open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Projectile Weapons - Balancing
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 ... : last (90)

Author Topic

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:03:00 - [1561]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 29/10/2009 19:03:39
Originally by: To mare
Originally by: Uncle Smokey
this ac damage boost (excluding dmgtype change and falloff) ppls talking about the rebalanced ammo or wha? And how much is that? :O

there is no damage boost beside the ammo that got finally brought in line with the others only a range boost and people trolling


There was this ammo which 95% of the forum trolling population considered useless. It was called "Hail". It provided many Minmatar ships with the option of doing blaster-like DPS vs T1 armour at sub-blaster ranges with 50% tracking nerf, so it was considered impossible to use and not worth it.

Now everyone gets to use it, with extra falloff on top, provided you don't fit lowest tier guns.

If you used it properly, then you know Minmatar does not lack pure DPS up close.

If you did not use it, then it is definitely a very large DPS boost for you, particularly if you shoot T1 armour (or some T2 gallente ships) often.

In short.

But, whatever. I give up.

I fly Minmatar so I get to ride the FOTM-mobile and cross-train something else for when Minmatar get nerfed. It's just stupid.


AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:10:00 - [1562]
 

I've seen a lot of conjecture in this thread over falloff numbers and I say: what for? A vargur (falloff bonused pve ship) using excessive amounts of range mods (derp) with barrage can hit 102km of falloff. So what? A vanilla ole apoc can hit further with full damage. A wolf with tracking mods and a falloff bonus can hit 22km of falloff, and this is absurd? A pulseader can hit 17km or so with full damage and having 22km of falloff is somehow imbalanced?

I think it's important to realize no matter how high these numbers get, they're on a curve. You're not doing 200 dps at 20km in a wolf. You're not doing 800 dps at 100km in a vargur.

Amarr ships will still have more ehp and more dps at range, exactly like it should be. Minmatar should be the solo ship of choice. Minmatar will continue to lack in areas such as ehp, locking range and sensor strength.

I think the changes put autos right where they need to be (hell, they're practically MY changes). The tempest and muninn still fail, though.

And re: phoon/maelstrom: these ships thrive not because of autos, but because of torps and a massive tank respectively. The maelstrom is actually lacking IMO. Sure it's great in lowsec, but outside it's mobility and range are severly lacking, and it has somewhat of the faildrake syndrome. Tanks don't help you kill your enemy, damage does.

Succubine
Caldari
Succubine Dynasty Technologies
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:19:00 - [1563]
 

Before people get on the nerf train against the proposed modifications, can we get some graphs of autocannons/artillery fitted to Minmatar BS vs Pulse/Beams fitted to Amarr BS using faction ammo on both.

Also, some comparisons of damage types - fusion vs armor tanks and multifrequency vs shield tanks. And the new EMP vs shield tanks.

The whining without actual facts is absurd. Falloff range does not equal optimal range in any way.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:21:00 - [1564]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 29/10/2009 20:02:22
Originally by: Caldor Mansi

Yes, that is quite correct. Your AC damage will be x1.29 when comparing AC damage to lasers.

There is where most number warriors fail and why I have my own sheets to calculate what I need to know :-P.





You are wrong. About half of the average armor tanked ship EHP comes from shield and hull. A Abaddon with two plates and trimarks (extreme case in favor of armor) have 189K EHP against lasers and 152K EHP against the new Fusion.

The difference of base damage between a bonused pulse (+25% damage) and a bonused AC (+25% RoF) is:

Mega Pulse (on Abaddon, ANMF): 69 dps
800mm (on Maelstrom, new RF fusion): 67 dps

Difference in damage against armor tanked Abaddon at 3km (AC optimal): 20.7% in favor of the AC
Difference in damage against armor tanked Abaddon at 15km (MF optimal): 4.5% in favor of the Pulse laser
Difference in damage against armor tanked Abaddon at 45km (Scorch optimal): 71% in favor of the Pulse laser (against barrage)

Against shield tanked ships pulse lasers win all the way from 0 to 45 against the new EMP, on the other hand.

Originally by: Cpt Branko

There was this ammo which 95% of the forum trolling population considered useless. It was called "Hail". It provided many Minmatar ships with the option of doing blaster-like DPS vs T1 armour at sub-blaster ranges with 50% tracking nerf, so it was considered impossible to use and not worth it.



