open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked nerf winmatar to boost hybrids
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

fgft Athonille
Posted - 2011.06.28 07:15:00 - [1]
 

you know its time. the projectile boost needs to be rolled back. halve tracking enhancers/tracking computers effectiveness, have npc tracking disruptor reduce falloff too

five percent less damage on lasers and twenty five percent less range on scorch. bingo, balanced all turrets with hybrids

Shivus Tao
Minmatar
Broski Enterprises
Elite Space Guild
Posted - 2011.06.28 07:51:00 - [2]
 

You would think simply nerfing damage and scorch would balance it out but it wouldn't.

Blasters suck because they have no range and the hulls they're attached to cannot get into range to use them. Rails suck because of the grid and capacitor requirements, coupled with terrible damage even with antimatter. Even if scorch was nerfed to the point it was no longer viable, amarr pilots would just switch over to faction mid range crystals, or would just go balls to the wall cap warfare exploiting their superior tanks to weather the raw dps of blasters *if* they even could get in range, and simply cause whatever they were fighting to cap out, or run out of ammo. Similarly reverting the projectile buffs would return the game to amarr victor rather than the decent alpha vs hellcat dynamic we have, if even that.

It's a multifaceted issue that requires changes to the ships themselves in addition to tweaks to every single weapon.

Accepting that scorch is too good, lasers are pretty much where projectiles should be pulled back to, and where hybrids should be pushed to. Amarr can barely mount the top tier guns in their size, sometimes sacrificing tank (harbinger), other times requiring top skills and some implants (armageddon). Gallente and caldari simply cannot mount the largest weapons without sacrificing any tank they have for a pvp situation. Minmatar have no trouble mounting the largest guns with exception of a few ships. If it wasn't for the vargur, 650mm repeating artillery may as well not exist, and the only time I've ever used dual 425's was on a gimmick belt ratting typhoon fit.



Bossanova Widya
Posted - 2011.06.28 08:08:00 - [3]
 

just in: STOP ****ING WITH EVE :)

Patient 2428190
DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School
Posted - 2011.06.28 08:25:00 - [4]
 

I do love Scorch and fly a lot of Amarr ships, but the range is out of balance with the other turrets. I'd like the see Barrage and Null get boosted, but I could live with a scorch nerf

Songbird
Gallente
T.I.E. Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.28 10:54:00 - [5]
 

barrage is pretty even with scorch - yeah one works in falloff and the other in optimal but with 1-2 TE both can hit up to 50-60.

Also leave blasters as they are - boost the freaking rails. If hybrid users want range they should be able to fit rails and shoot at 50-60 km with similar damage as the scorch.

fgft Athonille
Posted - 2011.06.28 10:59:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Songbird
barrage is pretty even with scorch - yeah one works in falloff and the other in optimal but with 1-2 TE both can hit up to 50-60.



nope

barrage does about fourty percent less damage at scorchs optimal. not even by a billion years

Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2011.06.28 11:55:00 - [7]
 

Nah, the range of pulses does not need to be fixed. Longer range is the pulse lasers niche. The problem comes when it’s paired with good tracking (as per the tracking boost). Pulse lasers may not have the best tracking in the game, but its not sufficiently worse than the others compared to its longer range.

Auto cannons are meant to fire in fall off, yes this results in lower DPS compared to its book value, but the option (along side the high tracking) is there to come in close to increase DPS. The problem is that the extremely high fall off bonus of TEs (tracking computers really don’t seem that bad), mean that whilst auto cannons have to come in close to increase their DPS, they don’t have to come in anywhere near as close as they once did and that range breaks the magic ~10km barrier (where web and scrams come into effect) and so they’ve got all their benefits but have dodged their once drawback.

Both of the above might not have broken the balance of weapons in and of themselves if it had not been for the 10% resistance reduction in their primary damage type and so an effective DPS increase as well as the above. The result means that the DPS advantage of blasters has been pretty much completely eroded and its now the only weapon system that needs to get within the killer web scram range.

There is no point increasing blaster ranges, this would just homogenise weapons systems and as has been said, if you want range use rails. Rails need a damage boost of some sort, or at least they need something that will make them viable (they knock too easily on the door of the logical lock range cap, and operate in the 150km+ range which means probe and warp to issues with the new, faster, probe mechanic). Blasters simply need to do enough damage to make it worth the hassle of trying to get into range without having to use drones for that damage difference as they are more increasingly needed as a utility factor (eg. ecm drones to make sure you survive trying to get into range). For as long as the ship damage is only -/+ a few % then you may as well use another weapon system as there is no point struggling to get into range in a weaker tanked ship to do equivalent damage with effectively similar tracking and so die anyway because they’ve got quite a head start on you by being able to start shooting earlier. Even if you can get a warp in at zero, doing the roughly the same damage with 30% less tank, means you will lose anyway - even counting drone damage in this situation, you’d need to be doing 30% more damage in order to break even.

