately an option. However, i would like a reduced reload timer in order to make use of this ammo.

Kepakh
Posted - 2011.02.24 22:33:00 - [3]
 

Having damage without tracking... What's the point? In both cases you lose damage.


I have way more evil idea:

Make Hybrids capless and projectiles using cap

This will fix issue with cap burned for catching your target and help Gallente being active tankers as they are supposed to be. Also it will nerf Minmatar boats that have utility slots combined capless guns which is plain dumb.

Gallente boats are already using Autocannons anyway...



The rest of the Blaster fix is the ship speed re-balancing mostly and removing selectable damage type on projectiles.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.24 22:34:00 - [4]
 

Doh I forgot to put that part in!

Addendum: the reload time of hybrids would need to be changed to be approx 50% of that of projectiles.

Addendum: the T2 hybrid ammo will probably need to be reworked from scratch, and I haven't got a satisfactory answer as to exactly what it would look like. I would particularly welcome suggestions for that.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.02.24 23:12:00 - [5]
 

Even if Lead ammo gave 25% tracking boost, it would still not make me want to use blasters

It would also not make me want to use Lead over Antimatter for blasters
The tracking boost on Lead would have to be 100% in order for me to consider it worthwhile.

I'm speaking from perspective of PvP pilot who can choose any ship and weapon type and wanting most effective short range combat ship.

freshspree
Caldari
Dissonance Corp
Posted - 2011.02.25 07:00:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Kepakh
Having damage without tracking... What's the point? In both cases you lose damage.


I have way more evil idea:

Make Hybrids capless and projectiles using cap

This will fix issue with cap burned for catching your target and help Gallente being active tankers as they are supposed to be. Also it will nerf Minmatar boats that have utility slots combined capless guns which is plain dumb.

Gallente boats are already using Autocannons anyway...



The rest of the Blaster fix is the ship speed re-balancing mostly and removing selectable damage type on projectiles.

Viable solution if minnie ships get more cap and gallente get less.

Kayl Breinhar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.25 07:04:00 - [7]
 

Despite their adherence to "hybrids are meant to be different," really the only thing that needs to be done here is hybrids made just as effective as autocannon/artillery are now, but given boosts to either damage or range simply because they use cap and the projectile turrets don't.

This of course would entail buffing Gallente, though - something CCP seems completely unwilling to do - which even though it would also buff Caldari, no one cares about Caldari turret hulls anymore.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.25 07:10:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Even if Lead ammo gave 25% tracking boost, it would still not make me want to use blasters

It would also not make me want to use Lead over Antimatter for blasters
The tracking boost on Lead would have to be 100% in order for me to consider it worthwhile.

I'm speaking from perspective of PvP pilot who can choose any ship and weapon type and wanting most effective short range combat ship.


I specifically didn't put any numbers into my proposal for just this reason. If you think that lead would need a +100% tracking bonus to make this work, then that's cool. Let's run the numbers and see if that makes sense.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.02.25 10:44:00 - [9]
 

Interesting, but you should consider the cap use part too. The different hybrid ammunitions has a different cap use, your change should require a cap use rebalance, too.


TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2011.02.25 12:16:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: TimMc on 25/02/2011 12:16:35
meh I'm not keen on your idea.

Here is one I posted a while ago:

Originally by: TimMc
Originally by: TimMc
Blasters problem is previously we had 90% webs and signature radius huge from the MWD running on a target. In my opinion, blasters need a tracking buff, tiny damage buff and their ammos to be rethought. Not different damage types like minmatar, but different ranges, tracking, falloff and a quicker ammo change timer (5 seconds?).


Building on my idea with raw numbers here, lets say a 25% tracking buff and 10% damage buff. This pushes the tracking above autocannons (silly considering autocannons are used in falloff) and damage to point where its not on equal terms with an amarr boat (who will be shooting long before you get in range).

Ammo charges could be (Taking Large ammo stats):

Short Range Tier - Difference is tracking for damage.
Antimatter - 28 Kin 28 Therm. -30% Optimal & Falloff. -25% Tracking.
Plutonium - 28 Kin 24 Therm. -30% Optimal & Falloff.
Uranium - 28 Kin 20 Therm. -30% Optimal & Falloff. +25% Tracking.

Medium Range Tier - Less cap usage. Difference is tracking for damage.
Thorium - 20 Kin 16 Therm. 0% Optimal & Falloff. -25% Tracking. -50% Cap usage
Lead - 20 Kin 13 Therm. 0% Optimal & Falloff. 0% Tracking. -50% Cap usage
Iridium - 20 Kin 10 Therm. 0% Optimal & Falloff. +25% Tracking. -50% Cap usage

Long Range Tier - Ability to choose mostly therm or mostly kinetic
Tungsten - 18 Kin 6 Therm. +60% Optimal & Falloff.
Iron - 6 Kin 18 Therm. +60% Optimal & Falloff.