And which the 5% of clueless people in this forum stubbornly THINK is useful.

Quote:

Now everyone gets to use it, with extra falloff on top, provided you don't fit lowest tier guns.



Extra falloff which is cut in half by the said ammunition, which makes this change mainly irrelevant for the ammunition in question.

Quote:

If you used it properly, then you know Minmatar does not lack pure DPS up close.



If you used it properly it is in your hangar and faaaar away from your ships, together with your Void charges and your conflag crystals.

Quote:

If you did not use it, then it is definitely a very large DPS boost for you, particularly if you shoot T1 armour (or some T2 gallente ships) often.



If you did use it, then you are a masochist and should look for professional help.

Quote:

But, whatever. I give up.



Finally!

Quote:

I fly Minmatar so I get to ride the FOTM-mobile and cross-train something else for when Minmatar get nerfed. It's just stupid.



If you think these changes make projectiles better than lasers you need to have your head examined. Really...

They will be better in some situations (Oh the horror!), and worse in a lot of others. That is called balance, but it seems people are so used to the idea that lasers MUST be better in everythign that they can't comprehend this.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:37:00 - [1565]
 

Originally by: Endless Subversion
Liang, some mathlab graphs would be awesome.


I didn't build them last night because the changes were reverted from the test server. The deployed a 227M patch when I left for work, then everyone posted a lot of **** (apparently?) from it, and then when I got home there was a 225M patch and now everything is exactly the way it was. I don't mind posting graphs showing what people are saying, but there are so many details we don't really know at this point.

As to the graphs you're requesting, what do you think of:
- Target T1 Armor: Dominix, 2x EANM, DC
- Target T1 Shield: Raven, 2x Invuln, DC
- Fit, Mael: 800s, 3 Gyro, TE, (How many ambits, and what should I assume for ambits?)
- Fit, Hype: Ions, Web, 2 MFS, TC (Let me know if you want a neutron shield hype in here.. and *you* get to specify the exact fit)
- Fit, Abaddon: MP II, Web, 3 HS

- Graph Set 1 (Mael, Abaddon): RF EMP, RF Fusion, Barrage, AN MF, Scorch
- Graph Set 2 (Mael, Hype): RF EMP, RF Fusion, Barrage, CN AM, Null
- Graph Set 3 (Hype, Abaddon): AN MF, Scorch, CN AM, Null

-Liang

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:38:00 - [1566]
 

Originally by: Seriously Bored

This is exactly what I'm worried about. I'd like to see, verbatim...

Ammo Changes - Base Values:

Long Range (1.6 range modifier - 6 damage - 5% tracking bonus):

Carbonized Lead - 5 kinetic / 1 explosive
Nuclear - 5 explosive / 1 kinetic
Proton - 4 em / 2 kinetic

Medium Range (1.0 range modifier - 9 damage - 20% tracking bonus):

Depleted Uranium - 4 thermal / 3 explosive / 2 kinetic (fine with Exp and Th flipping here)
Titanium Sabot - 7 kinetic / 2 explosive

Short Range (0.5 range modifier - 11 damage):

EMP - 9 em / 1 explosive / 1 kinetic
Phased Plasma - 9 thermal / 2 kinetic
Fusion - 9 explosive / 2 kinetic


Falloff is now:

S: 4000/4500/5000
M: 8000/9000/10000
L: 16000/18000/20000

5% DPS increase in Large ACs.



If you NEED to change damage values this would be much better:

Ammo Changes - Base Values:

Long Range: 6 dmg, 1.6x range, 10% tracking bonus

Medium Range: 9 damage, 1.0x range 30% tracking bonus:

Short Range 11 damage, 0.5x range, 0% tracking bonus

Falloff changes kept

Medium Acs gain 5% dps
Large ACs gain 10% dps
Small ACs stay as they are

High tier Large Artilleries keep the 10% dps they gained
High tier Medium artilleries gain a 5% dps boost

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:41:00 - [1567]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
There we go again, comparing AC's to lasers...

The problem is that your *fixing* a hell of a lot of **** that wasn't broken, in order to achieve an ideal.

