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 : ... 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 ... : last (90)

Author Topic

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.10.30 07:55:00 - [1621]
 

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.


honestly this is the only worth thing in the AC buff and its not OP it was about time AC needed theyr range to scale with the tier of the gun.
it wont make the lower tier because they will stay exactly how they are and it wont be OP because the ships that can fit the higher tier are very low and those ship will still be inferior to they laser counterpart at medium high ranges and still make lot less DPS than blaster at short range.
do you think the range increase between tier is too high? just look at blaster
small electron 1200+1500
small neutron 1800+2500
(4300-2700)/2700 = 59%

medium electron 2400+3000
medium neutron 3600+5000
(8600-5400)/5400 = 59%

heavy electron 4800+6000
heavy neutron 7200+10000
(10800-17200)/10800 = 59%

the difference betwwe tiers is even bigger

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.10.30 08:19:00 - [1622]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/10/2009 09:07:30
Originally by: CCP Nozh

Short Range (0.5 range modifier - 12 damage):



I underlined the part that disturbs me. Does the range modifier apply to falloff as well?

-Liang

Ed: Obviously, it doesn't NOW, but does it in the upcoming changes?
Ed2: I want to say that the reason it disturbs me is because applying a range penalty that included falloff to my antimatter would be WTF.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.10.30 08:44:00 - [1623]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/10/2009 09:12:36
Branko, I definitely owe you an apology. These changes are Laughing

The pretty pictures will be incoming soon.

-Liang

Ed: DAMN I'm glad I didn't really take a stance on these changes until I examined them. A lot is still up in the air... but they *appear* pretty OP from what little info we have currently.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.10.30 09:12:00 - [1624]
 

Originally by: Seriously Bored
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 30/10/2009 06:33:25
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Yes, because Vagabonds have overwhelming damage at range with said bonus. The fact that the bonus is one of the bonuses of a T2 ship means exactly nothing.


Originally by: AstroPhobic

The problem is they're more or less terrible in any large gang. So the vagabond moves from 250 DPS to 300 DPS. So what?


For F**k's sake, are you guys listening to yourselves? Are you not the people who had a sensible grasp on balance before this thread was even in existence? You're starting to sound like the Amarr apologists who think the extreme optimal is fine, who think Tach fitting requirements are a *balanced* counterweight to their ridiculous stats.

How broken are Small ACs now? How underpowered is the Vagabond, or Rupture or the Hurricane now? How on earth could small and medium ACs deserve a bigger boost than Large ACs, which are clearly broken?

You're losing your focus on balance because you want to hold on to everything given to you, and let nothing slip by. Screw that. I want balance, and the proposed changes are too much. Astrophobic, I know for a fact your suggestions were 30-35% falloff for balance, not 50%. The current changes on the BS level work, they DO NOT work on the small and medium level.

This is just...infuriating. I know you guys have more sense than this. I know you can look at the numbers and see that they are clearly lopsided to close range, lopsided to smaller size guns, when it's the larger guns that need the boost.

Math is a tool, and a tool I believe in. But you can selectively use it to prove any point you want. Use it even handedly, and look at both sides of the issue. You have to at least try to prove yourself wrong, before you can prove yourself right.
/This

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.10.30 09:43:00 - [1625]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/10/2009 10:05:30
Let me begin with a few caveats...

We don't know ammo damage types for faction ammo. I have assumed:
- RF EMP L -> 38, 0, 10.2, 7.0
- RF PP L -> 0, 46, 9.2, 0
- RF Fusion -> 0, 0, 9.2, 46

I cannot justify this ammo layout, outside of it being an educated guess as to where they'll put the extra points. I have further assumed 30% falloff rigs, stacking nerfed.