Tech 2 Blaster Ammo
Null - 20 Kin 20 Therm. 0% Optimal & Falloff. 0% Tracking. -100% Cap usage for capless hybrids.
Void - 39 Kin 39 Therm. -50% Optimal & Falloff. -33% Tracking. 25% Cap usage

Tech 2 Railgun Ammo
Spike - 24 Kin 24 Therm. 75% Optimal & Falloff. -75% Tracking.
Javelin - 28 Kin 32 Therm. -75% Optimal & Falloff. -33% Tracking. 25% Cap usage


PS I'm talking out of my ass and didn't check these numbers.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.25 13:15:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Interesting, but you should consider the cap use part too. The different hybrid ammunitions has a different cap use, your change should require a cap use rebalance, too.




Why would we need to change the cap characteristics?

Jame Jarl Retief
Posted - 2011.02.25 13:44:00 - [12]
 

I will support *anything* that results in hybrids being looked at, because frankly they can't be made any worse at this point.

The more I use them, the more obvious it becomes that they are completely broken right now compared to other weapon systems. Currently flying a Myrmidon with autocannons - easier to fit, higher damage from further away, selectable damage, better tracking, no cap use. There's absolutely zero downside.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.25 14:07:00 - [13]
 

Well I like the idea for rails, for blasters however you would need insane tracking boosts to archive something useful.

Tony SoXai
Posted - 2011.02.25 14:10:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Tony SoXai on 25/02/2011 14:09:48
Although I love Gallente and Blasters, it is inevitable that they will give one of them a buff.

That said, this is the most well-thought out and best idea proposed by someone who isn't me. Supported.

Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.02.25 16:26:00 - [15]
 

This is a really quite interesting idea.
I support that this be considered in the options for buffing hybrids.

Kinda off topic:
Gallente ships have trouble getting into range with other ships - why not give them (instead of giving them enough cap or reducing the MWD cap) the ability for a short burst of speed, to pounce on a target once, or maybe to burn out of a fight - but not to sustain high speeds.

This would probably be best represented by giving a bonus to MWD speed, whilst keeping cap as is (not enough to run MWD + guns for long), or a bonus to MWD overheat speed bonus.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.02.25 16:39:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: The Djego
Well I like the idea for rails, for blasters however you would need insane tracking boosts to archive something useful.


Would Ephemeron's suggestion of +100% for Iron be sufficient?

Kepakh
Posted - 2011.02.25 16:43:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: freshspree

Viable solution if minnie ships get more cap and gallente get less.


Gallente less cap? Why? o.O
No, it would remain intact.

Minnies would get boost depending on cap use of new projectiles.

Swearte Widfarend
Gallente
Aurora Security
Posted - 2011.02.25 18:14:00 - [18]
 

I loved this when read originally. Not only is it a viable alternative, it maintains the "different but useful" concept that so many beg for. Should be considered as a viable solution that actually works for TWO racial sets (not just one).

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:00:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 25/02/2011 19:07:38
Your general idea is interesting has option and I like the honesty about avoiding numbers, endeed this is CCP's job.

However, one point: the reduction of reloading time.

The nonsens is right in this -350RG II gets 4M3 of capacity and the largest one 425RG II gets 2M3, same nonsens with blasters
Now I understand the need of reduction reload to swap ammo for the blasters but instead of this I would rather like to see a third dmg type be included: Em for distant ammo and Explo for short amo giving them the "right in tha face" blasters should be and they are not

Would this change the tears about "I want to swap fast my ammo"? no
Reload for missiles is 10sec and if I remember well (not conected right now) minies stuff too, the only ones swaping instantly are the amarrians.
Honestly I don't think this reload time should be shorter but hybrids should shoot mutch faster and so have more capacity than they have.

EDIT: +capacity with tracking+rof+dmg tweek (either dmg types or dmg values) should not make them OP but make any pilot fool enough to get in to te FALLOFF/OP range of blasters think twice, avoiding the actual easy situation for a vaga double rep AB on to keep blaster BS's at 20km smiling all teeth out "gotcha"

Just an opinion

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:22:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 25/02/2011 21:50:02
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: The Djego
Well I like the idea for rails, for blasters however you would need insane tracking boosts to archive something useful.


Would Ephemeron's suggestion of +100% for Iron be sufficient?


Excellent question, actually not this easy to answer.

Iron deals around 41,67% of antimatter damage, keep this in mind when you read this. I did run some graphs in EFT(Iron Mega, 1 web, 3x Cormacks TCs with scripts = 101% better tracking) against a Mega with just a web but antimatter since I was mostly monitoring the range of 0-5km, the range difference isn't this important. T1 ammo, normal pvp fits(plategank mega, plategank ruppi).