Originally by: AstroPhobic
The maelstrom is actually lacking IMO. Sure it's great in lowsec, but outside it's mobility and range are severly lacking, and it has somewhat of the faildrake syndrome. Tanks don't help you kill your enemy, damage does.
The Maelstrom has very comparable damage to it's peers. Where it's lacking is it's lack of versatility because of the very one dimensional *active tanking bonus*. And the idea that some how, it' less dependant on projectiles working than the Tempest is insane. Laughing

Caldor Mansi
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:45:00 - [1568]
 

Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 29/10/2009 19:47:14
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

About half of a ship EHP comes from shield and hull.



I am not wrong and you need to refresh your arithmetics :-P

Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:51:00 - [1569]
 

Edited by: Typhado3 on 29/10/2009 19:51:55
Originally by: AstroPhobic
I've seen a lot of conjecture in this thread over falloff numbers and I say: what for? A vargur (falloff bonused pve ship) using excessive amounts of range mods (derp) with barrage can hit 102km of falloff. So what? A vanilla ole apoc can hit further with full damage. A wolf with tracking mods and a falloff bonus can hit 22km of falloff, and this is absurd? A pulseader can hit 17km or so with full damage and having 22km of falloff is somehow imbalanced?

I think it's important to realize no matter how high these numbers get, they're on a curve. You're not doing 200 dps at 20km in a wolf. You're not doing 800 dps at 100km in a vargur.

Amarr ships will still have more ehp and more dps at range, exactly like it should be. Minmatar should be the solo ship of choice. Minmatar will continue to lack in areas such as ehp, locking range and sensor strength.

I think the changes put autos right where they need to be (hell, they're practically MY changes). The tempest and muninn still fail, though.

And re: phoon/maelstrom: these ships thrive not because of autos, but because of torps and a massive tank respectively. The maelstrom is actually lacking IMO. Sure it's great in lowsec, but outside it's mobility and range are severly lacking, and it has somewhat of the faildrake syndrome. Tanks don't help you kill your enemy, damage does.


this

And when arguing about these please remember that Arty still exist and spare them a thought before you start screeming nerf because minmatar are finally good in some circumstance.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:57:00 - [1570]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 29/10/2009 20:06:30
Originally by: Liang Nuren

As to the graphs you're requesting, what do you think of:
- Target T1 Armor: Dominix, 2x EANM, DC
- Target T1 Shield: Raven, 2x Invuln, DC
- Fit, Mael: 800s, 3 Gyro, TE, (How many ambits, and what should I assume for ambits?)
- Fit, Hype: Ions, Web, 2 MFS, TC (Let me know if you want a neutron shield hype in here.. and *you* get to specify the exact fit)
- Fit, Abaddon: MP II, Web, 3 HS

- Graph Set 1 (Mael, Abaddon): RF EMP, RF Fusion, Barrage, AN MF, Scorch
- Graph Set 2 (Mael, Hype): RF EMP, RF Fusion, Barrage, CN AM, Null
- Graph Set 3 (Hype, Abaddon): AN MF, Scorch, CN AM, Null

-Liang


I don't think you should assume Ambits for the Mael unless you can realistic fit them whilst keeping a reasonable buffer (not as good as the Abaddon's as it is impossible, but at least reasonable). A more realistic assumption would be 3 trimarks for the Abaddon and 3 CDFE for the Maelstrom as rigs.

Making graphics against pure armor and pure shield resists is important to know the hard limits, but it would be nice to make graphics against the average resists considering the shield and hull parts of the total EHP in the target ships too.

For the Hyperion I suggest the following fitting:

[Hyperion, Gank]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Damage Control II

100MN MicroWarpdrive II
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Stasis Webifier II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 25
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range

Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Antimatter Charge L

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

95K EHP is not exactly good against the Maelstrom's 115K EHP but it is the same difference between the Maelstrom and the Abaddon's 136K EHP, and is probably the best full gank Hyperion you can do.

Edit: You can even replace a trimark in the abaddon for locus rigs and will still be on top in EHP, btw.
Edit2: it is possible to fit a tracking computer in the Abaddon too alternatively

Originally by: Caldor Mansi

I am not wrong and you need to refresh your arithmetics :-P


You ARE Wrong. That much is obvious and proved by my calculations in the previous post.