Fits
Hyperion, Etho's Suggested Hype
8x Neutron II (CN AM/Null)
Quad Lif, Disruptor II, Web II, MCB III, TC II
1600 RT, EANM II, DC II, 3x MFS II
3x Trimark I
-- Drones are ignored

CN AM: Opt: 5175, Falloff: 16250, Tracking: 0.05412
Null: Opt: 12937, Falloff: 20312, Tracking: 0.04059

Abaddon, Megapulse
8x MP II (AN MF/Scorch)
Quad Lif, Disruptor II, Web II, Hvy Cap Booster II
1600 RT, EANM II, ANP II, DC II, 3x HS II
3x Trimark I
-- Drones are ignored

AN MF: Opt: 15000, Falloff: 10000, Tracking: 0.0419
Scorch: Opt: 45000, Falloff: 10000, Tracking: 0.03164

Maelstrom, Ganker
8x 800 AC II (RF EMP/RF Fusion/RF PP/Barrage)
Quad Lif, Disruptor II, DG XL, 2x Invuln II
3x Gyro II, TE II, DC II
Anti-Thm I, 2x Ambit I
-- Drones are ignored

RF EMP/PP/Fusion: Opt: 3450, Falloff: 52786, Tracking: 0.05913
Barrage: Opt: 6900, Falloff: 79179, Tracking: 0.04435

Targets
Raven, 2x Invuln II, DC II (Sig: 575)
Domi, 2x EANM II, DC II (Sig: 420)
GenericBS, No Resists (Sig: 575)

The Graphs
This is a close range graph vs a Generic BS. Notice that projectiles do poor damage, but have good "mid range".
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

This is a long range graph vs a Generic BS. Notice that projectiles maintain their poor damage profile and still have a good "mid range". They do pretty well in the long falloff tail.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

But just how much does this radical new damage selection mean to us? Well, let me show you...

This is the same close range graph above projected on to a Dominix...
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

And onto a Raven....
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

And long range, onto a Domi...
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

And onto a Raven....
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

And there we have it. While it is not at all my intention to understate or overstate the issue one way or another, I'd say the evidence is very conclusive within the assumptions. If you'd like to operate on different assumptions or fits, I will need your specific assumptions and/or the fit you want compared. You can post it here, or evemail it to me.

If you can convince Seriously Bored or Branko to email it to me, that is also acceptable. Both of them have received an evemail containing my personal email address, and I'll work with them as quickly as my time permits and they desire.

-Liang

Ed: Also, CCP Developers are more than free to email me directly at the email address for this account. I am willing to share the (Python) source with them. I evemailed CCP Nozh my email address as well. Dunno whether he'll take me up on it. :p

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.10.30 09:53:00 - [1626]
 

So thats a Hyperion with 3 damage mods getting ****d at most ranges 9barring <5km, where it's even with a Maesltrom) vs anything with resistances?

/ME PREPARES THE BOOST GALLENTE THREAD.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.10.30 09:57:00 - [1627]
 

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
So thats a Hyperion with 3 damage mods getting ****d at most ranges 9barring <5km, where it's even with a Maesltrom) vs anything with resistances?

/ME PREPARES THE BOOST GALLENTE THREAD.


Roughly speaking, yes. I don't guarantee 100% that there's no bugs in the code, but it looks pretty reasonable and believable until you apply resistances. And then it just looks sad. Or funny. Hard to say.

Picking damage types as purely as they're offering is an amazing boost... regardless of the rest of it. I think they took like the top 10 ideas and implemented them all or something.

-Liang

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:02:00 - [1628]
 

So either they revert 0.5 range ammo back to TQ fusion damage levels (10) with possibly EMP or Fusion at 11 or they give blasters 15% dps in compensation. Although a double race boost patch is looking pretty unlikely atm.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:10:00 - [1629]
 

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
So either they revert 0.5 range ammo back to TQ fusion damage levels (10) with possibly EMP or Fusion at 11 or they give blasters 15% dps in compensation. Although a double race boost patch is looking pretty unlikely atm.


Oh man there's so many things that have to be fixed:
- The falloff by tiers is a bit extreme.
- The on color damage is a bit extreme. Either lower base damage a bit or off-color it a bit.
- 30% falloff mods may be too much, but it may not be. If you use 30% falloff mods, you must totally revert the extra falloff by weapon tier.

I dunno... I'm too tired to make specific balance recommendations. I may or may not post some tomorrow after we find out more information or after there's more feedback to the graphs.

-Liang

Caroline Nikon
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:23:00 - [1630]
 

Originally by: Succubine
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Succubine

stuff


I know 2 players at least that have put minmatar BS V to train after alpha striek boost announced. And they already have ammar BS V and large T2 beams. They are able to see that there are more than 1 type of engagement.