Straight Edged
Posted - 2011.06.28 12:08:00 - [8]
 

not if you are comparing scorch with t1 BS's.

scorch ****s AC's at any range

Songbird
Gallente
T.I.E. Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.28 13:03:00 - [9]
 

I guess scorch does more damage but that's because AC's are the lowest damage guns from all short ranged.

This is compensated by the ships that use them - it's not uncustomary to see a minmatar ship with 1-2 TE and 2-3 damage mods.

And also - think of the bonuses most amarr ships have - 10% cap usage ? AC's use no cap - their bonuses are either tank or damage.
And how about selectable damage types - don't tell me that counts for nothing.

OTOH an amarr ship has 5 slot tank and 2 slots for damage mods, if that.

As for the range 2 TE maelstrom has 7.8 + 59
2 te abaddon has 58 + 16.
But in all honesty - how often does one put TE's on an abaddon? Without these it's 45+10

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.06.28 13:37:00 - [10]
 

It's particularly interesting to compare Scorch and Aurora. Both are long range T2 crystals. But relative to Aurora, Scorch has:

  • +37.5% damage

  • +200% tracking

  • -16.67% range


Draw your own conclusions? Sad

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.28 13:41:00 - [11]
 

1/10, only because I didn't know if you were a troll in another thread and responded.

Only Angel ships have the tracking bonus, learn to troll.

fgft Athonille
Posted - 2011.06.28 14:04:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones
1/10, only because I didn't know if you were a troll in another thread and responded.

Only Angel ships have the tracking bonus, learn to troll.


when i want posts on how to be a bad ill ask for you personally

Sir Drake
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.28 14:09:00 - [13]
 

Most of the Hybrid problems come from the hulls and not from the weapons themselfs.
Getting into range is the main obstacle for blaster and the horrible dps of rails speaks for itself.
Ammo size changes and a slight adjustment of fitting requirements with a massiv rework on the gallente (non-drone) ships would be the way to bring gallente back in line from my pov.

If you want to nerf the minis just cut their dmg types down to kin/expl, that should be enough to do the trick.
For some extra nerf let all weapon systems (incl. missiles) have a cap use of at least 1 to make neuts on annoying on those too.

Viibl Triibl
Posted - 2011.06.28 15:49:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Viibl Triibl on 28/06/2011 15:50:00
If your solution to fix something is to nerf something else, you're not fixing anything.

I'm also going to go out a limb and say that you probably don't know a goddamn thing about game design or balance, so it might be best if you just stop posting on the subject altogether.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.28 15:55:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Viibl Triibl
Edited by: Viibl Triibl on 28/06/2011 15:50:00
If your solution to fix something is to nerf something else, you're not fixing anything.

I'm also going to go out a limb and say that you probably don't know a goddamn thing about game design or balance, so it might be best if you just stop posting on the subject altogether.

only dumb people think nerf is bad and buff is good
as balance is relative
you know even less about game design and balance than he
so stop posting

Moroccan Tourist
Posted - 2011.06.28 16:12:00 - [16]
 

make those projectiles use cap too and lets ROCK & ROLL ! YARRRR!!


Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2011.06.28 16:29:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Sable Schroedinger on 28/06/2011 16:30:43
Originally by: Viibl Triibl
Edited by: Viibl Triibl on 28/06/2011 15:50:00
If your solution to fix something is to nerf something else, you're not fixing anything.

I'm also going to go out a limb and say that you probably don't know a goddamn thing about game design or balance, so it might be best if you just stop posting on the subject altogether.


Since the main reason Hybrids have issues is because the other weapon systems were over buffed, then the OP has far more of a valid point than you do.

Gallente and Blasters used to be FOTM, and were for a good few years. The only change thats actually happened to them was when they had their optimal halved and their falloff doubled (cos someone said they should be fighting in falloff). This passed without incident mostly as it made very little difference other than to mean caldari blaster boats did not have huge optimals (which is probably the real reason for the nerf).

However, other game mechanics have changed and other weapon systems have received multiple buffs. The result is that blasters barely stand out for anything but their flaws now. Therefore, yes, rolling back one or two of those buffs is very sensible.

Cuko
Posted - 2011.06.28 19:29:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
Nah, the range of pulses does not need to be fixed. Longer range is the pulse lasers niche. The problem comes when it’s paired with good tracking (as per the tracking boost). Pulse lasers may not have the best tracking in the game, but its not sufficiently worse than the others compared to its longer range.