Caldor Mansi
Posted - 2009.10.29 20:11:00 - [1571]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

You ARE Wrong. That much is obvious and proved by my calculations in the previous post.


No point to discussing with someone who can't divide 2 numbers...

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.10.29 20:22:00 - [1572]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 29/10/2009 20:56:52
Originally by: Gypsio III
I don't know turrets like I know missiles, but even I know that projectiles are much weaker on the BS scale than the cruiser/frigate scale. So yeah, obviously they deserve a boost - hence my comment about tweaks. My concern is that the scale-independent boost being proposed will be such that it will leave hybrids looking pathetic, and deserving their own boost - which is bad balancing and the sort of power creep that we should be avoiding.

If one weapon system is much better than the other two, the answer isn't to boost the others, it's to nerf the one and damn the whiners. I'm very sympathetic to some sort of boost for projectiles, particularly on the BS scale, but using lasers and especially Scorch L as a model is not wise.
My thoughts exactly.

Oh and just for the record, by the looks of it all, I foresee a change to Minmatar that makes them stronger than intended. Whether that will lead to them being the new fotm or not remains to be seen.
But I do know that after the changes to Amarr a lot of people were still complaining, because they thought the changes weren't enough. I know that a lot of people thought lasers should be changed/boosted (they weren't).
Yet everybody and his horse is now flying Amarr.

It took far fewer changes than expected to make Amarr the new flavor of the time being, and despite all the EFT-worriorship and graphs and stuff nobody (except a few people with the right gut feeling) predicted it.
So please don't overestimate the expressiveness of graphs. Not going to say they're useless. But quite often the most relevant effects and implications are not displayed. Game mechanics are complex. Graphs are rather two-dimensional.

I've hardly seen anyone mention the no-cap-usage aspect of projectiles. Yet if cap or active tanking should ever become important again, projectiles will be overpowered with the coming changes.

On a completely different note I'd like to see some balancing for tracking computers and tracking enhancers. Why is the active module worse than the passive one?
Change optimal and tracking on enhancers to 10% and the balance will be fine. A tracking computer with script should always be more powerful in the aspect that's boosted by the script.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.10.29 20:30:00 - [1573]
 

Originally by: Caldor Mansi

No point to discussing with someone who can't divide 2 numbers...


I am glad you finally figured out there is no point for anyone to discuss with you. Self-awareness is a virtue.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.10.29 20:35:00 - [1574]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 29/10/2009 20:35:53
Originally by: Tarron Sarek

Don't forget the no cap usage aspect of projectiles. If cap or active tanking should ever become important again, projectiles will be overpowered with the coming changes.



Cap use of projectiles is offset by the crap cap of minmatar ships and their useless active tanking bonuses.

Active tanking won't ever be good again, simply because it is conceptually flawed in a game with an ever crescent number of players where gang sizes keep increasing. If anything it will become even less useful in the future.

Regarding balance, I too would prefer a lower boost to projectiles and a big nerf to lasers. CCP decided against it, it seems, and so the balance point seems to be laser current position. That only means Blasters must be brought in league with projectiles and lasers after this change. Any position of balance is good enough for me as long as all 3 weapon systems are reasonably in balance.

Uncle Smokey
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:02:00 - [1575]
 

I just dont get how an *optional* kilometer or two of FALLOFF can kill another system, that is also getting a falloff improvement, even if most of the present optimal minmatar setups can't even support the higher tier AC's.

Really, have I missed something important or are these people ****ing idiots? Its falloff, ffs...

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:05:00 - [1576]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 29/10/2009 21:15:47
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Cap use of projectiles is offset by the crap cap of minmatar ships and their useless active tanking bonuses.

Active tanking won't ever be good again, simply because it is conceptually flawed in a game with an ever crescent number of players where gang sizes keep increasing. If anything it will become even less useful in the future.
Well, there still is small-scale PvP in EVE.
And we don't know yet how combat in 0.0 will evolve after Dominion.

My experience is that one should never say 'never' when it comes to game design.