The Alpha boost is impressive, however while the Minmatar BS listen to elevator music waiting for their ROF timers to end, the Amarr BS will happily continue laying waste to the battlefield (with more ehp too).


did you even tried at test server? If you had you would notice how easy is to warp to another snipe spot during that time. Becommign IMMUNE to the ammar lasers during about 10 seconds....


SRS Tali
Minmatar
Enterprise Estonia
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:29:00 - [1631]
 

Liang you are using 3 rangemods on Maelstrom 0 on others, faction booster to fit tracking enhancer not cpu module for t2 booster and oh look Maelstrom is such a op beast now.
Fit 3 rangemods and faction stuff to others too mby before ur making useless graphs with lolfits.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:31:00 - [1632]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Liang's stuff


some things arent fair and favour the mael too much.
1st the mael in your setups have 2 ambit its logic it will have a advantage at longer range, i know its a viable fit but in slugfest where more than 2 BS are shooting at it its the weakest tank of the trio, to meake the things "fair" you would need to passive shield tank with CDFE.
2nd the selectable damage type its only a advantage when you know whats coming to you, ok now new fusion will be great for RR but in a RR gang you will probably be better in a phoon.
3rd the graphs VS the dominix are a direct nerf to blaster dps.



Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:38:00 - [1633]
 

Edited by: Seishi Maru on 30/10/2009 10:55:33
Also somethign I woudl like to remember. Fusion will rock? Maybe.. But that is THE PLAYER'S FAULT!

The min maxing mentality that makes them fit 2 EANM and 1 DC always. If they learn to diversify a bit, like the game intended to be played.. then FUSIOn advantage would be much smaller.



If you leave a huge explosive hole in your armor.. YOU MUST PAY FOR IT! Otherwise the whole damage type system becomes moot.

Theron Gyrow
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:38:00 - [1634]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

Let me begin with a few caveats...

We don't know ammo damage types for faction ammo. I have assumed:
- RF EMP L -> 38, 0, 10.2, 7.0
- RF PP L -> 0, 46, 9.2, 0
- RF Fusion -> 0, 0, 9.2, 46

I cannot justify this ammo layout, outside of it being an educated guess as to where they'll put the extra points.


Originally by: Dev post earlier in this thread

EMP - 9 em / 2 explosive / 1 kinetic
Phased Plasma - 10 thermal / 2 kinetic
Fusion - 10 explosive / 2 kinetic



So, base values for L faction ammo are as follows:
EMP 41.4 EM / 9.2 ex / 4.6 kin
PP 46 th / 9.2 kin
Fusion 9.2 kin / 46 ex

I.e. EMP has a bit higher percentage of EM damage than you thought, otherwise correct.


Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:44:00 - [1635]
 

Edited by: Seishi Maru on 30/10/2009 10:53:34

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
So thats a Hyperion with 3 damage mods getting ****d at most ranges 9barring <5km, where it's even with a Maesltrom) vs anything with resistances?

/ME PREPARES THE BOOST GALLENTE THREAD.


Roughly speaking, yes. I don't guarantee 100% that there's no bugs in the code, but it looks pretty reasonable and believable until you apply resistances. And then it just looks sad. Or funny. Hard to say.

Picking damage types as purely as they're offering is an amazing boost... regardless of the rest of it. I think they took like the top 10 ideas and implemented them all or something.

-Liang


picking damage.. as if armor tankers with no explosive resist was somethign CCP ever forced players to use as backbone of PVP....


Take for a moment that the boost goes like that into TQ.


First peopel need to look at graphs for shield tank ships as targets as well... they exist in LARGE ammounts, just not in RR gangs. How things handle when you firing at a maelstrom and raven? You made graphs but peopel simply treat as armor tankers are the only thing that matters. THat is NOT true!


Second people WIll start fitting Explosive hardners form time to time... if they do not.. well its their problem having a "minmax , my world is an excel spreadsheet" mind.



Projectiels are well balanced upon pulses now. Just adjust a bit less on medium AC and boost blasters a bit.And you have people HAPPY and not an uproar that will happen if you nerf projectiles and lasers.



What I see as sensible.

Take 1 EM/Explo/Thermal from the base ammo and convert into kin. Depurifing a bit the damage type.

Make AC scale for medium 7500/9000/10500 for large 16000/18000/20000

And we need to keep in mind ccp might ALREADY have an adjustment for blasters in their minds.

