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

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.03.05 04:38:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 05/03/2011 04:40:38
Given that ammo switching takes 10 seconds, having all those different range brackets doesnt really make sense if its not lasers.

Not sure if the OP idea is the definite answer, but personally I was thinking as well that the hybrid ammo should be split into 3 range brackets just like they did for projectiles.

Maybe some slight specializaton in terms of damage profile as well, say a standard high-damage round with the current split, a kin-heavy type geared towards armor and improved tracking for less damage, and a therm-heavy type geared towards shield with the same tracking for damage deal as far as short range bracket goes.

Support, definitely needs some exploring in that direction.

Mike deVoid
Firebird Squadron
Terra-Incognita
Posted - 2011.03.28 00:06:00 - [32]
 


Jade Greenfire
Posted - 2011.03.28 03:46:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
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?



Question, How would this effect Hybrid POS Batteries ?

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.03.28 13:02:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 28/03/2011 13:02:25
Originally by: Jade Greenfire
Question, How would this effect Hybrid POS Batteries ?


Wy do you even use those? -for some extra power get laser ones, no ammo needed and they hit/dps fine.

Allison A'vani
Posted - 2011.06.01 16:15:00 - [35]
 

I support this fully!

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.06.01 16:22:00 - [36]
 

I think a better idea is to have hybrids 'web' what they hit.

Maybe 5% for each turret. Or even increase the speed of the ship they are on by 5% per turret.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.06.01 16:37:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 01/06/2011 18:37:17
Originally by: The Djego
Originally by: Malcanis
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.

I really like Malcanis' proposal. I think, along with the ammo change, blasters would also need a mild range increase. That way the tracking would not need to be boosted to the point where frigates are under constant threat anywhere near the blaster boat.

Originally by: Jade Greenfire
Question, How would this effect Hybrid POS Batteries ?

It would make them relatively useful.

Lidia Prince
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.01 18:23:00 - [38]
 

I like. Pretty interesting idea, which might make hybrids both useful and unique.

Maya Rkell
Third Grade Ergonomics

Posted - 2011.06.01 19:46:00 - [39]
 

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me, and I've never been keen on lasers and hybrids following the same kind of range schema.

gallente sux
Posted - 2011.06.01 22:53:00 - [40]
 

anything is better than this.

CCP hate gallente

Obvious Forum Troll
Posted - 2011.06.02 06:45:00 - [41]
 

I like it. A few more things to be worked out, 7km+13 on blasters still seems long, for example.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles

Posted - 2011.06.02 19:39:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
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.


Blasters already have massive ammo clips, so maybe just increase the capacity of railguns somewhat?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.02 20:13:00 - [43]
 

Just skimmed through the topic, but what about t2 ammo? If you want range with blasters you use null, which is always more range than what you propose here.

Talking about null anyway, fixing that will go along way towards fixing blasters. (effectively 25% range boosts while amarr/minnie get almost 50% range boosts)

Sekar casal
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.06.03 07:00:00 - [44]
 

supported

Kaelie Onren
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.03 13:56:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Kayl Breinhar
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.


Finally, someone on the thread who is asking the 'right' questions. Even though on the surface the proposal sounds both interesting and plausible to me, the real question to ask is why people think there is a problem here. Gallente are supposed to be drone heavy. Caldari missles, Amarr lasers, Min projectiles. Unless you think that current overall game balance in ships for the entire *race* is skewed, then there is no point 'balancing' just the gun types.

Overall, the most important play balance is this:

If hybrids get a ++ (without associated -- somewhere)

then
Gallente++
Caldari++
which makes it unfair unless you also buff out Amarr and Minmatar somehow. For simplicity sake lets say that means buffing out lasers and projectiles.

It makes no sense to "equalize out" just the guns, which are only 1/2 of a racial weapon mix.

As for the megathron, oh well, there are plenty of odd ship hulls in every race which just aren't too popular due to their specialization. It's a futile exercise to try to make *every* ship equal to it's racial opponents, and to do so would be to take away the characteristics which make each race unique and the tactics they employ different.


Rer Eirikr
Gallente
Clearly Compensating
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.03 14:31:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Rer Eirikr on 03/06/2011 14:32:06
Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Even though on the surface the proposal sounds both interesting and plausible to me, the real question to ask is why people think there is a problem here. Gallente are supposed to be drone heavy.


The problem is that rails and blasters flat out suck in comparison to other races' weapons, and drones are currently not an adequate increase in DPS to compensate for this, let alone that most other hulls can use drones nearly just as effectively.

I doubt we'd see so many threads about fix Gallente if the problem was just in our heads. YARRRR!!

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.06.03 16:36:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Finally, someone on the thread who is asking the 'right' questions. Even though on the surface the proposal sounds both interesting and plausible to me, the real question to ask is why people think there is a problem here. Gallente are supposed to be drone heavy. Caldari missles, Amarr lasers, Min projectiles. Unless you think that current overall game balance in ships for the entire *race* is skewed, then there is no point 'balancing' just the gun types.