Weaken buffer tanks, change rigs to max one of every kind, decrease repairer fitting requirements (bosters are easy enough to fit), increase plate/extender fitting requirements, increase local repair/boost effectiveness compared to remote repair/transfer.
All of that is not unreasonable.
Want to bet everything's going to stay the same? Wink

People say the hp boost was a mstake. Well, I only partly agree. Base hp boost was ok. Boost to plate and extender hp was a mistake. Hp and cap increasing rigs without stacking penalty were a huge mistake.
Smallest part of the current immense buffer tanks is the natural base hp of the ship. Most of it is added hp. The huge range between min and max eff. hp is what makes balancing difficult.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:15:00 - [1577]
 

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
Originally by: AstroPhobic
There we go again, comparing AC's to lasers...

The problem is that your *fixing* a hell of a lot of **** that wasn't broken, in order to achieve an ideal.


There is no problem because it is reaching an ideal. capiche? Also, to say that the falloff=optimal notion of CCP when balancing weapons "isn't broken" is just ignorant. All of the falloff adjustments are trying to fix something that was broken.

Quote:
The Maelstrom has very comparable damage to it's peers.


At 3km, sure. Which is often not a practical engagement range for many reasons.

Quote:
Where it's lacking is it's lack of versatility because of the very one dimensional *active tanking bonus*. And the idea that some how, it' less dependant on projectiles working than the Tempest is insane. Laughing



It is less dependent on projectiles because it's (short range) a one-trick pony. Tempest is a 0-trick pony. Even if autos are terribad (like they are now), it still has a massive shield tank which is excellent for very small engagements, station hugging, and general lowsec foolery. The tempest has no crutch to fall on, the only thing that people say make it worthwhile is the lack of 2 bonused highslots.

The maelstrom isn't considered a decent BS because autocannons are decent.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:57:00 - [1578]
 

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 29/10/2009 21:58:14
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Medium Acs gain 5% dps
Large ACs gain 10% dps
Small ACs stay as they are

High tier Large Artilleries keep the 10% dps they gained
High tier Medium artilleries gain a 5% dps boost


That would work for me as well, though I can see the whines coming. (It wouldn't be as deserved as if small ACs got the boost as well.) Boosting Large ACs by 10% isn't really going to tempt anyone to put them on a Geddon or Hype. It would also keep the ammo changes from being a stealth nerf to artillery by boosting the problem weapons directly.

As for the AC tiers and falloff...

Even though the Falloff range isn't getting nerfed on lower tiers, by giving the highest tier 50% more falloff than the lowest tier in small and medium, and 37.5% more falloff than the lowest tier in large, you are nerfing them by comparison. Should fixing projectiles involve making 2/3rds of all autocannons comparatively useless?

The 15% difference in tracking between tiers just won't make that up.

Having a 25% difference would still be a hell of a boost, but wouldn't completely obsolete everything but the largest tiers.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:58:00 - [1579]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Well, there still is small-scale PvP in EVE.
And we don't know yet how combat in 0.0 will evolve after Dominion.



Anything gang size above 3 makes active tanking utterly useless.

Quote:

My experience is that one should never say 'never' when it comes to game design.



I can say never about a lot of things. For example, I am quite sure my velator won't one-shot titans.

Quote:

Weaken buffer tanks, change rigs to max one of every kind, decrease repairer fitting requirements (bosters are easy enough to fit), increase plate/extender fitting requirements, increase local repair/boost effectiveness compared to remote repair/transfer.
All of that is not unreasonable.
Want to bet everything's going to stay the same? Wink



That may increase the usability of active tanks to engagements of gang size 4 or 5 assuming the opponent does not have neutralizers.

Really, there is no easy fix to active tanking. And no fix at all that will make it competitive to the average gang sizes of today.

Quote:

People say the hp boost was a mstake. Well, I only partly agree. Base hp boost was ok. Boost to plate and extender hp was a mistake. Hp and cap increasing rigs without stacking penalty were a huge mistake.
Smallest part of the current immense buffer tanks is the natural base hp of the ship. Most of it is added hp. The huge range between min and max eff. hp is what makes balancing difficult.


Even without rigs, with the current HP values, for gang sizes of 4 or more active tank is still useless. For gang sizes of 2 and 3, given the possibility of remote repairing and buffer tanking, active tanking is STILL useless.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.10.29 22:34:00 - [1580]
 

Originally by: Caldor Mansi
Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 29/10/2009 19:47:14
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

About half of a ship EHP comes from shield and hull.