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:49:00 - [1636]
 

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
/This
But since CCP doesn't want to nerf lasers, why not just boost projectiles and hybrids to the same level? Or would you rather whine for another 2-3 years because "BUT WHEN YOU BOOST YOU DON'T BOOST ENOUGH"?

I mean, even with this change a zealot will still always be better than a vagabond/muninn. The geddon will still be always better than any minmatar bs for remote rep gangs, the apoc will still **** everything else at range, the abaddon will stay the ultimate brick+dps battleship, with maelstrom hiding somewhere in it's huge shadow, trying to fit into 2-3 man gangs.

Yes, a lot of good ships will become even better, but I don't see anything gamebreaking when they're compared to laser ships... I mean, a scorch zealot does 450dps at 34km, barrage vagabond does that at 3km, and that's with drone dps included. As soon as you start going into falloff it'll quickly fall behind. And with short range ammo, they both do same dps if the vagabond uses drones (this is after ammo buff), and they both have about an equal amount of ehp. But, the vagabond has 1.5km optimal, and the zealot will use a web to keep the vagabond well outside that range, so again yay for falloff mechanics. The only way you can hope to win is neuting the zealot and hoping he caps out before you melt, or hope he's dumb and didn't fit a thermic plating and use phased plasma. I wouldn't bet my vagabond on either though.

And in larger engagements, the optimal+dps with scorch becomes even more ridicolous.

All this buff means is now only blasters need buffing, whereas before only lasers needed nerfing.

I agree fully with you people that it'd have been easier to just bring lasers in line, but it seems CCP
doesn't want to do that, so i'll say it again. Since CCP doesn't want to nerf lasers, might as well buff other systems to a competetive level.

Also I think 50% is a bit much, but not too overpowered and it'd be a very good number if we had 11-9-6 ammo instead of 12-8-5.

Fake edit @ Liang: The fits are ok, but could you also do the same graphs with 15% rigs instead of 30%? Something tells me they won't get buffed to 30%... also, bumps at 10km are webs I guess? :P

Also, finally explosive damage autos do more damage on armor tankers than the em/therm lasers do? About time I say.

I don't like raw auto dps being same as raw blaster dps though. CCP just needs to make blasters do a bit more than laser damage on shield, and a bit more than projectile damage on armor (so basically, a rather high dps buff, while keeping therm+kin damage), plus maybe a small buff to tracking or optimal, so you can hit a webbed bs for full damage.

With 11-8-6 ammo, this would then be the perfect balance. Lasers -> shield, projectiles -> armor, and blasters better than both if they manage to get into their range. (with new emp, the damage against shield is too high now imo...)

Caroline Nikon
Posted - 2009.10.30 11:03:00 - [1637]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
So either they revert 0.5 range ammo back to TQ fusion damage levels (10) with possibly EMP or Fusion at 11 or they give blasters 15% dps in compensation. Although a double race boost patch is looking pretty unlikely atm.


Oh man there's so many things that have to be fixed:
- The falloff by tiers is a bit extreme.
- The on color damage is a bit extreme. Either lower base damage a bit or off-color it a bit.
- 30% falloff mods may be too much, but it may not be. If you use 30% falloff mods, you must totally revert the extra falloff by weapon tier.

I dunno... I'm too tired to make specific balance recommendations. I may or may not post some tomorrow after we find out more information or after there's more feedback to the graphs.

-Liang


I think the overall assessments are true. THe falloff per tier and the purification of damage is a bit extreme. Also the 30% on any track enahcner and track computer is too much.

But be carefull to not overreact! Remember pulses are there and will stay there.

An scaling of 25-30% on falloff (25% on medium and 30% on large) is enough. A 75% damage coloring is enough. And likely 20% on falloff bonus is enough.

Alfred vonBoring
Posted - 2009.10.30 11:10:00 - [1638]
 

Edited by: Alfred vonBoring on 30/10/2009 11:12:56
Hmm. With the ability to select damage type actually being possible now, rather than just a senseless point brought up in forum wars, I think maybe going to an 11/9/6 damage model (short, medium, long) is actually looking like a good idea. Remembering, of course, that 12/8/5 is actually pretty bad if you're a Muninn pilot looking to hit anything small or fast at >30km.