If they are supposed to be drone-heavy, then why do the majority of the Gallente ships have hybrid bonuses and only a few actually have drone bonuses? The fall back is drones, simply because of the Gallente ships, the drone boats are the only ones that have a functional niche. Saying Gallente have drones so hybrids don't need work is ignoring 70% of the Gallente ships and 20% of the Caldari ships that are hybrid bonus heavy.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.03 17:43:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Kaelie Onren
Originally by: Kayl Breinhar
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.


Finally, someone on the thread who is asking the 'right' questions. Even though on the surface the proposal sounds both interesting and plausible to me, the real question to ask is why people think there is a problem here. Gallente are supposed to be drone heavy. Caldari missles, Amarr lasers, Min projectiles. Unless you think that current overall game balance in ships for the entire *race* is skewed, then there is no point 'balancing' just the gun types.

Overall, the most important play balance is this:

If hybrids get a ++ (without associated -- somewhere)

then
Gallente++
Caldari++
which makes it unfair unless you also buff out Amarr and Minmatar somehow. For simplicity sake lets say that means buffing out lasers and projectiles.

It makes no sense to "equalize out" just the guns, which are only 1/2 of a racial weapon mix.

As for the megathron, oh well, there are plenty of odd ship hulls in every race which just aren't too popular due to their specialization. It's a futile exercise to try to make *every* ship equal to it's racial opponents, and to do so would be to take away the characteristics which make each race unique and the tactics they employ different.



dont be so dumb matar +amarr already op compared to hybrid ships
and only half of gall is drone oriented and only half of caldari is missile so you are a total fail pls uninstall
btw if matar is projectile then take away their speed agility and scan res


The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.05 08:17:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 05/06/2011 08:32:42
Originally by: Bagehi
I really like Malcanis' proposal. I think, along with the ammo change, blasters would also need a mild range increase. That way the tracking would not need to be boosted to the point where frigates are under constant threat anywhere near the blaster boat.


Then you will end up with just another AC copy. I for myself would like a blastership that is actually suitable for real point blank pvp again. This includes that it liberates tacklers at point blank just as good as my puls and ac ships does this at 20km today.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.06.05 08:30:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Obvious Forum Troll
I like it. A few more things to be worked out, 7km+13 on blasters still seems long, for example.


Dont forget that's on a ship with a 50% range bonus.

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.06.05 11:16:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Obvious Forum Troll
I like it. A few more things to be worked out, 7km+13 on blasters still seems long, for example.


Dont forget that's on a ship with a 50% range bonus.


Add that your dps at the end fall off is tremendously ridiculous.

Add that someone looking at your ship will think "Wallente=blasters", he will kite you with his 425mm auto-canons at 20km ad burn "ya" face while you're looking at it without being able to do ANYTHING.

Unless your in gangs your probability of survive to fights is higher against noob ships than everything else.
Training Minie stuff and Auto-canons has finally completely changed my game experience to something positive.

Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens
Posted - 2011.06.05 11:40:00 - [52]
 

A hybrid improvement is definitely needed, and making Rails most useful at long ranges, not only keeps them unique, but it makes them useful.
As for Blasters, they need a tracking increase which is mentioned by OP as being used with short range ammo, but there's something else they need which can't be done by fixing the guns: Blaster ships need more ability to close with their targets in the form of rebalanced webifiers, web bonuses, and/or MWD bonuses.

I also like what someone else posted in this thread about reducing the number of range brackets, having so many of them becomes overly redundant since you don't have the space to carry that many ammo types, nor the time to swap them out. Instead of a range continuum, break the ammo into range brackets like projectile ammo. Longer range would do more average damage and shorter range would have better tracking on average, but there would also be a variance in each range bracket: in each range bracket, perhaps there could be a light sabot that has good tracking, but doesn't do the most damage for the range bracket, theres one in the middle, and theres a heavy slug that has low tracking for that range bracket, but does the most damage in the bracket, possibly out-damaging the tracking ammo in the next range bracket.

Example:

Antimatter -Short range, uses less capacitor, Highest tracking, Low damage
Plutonium -Short Range, uses less capacitor, High Tracking, Low damage
Uranium -Short range, Uses less capacitor, High tracking, medium damage.
Thorium -Medium Range, No Cap change, Medium Tracking, Medium Damage
Lead -Medium Range, no cap change, Medium Tracking, High Damage
Iridium -Long range, more cap usage, medium tracking, Medium damage
Tungsten -Long range, more cap usage, Low tracking, High damage
Iron -Long Range, more cap usage, Low Tracking, Highest damage

Jacob Stov
Posted - 2011.06.07 15:17:00 - [53]
 

Well, I'm thinking about this since December, but couldn't get my ass up to run some numbers and present them in a well structured post. So I think I should at least support the idea. Wink

However, I think that hybrids need a bit more to become effective. At the moment we have a way to high granularity in ammo choices. My idea would be to split hybrid ammo in two types. Variation 1: 70:30 therm/kin damage, 10 % bonus to blaster damage. Variation 2: 70:30 kin/therm damage, 10% bonus to rail damage. That is 4 variations for both ammo types and completely sufficient in my opinion.