I am not wrong and you need to refresh your arithmetics :-P


Bog standard dual plate, dual EAM trimarked Mega: 116k EHP, 12k shield, 21k hull, making 28%. Geddon is similar.

Buy a calculator, mate.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.29 22:48:00 - [1581]
 

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 29/10/2009 22:47:54
This really needs to sink in.

Originally by: CCP Nozh

* Tracking speed difference between tiers on autocannons/repeating artillery increased to 15%
Falloff is now:

S: 4000/5000/6000
M: 8000/10000/12000
L: 16000/19000/22000




(6000 - 4000) / 4000 = 50%
(12000 - 8000) / 8000 = 50%
(22000 - 16000) / 16000 = 37.5%

It's extreme folks. It makes the first two tiers useless. It's going to be overpowered. It overcorrects the two sizes that need correcting the least. 25% difference is fine.

I mean this with all respect to Nozh, but now I know why he was mulling over this part of the buff the longest.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.10.29 23:48:00 - [1582]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Anything gang size above 3 makes active tanking utterly useless.
I wasn't talking about the now, I was talking about the could be. And I think it was pretty obvious.
Some small changes could very easily lead to a change in small scale PvP fittings and combat tactics.
Not affecting fleet warfare, though. But that's just logical
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
I can say never about a lot of things. For example, I am quite sure my velator won't one-shot titans.
Ok, let's just cut the conversation right here. Rolling Eyes
You're opting out by choosing goofy talk. Fine with me. But let's not waste time, shall we?
Just a single comment: game design.
Read it again. I'm pretty sure there is no game design document involving a velator and a titan..

So much for that. Have fun discussing for discussion's sake.

Polinus
Caldari
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.10.29 23:49:00 - [1583]
 

Edited by: Polinus on 29/10/2009 23:51:18
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 29/10/2009 22:47:54
This really needs to sink in.

Originally by: CCP Nozh

* Tracking speed difference between tiers on autocannons/repeating artillery increased to 15%
Falloff is now:

S: 4000/5000/6000
M: 8000/10000/12000
L: 16000/19000/22000




(6000 - 4000) / 4000 = 50%
(12000 - 8000) / 8000 = 50%
(22000 - 16000) / 16000 = 37.5%

It's extreme folks. It makes the first two tiers useless. It's going to be overpowered. It overcorrects the two sizes that need correcting the least. 25% difference is fine.

I mean this with all respect to Nozh, but now I know why he was mulling over this part of the buff the longest.


no its not going to be overpowered. Its still far inferior to scorch on pulse. And typhoons will still fit 5 torpedoes and not 5 AC.. ... It will be strong .. YES.. close to pulses.

Clearly CCP now acknnoledges that damage at range + falloff is NTO 50%. People are makgin calculations on AC boats with track computers... please.. show me hoe many of them can fill up with track computers and not guimp themsleves. Only 1 .. tempest. And is the ships most needing love. Minmatar ships now get close to ammar ships on large boats.

Falloff must scale same ratio as range scales on PUlses. ratio .. not ammount.

Somethign that MIGHT be needed. Scale up the 3rd tier PG requirements. soo that to use them ships need to make sacrifices liek in other weapons.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.10.29 23:49:00 - [1584]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 29/10/2009 23:52:25
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 29/10/2009 23:50:49
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Minmatar should be the solo ship of choice.


Well, then sub-BS ships need zero boosts since they are solo ships of choice. Apart from having the best solo frig, best solo cruiser, BC which is at least tied with the drake for best solo BC, best solo HAC, second best solo lolAF, well... really, what?

You talk about solo, but really, Minmatar really hold the advantages for soloing in the sub-BS realm. Some other ships are comparable/on par, and there's nothing wrong with that either; but whatever sub-BS shipclass you look at, Minmatar have the advantage for solo work (well with BCs it's more tied between Drake/Hurricane for solo).

You'd know this if you ever did try instead of flying in 10+ man gangs exclusively, you know.