Also, I'm not sure that the AC by tier numbers are perfect. Small and Medium ACs, which are pretty good weapons (mostly because of the abundance of good hulls on which to use them), get +50% bottom-to-top. Large ACs, which are pretty bloody terrible weapons, get just +37.5%. If anything those numbers need to be the other way around - 4,000/4,750/5,500, 8,000/9,500/11,000, 16,000/20,000/24,000. Although Liang's graphs show that adding more range to large ACs probably isn't a great idea, even after you remove the multiple range-boosting modules that were used to stack that graph massively in favour of the Maelstrom (Bad Liang!).

So, just +37.5% to all three tiers, please. And reconsider the long vs short damage scaling in light of the new more specialised ammos and the bumping of PP and Fusion up to full damage.

I think the latest revision of Ambits, TCs and TEs is looking pretty good. For significant slot investment, you get significant change. As it should be.

1600 RT
Posted - 2009.10.30 11:23:00 - [1639]
 

Originally by: Caroline Nikon
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
So either they revert 0.5 range ammo back to TQ fusion damage levels (10) with possibly EMP or Fusion at 11 or they give blasters 15% dps in compensation. Although a double race boost patch is looking pretty unlikely atm.


Oh man there's so many things that have to be fixed:
- The falloff by tiers is a bit extreme.
- The on color damage is a bit extreme. Either lower base damage a bit or off-color it a bit.
- 30% falloff mods may be too much, but it may not be. If you use 30% falloff mods, you must totally revert the extra falloff by weapon tier.

I dunno... I'm too tired to make specific balance recommendations. I may or may not post some tomorrow after we find out more information or after there's more feedback to the graphs.

-Liang


I think the overall assessments are true. THe falloff per tier and the purification of damage is a bit extreme. Also the 30% on any track enahcner and track computer is too much.

But be carefull to not overreact! Remember pulses are there and will stay there.

An scaling of 25-30% on falloff (25% on medium and 30% on large) is enough. A 75% damage coloring is enough. And likely 20% on falloff bonus is enough.


the current boost is ok anything less will make AC stay carp compared to laser, with current changes the can compete.
sure blaster are left a bit behind but they still hold theyr dps advantage in web range, probably isnt a great thing to justify the small range but this is another story and regard blaster.
the damage selection is cool but is highly situational and well you lose it anyway when using barrage.
i really like like the new falloff numbers and if had to lose one of the purposed boosts its the ammo ranges and type of damage selection changes.

Caldor Mansi
Posted - 2009.10.30 11:28:00 - [1640]
 

Falloff balancing simply won't work ever on large guns because fighting in falloff works with high agility, something BS don't have....

Liang Nuren:
Don't make graphs on fitted ships when balancing turrets solely.

1) Balance range and tracking of guns alone -> giving turrets the role
2) Balance damage and ship bonuses -> utilizing nominal stats
3) Try out on fitted ships -> module balancing and issue checking

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.10.30 11:30:00 - [1641]
 

Originally by: 1600 RT

the current boost is ok anything less will make AC stay carp compared to laser, with current changes the can compete.
sure blaster are left a bit behind but they still hold theyr dps advantage in web range, probably isnt a great thing to justify the small range but this is another story and regard blaster.


If projectiles and hybrids are weak relative to lasers, then the answer is clearly not to boost projectiles and hybrids (and then, inevitably, missiles), but just to nerf lasers.

Yes, large projectiles need help, the tiers needs to be better defined and falloff is a bit crappy, but, as pointed out, small- and med-using projectile ships are basically fine. Using lasers and especially Scorch Apocs as a basis for BS AC balance is probably a recipe for abominations like the autoRokh.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.10.30 12:02:00 - [1642]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 30/10/2009 12:09:04
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 30/10/2009 12:03:41
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

In shield tank fittings in your lows you are far better fitting Damage modules, nanos or a DCII. All these modules are far better than their equivalent rigs.



Nanos? For what? More speed/agility? OK, but be prepared to lose something to get that speed/agility, like EHP, damage, tracking.

DC II and 3x Gyro are a no-brainer to fit, which typically leaves you with at least 1 low on most Minmatar ships. If I wanted to use a Minmatar ship for up close ganking, using it for TEs instead of nanos is not really much of a decision.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

If TEs are not substantially better than Ambit rigs regarding falloff, there is no motive in hell to use them, period.



Ha ha. Freeing up rigslots and PG isn't a motive to use them at all. Oh, wait.