Auto cannons are meant to fire in fall off, yes this results in lower DPS compared to its book value, but the option (along side the high tracking) is there to come in close to increase DPS. The problem is that the extremely high fall off bonus of TEs (tracking computers really don’t seem that bad), mean that whilst auto cannons have to come in close to increase their DPS, they don’t have to come in anywhere near as close as they once did and that range breaks the magic ~10km barrier (where web and scrams come into effect) and so they’ve got all their benefits but have dodged their once drawback.

Both of the above might not have broken the balance of weapons in and of themselves if it had not been for the 10% resistance reduction in their primary damage type and so an effective DPS increase as well as the above. The result means that the DPS advantage of blasters has been pretty much completely eroded and its now the only weapon system that needs to get within the killer web scram range.

There is no point increasing blaster ranges, this would just homogenise weapons systems and as has been said, if you want range use rails. Rails need a damage boost of some sort, or at least they need something that will make them viable (they knock too easily on the door of the logical lock range cap, and operate in the 150km+ range which means probe and warp to issues with the new, faster, probe mechanic). Blasters simply need to do enough damage to make it worth the hassle of trying to get into range without having to use drones for that damage difference as they are more increasingly needed as a utility factor (eg. ecm drones to make sure you survive trying to get into range). For as long as the ship damage is only -/+ a few % then you may as well use another weapon system as there is no point struggling to get into range in a weaker tanked ship to do equivalent damage with effectively similar tracking and so die anyway because they’ve got quite a head start on you by being able to start shooting earlier. Even if you can get a warp in at zero, doing the roughly the same damage with 30% less tank, means you will lose anyway - even counting drone damage in this situation, you’d need to be doing 30% more damage in order to break even.




Even though i dont like Star fraction (you guys are terrible @ eve). I do have to agree with most of what you've stated.

Here's my question. Why not just increase blaster range? Clearly it's the concept of a close-range ONLY weapon system and close range-only pvp that is @ issue. The other weapon systems can engage @ multiple ranges effectively. Even if you took away the damage boost from projectiles, which i think should happen. The problem was there before, but not so much on the battleship level.

Seriously! If a increase in damage was the issue, then the Vigilant would be alot better than it is. I personaly prefer the Phantasm and Cynabal for serious pvp and not just for fun pvp (i want to win ships).

The stasis webifier bonus (without increased, stasis range, faction module) was never enough to make them worth flying. I'm refering to the Vindicater and Vigilant. The Daredevil is another matter. Damage is not even a reason to fly these ships. You're able to use a Navy Megathron, Navy Vexor, Deimos, Federation Navy Comet or Ishkur. All of which are cheaper and offer similar or better preformance.

Clearly increased damage is not enough to make these ships more viable fleet engagements.

The only blaster ships i currently use are those that have a very serious tank: Brutix, Megathron, Hyperion and Ishkur. These ships give me time to work and ha

Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2011.06.28 20:01:00 - [19]
 

I don't think a straight damage buff is the way to go. The current issue with blasters are many and varied, and a product of the last 2-3 years worth of game development.

I can try and dig the posts out, but I've detailed many of the issues before. They include the number of attempts over the years to boost the other weapon types. Each change in themselves have helped the other weapons, but the sum of them have gone too far (imo) and so one or two need to be rolled back in favour of the ones that really worked in the end.
Then we have the mechanic changes in webs and scrams. Not saying these need to go, but they have disproportionately effected blasters, add to that the addition of rigs, where those that would be used on blaster boats carry a penalty that is counter to style of combat for blaster ships.

So, "blaster damage sucks" is just not enough of the issue. Its much more than that, the landscape of the game has completely changed and effected blasters the most so a rethink is needed. However, making all weapon systems have the same effective range just destroys the variance and flavour that is eve combat.

p.s. little harsh on the SF stuff, but I'll forgive you ;)

Bllizzard
Posted - 2011.06.28 20:50:00 - [20]
 

Improving damp's would make blasters more useful, has they used to work it would be probable too op, but making damps chance based instead of 100% while boosting their effectiveness to what they used to be would give some protection while getting in range.

Tony SoXai
Posted - 2011.06.28 20:53:00 - [21]
 

1. Make hybrids have the best tracking. Not taking into account ship bonuses etc, just the base tracking of each turret = hybrid turrets win.

2. Change the ammo sizes, even though it's not that important it just makes 0 sense that the hybrid turret ammo takes up so much capacity compared to projectile ammo etc.

3. Take some ships which are meant to use blasters (Enyo, Deimos), and change around their slots/bonuses etc.

4. Take some ships which are meant to be using Rails (Moa, Eagle, Harpy), and LEAVE THEM THE WAY THEY ARE. They are fine, especially after some of the changes mentioned above.