Amarr is FOTM because of the circumstances with gang sizes and all. The proposed boost makes Minmatar good always, in all circumstances. That's just ******ed.

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2009.10.29 23:59:00 - [1585]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Minmatar should be the solo ship of choice.


Well, then sub-BS ships need zero boosts since they are solo ships of choice. Apart from having the best solo frig, best solo cruiser, BC which is at least tied with the drake for best solo BC, best solo HAC, second best solo lolAF, well... really, what?

You talk about solo, but really, Minmatar really hold the advantages for soloing in the sub-BS realm. Some other ships are comparable/on par, and there's nothing wrong with that either; but whatever sub-BS shipclass you look at, Minmatar have the advantage for solo work (well with BCs it's more tied between Drake/Hurricane for solo).





I agree w/ Cpt. that this might be too much of a buff. It's as if the devs went from trying to tweak it to capitulating and going all in. If ALL of the hardcore Minmatar crowd is satisfied then you probably overdid it.

The 150s, 220s, and 650s are the middle of the road AC and the most popular. Keep their stats the same. Nerf the lower tier and buff the top one. Don't buff everything! I also feel that the double bonus on the falloff for mods is overkill - especially with the AC tiers getting buffed.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.10.30 00:00:00 - [1586]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 30/10/2009 00:21:36
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 29/10/2009 22:47:54
This really needs to sink in.

Originally by: CCP Nozh

* Tracking speed difference between tiers on autocannons/repeating artillery increased to 15%
Falloff is now:

S: 4000/5000/6000
M: 8000/10000/12000
L: 16000/19000/22000



(6000 - 4000) / 4000 = 50%
(12000 - 8000) / 8000 = 50%
(22000 - 16000) / 16000 = 37.5%

It's extreme folks. It makes the first two tiers useless. It's going to be overpowered. It overcorrects the two sizes that need correcting the least. 25% difference is fine.

I mean this with all respect to Nozh, but now I know why he was mulling over this part of the buff the longest.
I totally agree.

Somehow I would've liked autocannons to stay different from blasters by retaining their equal falloff ranges. It was kind of a unique trait.
Imho the problem is that the higher calibers just don't offer a significant damage increase over the smaller calibers to justify their usage.
The difference in dps is measly, yet the difference in fitting, ammo capacity and tracking isn't.

I also agree with Cpt Branko about sub BS ship classes and Zarnak Wulf regarding weapon tiers.

Imho the Maelstrom should be the fleet ship. Change RoF bonus to a damage bonus and you have a brutal alpha monster. the falloff addition to tracking modules should provide the necessary extra range to be competitive. It should be a bit weaker at extreme ranges, but devastating at 'standard' long range.
Let the shield bonus stay to make it not 100% optimized for fleets and viable for missions and small scale stuff.

The Tempest should be the solo small scale PvP BS. Fast, nimble, flexible and not depending on cap. But for that we might need a change in small scale PvP tactics that makes the two utility-slots more important.
More emphasis on cap (Minmatar strong point), less emphasis on buffer tanks (Minmatar weak point).

Ah well, just my humble opinion, though.

Seishomaru
Posted - 2009.10.30 00:01:00 - [1587]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 29/10/2009 23:52:25
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 29/10/2009 23:50:49
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Minmatar should be the solo ship of choice.


Well, then sub-BS ships need zero boosts since they are solo ships of choice. Apart from having the best solo frig, best solo cruiser, BC which is at least tied with the drake for best solo BC, best solo HAC, second best solo lolAF, well... really, what?

You talk about solo, but really, Minmatar really hold the advantages for soloing in the sub-BS realm. Some other ships are comparable/on par, and there's nothing wrong with that either; but whatever sub-BS shipclass you look at, Minmatar have the advantage for solo work (well with BCs it's more tied between Drake/Hurricane for solo).

You'd know this if you ever did try instead of flying in 10+ man gangs exclusively, you know.

Amarr is FOTM because of the circumstances with gang sizes and all. The proposed boost makes Minmatar good always, in all circumstances. That's just ******ed.



Sub BS ships really dont need much adjustment (maybe exception is the munin). Hurricane did NOT got very boosted. Sure more base falloff but now the falloff rigs stack. Same with vagabond, that will not field the tier 3 guns.