Against a rupture(plate gank, scram+web no AB, 45% degree movement -> orbit) your break even point is around 2km, after this antimatter out damages it, however the it prevents the rupture for shaking off next to 100% of the incoming DPS till 200m, while this point is around 800m for the antimatter mega. At 1km the antimatter mega deals around 36DPS while the Iron Mega can do 157 DPS. Break even point is mostly 2km where antimatter surpasses the Iron + 100% tracking by raw dps.

If we put Antimatter in the Iron mega the numbers look a lot better, it pulls off a 378 DPS at 1km against the rupture, what is 10 times more than the mega does today. Peak would at 5400m with 797 dps for the +100% tracking mega with antimatter and 718 for the normal mega at 6900m.

Btw, the +100% fit with antimatter scales up really well against a AB rifer beyond 5km till it reaches nearly 380 DPS against it a 10km(standard mega deals like no damage at all against it till 9.5km.

As you can see it is not so easy, even more so if you consider that you are not in the position to dedicate the range in a blaster ship, as you where before QR within web range. The numbers look good as you only look at them in theory but with the lack of range control you will end up with the worst case more often then not, where even a massive 100% tracking boost doesn't change this much.

For situations where you really need it, it would probably still not sufficient(combined with the problem that it does far less damage by itself), if you look at large blasters and solo/small gang pvp where it creates the most issues this days.

On the other hand it would slaughter stuff at bigger ranges than point blank really quick(mega/rokh for instance) and would create in gangs a rather huge sphere where smaller ships can hardly enter without getting slaughtered even without hard tackle(scrams/webs). It basically boils down to the problem that tracking scales rather bad with range and something that tends to be balanced at close range can be quite a bit out of balance at other ranges.

That's basically one of the few reasons why I would prefer the stronger web over far more tracking. It scales better, gives you a far better range control and by this it reduces most of the problems that you face today to manageable levels for a experienced pilot while it doesn't change much for bigger gangs.

For reference, medium turrets track by default around 400% better. Also before QR a blaster pilot that did know what he did could force the target into a situation where he did track 2000% better(by playing a bit with range, forcing the target to turn his MWD on) than now if the 400% improvement over now(web) wasn't sufficient to get the job done quick.

Desya Dak'ann
Caldari
No Ducks Allowed

Posted - 2011.02.26 19:16:00 - [21]
 

Wildly Inappropriate. approves of this thread

Sovereign533
Caldari
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2011.02.27 03:43:00 - [22]
 

giev back Eagle and Rokh plx!

Ambaseter Doggy
Posted - 2011.02.27 19:58:00 - [23]
 

BUMP

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.28 00:18:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Opertone on 28/02/2011 00:19:08
very good proposal, yeah hybrids need to deal MORE damage, boost damage at long range at the expense of poor long range performance.

i.e. Quake 3 arena - rail gun does 100 damage, enough to kill someone in one shot. Yet it rearms slow and is very difficult to control at short range, especially when somebody is jumping around you.

RAILs are high velocity slugs that are propelled at the target.

Wacktopia
Sicarius.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2011.02.28 14:56:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Wacktopia on 28/02/2011 14:56:44
I support this. Ranged ammo for blasters is so pointless, considering they're a close-range weapon.

Void is now proof of concept for low tracking = more damage. So you can only use it if your target is fully tackled and you're not zipping about.

The range variant for rails I actually do use in missions. However, the ammo is the same between both guns so perhaps some further thinking there?

Hybrids / Gallente need something.

Edit: checked support

Twotoad
Posted - 2011.02.28 16:40:00 - [26]
 

fix these and i'll resubscribe.

Darth Felin
Posted - 2011.03.04 10:30:00 - [27]
 

Very interesting idea.

james1122
Posted - 2011.03.04 13:36:00 - [28]
 

I like the concept.

High dps = V.Poor tracking
Low dps = V.Good tracking

Obviously it all hinges on the numbers that are used but in theory it could work really well.



Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.03.04 14:53:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Wacktopia
Edited by: Wacktopia on 28/02/2011 14:56:44
I support this. Ranged ammo for blasters is so pointless, considering they're a close-range weapon.

Void is now proof of concept for low tracking = more damage. So you can only use it if your target is fully tackled and you're not zipping about.

The range variant for rails I actually do use in missions. However, the ammo is the same between both guns so perhaps some further thinking there?

Hybrids / Gallente need something.

Edit: checked support


You mission railboat will get a significant boost with my proposal. With Antimatter having the same optimal as Lead, you may not need to use T2 ammo all that much just to shoot rats.

Seamus Donohue
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.05 03:08:00 - [30]
 

Supported.


Pages: [1] 2 3

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