Thoughts? Are these bad ideas? Have your own ideas?

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.06.28 23:22:00 - [22]
 

Why Grandmother OP, what big eyes a trollish looking name you have.

j1tabug IWINIWINIWIN
Posted - 2011.06.29 00:26:00 - [23]
 

Or you could boost hybrids instead of nerfing other things but i guess your too ****ing stupid for that moron.

Caldarian Commander
Posted - 2011.06.29 01:12:00 - [24]
 

Why not instead of nerfing guns that are awesome so they all suck, you buff the one that does suck and bring it up to the awesomeness of the others?

Moroccan Tourist
Posted - 2011.06.29 01:24:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Tony SoXai
1. Make hybrids have the best tracking. Not taking into account ship bonuses etc, just the base tracking of each turret = hybrid turrets win.

2. Change the ammo sizes, even though it's not that important it just makes 0 sense that the hybrid turret ammo takes up so much capacity compared to projectile ammo etc.

3. Take some ships which are meant to use blasters (Enyo, Deimos), and change around their slots/bonuses etc.

4. Take some ships which are meant to be using Rails (Moa, Eagle, Harpy), and LEAVE THEM THE WAY THEY ARE. They are fine, especially after some of the changes mentioned above.

Thoughts? Are these bad ideas? Have your own ideas?


i aprouve this ....

Headerman
Minmatar
Quovis
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.06.29 01:39:00 - [26]
 

I *think* DPS (for T1 ammo at least) is directly related to the total range of the turret/bay.

Look at the biggest turrets/bays of every type: 1400's, 425's, Tachs and Cruises.

Tachs have the shortest range with the highest damage ammo, and have the highest DPS
1400's are next, slightly longer range, slightly lower DPS
425's have lower DPS again, but have even better range.
Cruises have ridiculous range and the lowest DPS.

Can anyone else confirm? I was testing bare bone ship setups in EFT, not looking at the actual turret/launcher and ammo stats

Roosterton
Eternal Frontier
Posted - 2011.06.29 01:43:00 - [27]
 

Minmatar is fine, Amarr is fine, Caldari is fine, Gallente are underpowered, Angel is overpowered. Nerfing Angel ships (not the entire Minnie lineup) won't exactly fix Gallente ships, but it'd still be a good thing anyway, and a step in the right direction.

Sable Schroedinger
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2011.06.29 10:25:00 - [28]
 

The only change that's thrown Minmatar out (imo), is the change to tracking enhancers. They didn't always give a bonus to falloff, and whilst I have no problem with the addition in theory, the level (30%) is over the top, especially on top of the other boosts minmatar got. So, the answer is not to nerf minmatar exactly, but to nerf the falloff bonus on tracking enhancers, which would effect minmatar the most.

Cuko
Posted - 2011.06.29 12:43:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Cuko on 29/06/2011 14:58:31
Originally by: Sable Schroedinger
The only change that's thrown Minmatar out (imo), is the change to tracking enhancers. They didn't always give a bonus to falloff, and whilst I have no problem with the addition in theory, the level (30%) is over the top, especially on top of the other boosts minmatar got. So, the answer is not to nerf minmatar exactly, but to nerf the falloff bonus on tracking enhancers, which would effect minmatar the most.


I've stated many times in the past. The main boost to Minmatar were the changes to the tracking enhancer. But! The tracking enhancers, only realy increased the viabilty of 3 ships: Tempest, Hurricane, Rupture. Without the changes to the tracking enhancer I was'nt planing on flying the Hurricane anymore (Didn't have to much going for it). It was subpar to most other battlecruisers: Drake (solo and fleets), Brutix (solo-active tank), Myrmidon (solo-active tank) and Harbinger (fleet). I'm very apposed to changing tracking enhancers back to the way they were. The Drake and Hurricane, fill the role of a nano-battlecruiser the best (fast n hard hitting).

While regressing tracking enhancers wont realy hurt the Rupture. It would effect the Hurricane negatively and would likely be the worst battlecruiser ingame. I'm not to sure about how reverting tracking enhancers would effect the Tempest (luv the Tempest before and after the changes).

In anycase, you could regress all changes to autocannons and Minmatar would still be win (was before the changes). As long as tracking enhancers remained untouched. Minmatar will be more viable in fleet engagements. BUT! If CCP reverted the tracking enhancer. Minmatar would lose it's current usefulness in fleet engagements. Back to the level's they were before the boost/changes and would make Minmatar and Gallente primarily; the 2 close-range pvp factions again.


-proxyyyy

David Clausewitz
Amarr
Posted - 2011.06.29 13:37:00 - [30]
 

autocannons and missiles will need a pretty big nerf before you consider nerfing lasers


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

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