The only ship that really got significantly boosted on the sub BS level is the sleipnir.


But No group of ships in game lost more in the speed nerf than minmatar sub BS ships.So the small boost to vagabond and hurricane is OK. Only the sleipnir (That have PG to fit tier 3 AC) might have becomen too strong.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.30 00:04:00 - [1588]
 

Originally by: Polinus

no its not going to be overpowered. Its still far inferior to scorch on pulse. And typhoons will still fit 5 torpedoes and not 5 AC.. ... It will be strong .. YES.. close to pulses.

Clearly CCP now acknnoledges that damage at range + falloff is NTO 50%. People are makgin calculations on AC boats with track computers... please.. show me hoe many of them can fill up with track computers and not guimp themsleves. Only 1 .. tempest. And is the ships most needing love. Minmatar ships now get close to ammar ships on large boats.

Falloff must scale same ratio as range scales on PUlses. ratio .. not ammount.

Somethign that MIGHT be needed. Scale up the 3rd tier PG requirements. soo that to use them ships need to make sacrifices liek in other weapons.


You're kidding me. Have you been struck with Amarr fever?

Giving every ship that can fit 200mm ACs or 425mm ACs the equivalent of a built-in T2 bonus is ridiculous. "Let's make them harder to fit" clearly worked for Tachyons, right?

I agree that the falloff needs to be tiered, that falloff bonuses need to be significant, but +50% to weapons that aren't all that imbalanced is nothing but overkill.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.10.30 00:06:00 - [1589]
 

Better with lots of falloff difference. Balance it by making tier 3 AC be harder to fit! And nerf tier 3 tracking!


The more difference between tiers, the richer the game gets.

And people must STOP DAYDREAMING about AC boats with tracking computers. ! The 30% bonus might have become too much. . Something like 20% could have been enough. But you not gonna see AC boats suddenly loaded with 3 tracking computers!!

Polinus
Caldari
Emptiness.
Posted - 2009.10.30 00:15:00 - [1590]
 

Edited by: Polinus on 30/10/2009 00:17:23
Edited by: Polinus on 30/10/2009 00:16:32
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Polinus

no its not going to be overpowered. Its still far inferior to scorch on pulse. And typhoons will still fit 5 torpedoes and not 5 AC.. ... It will be strong .. YES.. close to pulses.

Clearly CCP now acknnoledges that damage at range + falloff is NTO 50%. People are makgin calculations on AC boats with track computers... please.. show me hoe many of them can fill up with track computers and not guimp themsleves. Only 1 .. tempest. And is the ships most needing love. Minmatar ships now get close to ammar ships on large boats.

Falloff must scale same ratio as range scales on PUlses. ratio .. not ammount.

Somethign that MIGHT be needed. Scale up the 3rd tier PG requirements. soo that to use them ships need to make sacrifices liek in other weapons.


You're kidding me. Have you been struck with Amarr fever?

Giving every ship that can fit 200mm ACs or 425mm ACs the equivalent of a built-in T2 bonus is ridiculous. "Let's make them harder to fit" clearly worked for Tachyons, right?

I agree that the falloff needs to be tiered, that falloff bonuses need to be significant, but +50% to weapons that aren't all that imbalanced is nothing but overkill.


If you make tier 3 quite harder to fit then first.. they will never appear on vargur and vagabond.. not even with lots of immagination. And will be crippling to the sleipnir. Keepign those away from Falloff bonused ships is enough to avoid " bad stuff".

Also as have been proposed, nerfing the tracking on the tier 3 on like 30% compared to tier 2 is enough to clearly make them different.

It worked wonders for tachyons.. how many armageddons with tachyons you see around? It kept them away form the ship with the overpowering bonus.

Blasters scale 25% falloff and 20% range between tiers. Since AC cannot scale range (because is same as scaling nothing).. and range is a much more efficient thing than falloff AC do need to scale up at least 45%!!!! Yes the range one is halved due to close range ammo.. but the falloff one also has effectivenness per KM 1/3 of same km in optimal.

The only thing i think might be reduced is on medium ones. 10.5 km base would be enough, because of the sleipnir.




Pages: first : previous : ... 49 50 51 52 [53] 54 55 56 57 ... : last (90)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only