Adding to that, I would like to see way larger cargobays on Gallente ships to hold more cap booster charges, and reduce cap recharge time on Caldari ships while keeping their cap capacity low. Rokh shouldn't cap out by shooting it's guns.

Additonally, I think Gallente need some sort of agility buff, to get them faster at speed, and maybe add some web strength riggs to present an alternative to armor riggs.

Scroobius Pip
Posted - 2011.07.19 20:55:00 - [54]
 

Bump, and stop whining about monocles

Trelayne
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.07.19 20:56:00 - [55]
 

Great post Malc - give us some hybrid love plox!!!

Reppyk
The Black Shell
Posted - 2011.07.20 01:41:00 - [56]
 

I like the idea from the first post (erf, daredevils will become the "new dramiel"). But a few points are forgotten.

Railguns definitively need a dps bonus, at least for the pve side. Lvl3 in brutixes/feroxes, lvl4 in mega/rokh/hyperion ? Just a pain in the ass (the Kronos and the vindicator are still usable).

One of the main problems in hybrid balancing is the mix blaster+railgun range :
Blasters want a falloff bonus (only a few of the gallente hulls have one)
Railguns have a big optimal, which can't be really improved (tracking computer/enhancer). It's not that important, because nobody really cares about having a 255km optimal anymore -hi, useless caldari gunboat bonus-.
The range bonus/malus for Hybrid ammos is for the optimal only, with the exception of void (which makes this ammo good for caldari gunboat, ah).
Good luck balancing this hell. Evil or Very Mad

The javelin ammo (not the rockets !) is a disaster. Crappy dps, no alpha, huge cap cons, and wtf is this range ? Caldari Antim is far "superior" (well it's still railguns).

Medium railguns have indeed a real problem with reloading. And hybrid charges aren't that small in the cargo...

And why the rokh has a lot more cap problems than amarr bs ?

Manique
Caldari
Ominous Corp

Posted - 2011.07.20 08:31:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Manique on 20/07/2011 08:31:23
/signed

As caldari I had to cross train because when alliance asked me to use guns I was useless most of times

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.08.25 13:04:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
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.


Blasters already have massive ammo clips, so maybe just increase the capacity of railguns somewhat?


The reason for wanting a reduced reload time is to be able to switch ammo types more easily. "Instant" ammo change is a major advantage for laser turrets.

Artamis Kane
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.25 19:10:00 - [59]
 

I'm not convinced that blasters are 'broken' per-se. The Thorax, Demos and Brutix come immediately to mind. Also, the Myrm and Ishtar seem to get along fine without out them =P Even the Domi doesn't seem to mind. Certainly Railguns need work. They are damn useless.

The issue with rails is what role should they fill? Lasers do good sustained damage over range, artillery does massive alpha. What is left for rails to do? If they out-alpha artillery they are going to be overpowered, and if they have better tracking they will be straying away from the 'railgun' philosophy of lugging a heavy metal cylinder into someone as hard as physics allows. I suppose an argument could be made that railguns could accelerate the projectile to warp-speeds, thereby traveling faster than light and track better than lasers, being that they could hit the target faster than even a laser... give them a massive tracking buff to represent super-high speeds and decrease their damage to compensate. Not sure if that is USEFUL, but it could be argued for.

But blasters... well, blasters do MASSIVE dps (if they can hit anything) so the question is, what needs to change. Again, certain balsterboats are quite effective, face-melting pawnzasaurs. Their strength is their ability to destroy larger ships due to their damage being nearly a class above their hulls. The weakness is against smaller, faster ships, but that seems fair to me. A Thorax can kill a BC much easier than any other cruiser. Maybe make gallente hulls a bit more resilient to make them even more effective at 'up-class' combat, but the blasters seem to work just fine.

Sydney Nelson
Posted - 2011.08.31 17:55:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Sydney Nelson on 31/08/2011 18:14:19
Sounds like a pretty good fix.

Maybe for T2 ammo, you would be able to select damage type?

On a "Real-life Physics" sidenote, this fix actually makes more sense to me.

A heavier (more dense) projectile would take slightly longer to accelerate to full firing velocity.
Therefore, it would take just a fraction of a second longer to reach its target, which would cause it to miss more-often (less tracking).
Because this projectile is heavier, it would have higher energy and hit with more force (more damage).

Vice-versa all of that for a lighter projectile.


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