Yeah, it is. Plus, they provide a needed - but not silly - boost to arty range.

Quote:

In large gangs damage projection is everything. Unless you are suggesting that these changes make projectiles hit for full damage as far as Scorch I don't see how Minmatar can be good enough in larger gangs to be even on the same league as Amarr.


Just being able to hit for Scorch like damage in ranges comparable to Scorch IS completely OP. Period. Amarr are meant to do better at their optimal ranges, starting with the end of ANMF optimal.

The idea of ACs is to be superior to Amarr at ranges below ANMF optimal and superior to Gallente at ranges over CN-AM range, but with versatility to fire at range with low DPS compared to lasers, versatility to fire up close with higher DPS compared to lasers but less then blasters. Without requiring cap and with selectable damage types, this produces a balanced weapon system. Inferior to Amarr for large gangs? Sure.

Different roles, different strengths and weaknesses. You pick the ship/race/etc which suits what you're trying to do, not ask for CCP to make your ship/race/etc suit what you're trying to do with it.

Minmatar ships are optimized for solo/small gang. Their racial traits (and disadvantages) reflect this. Speed/agility/no cap use/locktime are all pretty important traits in that area, but are very useless in a ten man gang. Choosing damage types is a very useful trait in this area, but is next to useless in 3+ man gangs because of reload time hitting you pretty hard when there's multiple hostiles in different ships at different ranges on the field (which is why, eg. I don't mind the RF EMP boost to 12 base, as long as Fusion/PP stay the same as now).

You might think that ships optimized for solo/small gang are useless for you, and you may be right, but it's not a really valid complaint since that's what Minmatar ship design philosophy is all about. You can't siege a POS in a frigate either, should CCP perhaps introduce a frigate-sized Dreadnaught because it's somehow imbalanced that Dreads do it so much better? ^^

Right tools for the job, and all that. The only problems which are sensible to address and do not result in a OP lolrace are problems which plague Minmatar in small gangs (largely addressed with the first iteration of changes plus reasonable AC tier scaling), and which plague specific ships (Munnin/Tempest for instance), and arty problems (which are easily addressed with the first iteration of the changes).

Minmatar having anything which is as good as Scorch is just stupid. Long range ships need advantage at long range. Is that better for a lot of scenarios, because blobbery is so common? Maybe.

However, if I'm going to siege POSes, I would train for Dreads rather then whining how we need siege modules on a BC because they're so bad at sieging POSes now. If I wanted to blob, I'd train Amarr. Going "but I want this tool to do this job" is the wrong way around, you pick the tools best suited for the job you're trying to do. Minmatar don't have to be competitive in everything to be competive.

Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
Posted - 2009.10.30 12:06:00 - [1643]
 

The falloff tierign is importnat because barrage is the main ammo half of time.

The extra damage on the top damage is important because its nothing but fair that the ammos are equal among races. The high fusion is important because WE ARE MINMATAR! That is our damage. Its hot our fault that people are stupid to leave huge resist holes on their ships. The do it and they must pay a price for it.


Problem is how to keep all the aspects without overbuffing.
That is why diminishing a bit the PURIFICATION of the damage and a more modest scaling of the falloff tiers is the most likely way to do it.

Other minor things can be used to adjust even more. Make blasters the high tracking weapons. Reduce AC tracking by 10% and boost Blasters tracking by 10% maybe? Sided with a 5% damage boost on blasters?


Nerfing lasers is NOT a percent solution contrary to what lots of people say. Something you MUST achieve to have balanced AC is for instance.. that a typhoon pilot would be equally prone to using 5 AC as it would be to use 5 siege launchers!!!

If you boost projectiles to that level and blasters look crap. Then its a blaster issue! Not an AC overboost!

Mohenna
Caldari
Knights of the Dark
Posted - 2009.10.30 12:10:00 - [1644]
 

Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Yes, because Vagabonds have overwhelming damage at range with said bonus. The fact that the bonus is one of the bonuses of a T2 ship means exactly nothing.


Originally by: AstroPhobic

The problem is they're more or less terrible in any large gang. So the vagabond moves from 250 DPS to 300 DPS. So what?


For F**k's sake, are you guys listening to yourselves? Are you not the people who had a sensible grasp on balance before this thread was even in existence? You're starting to sound like the Amarr apologists who think the extreme optimal is fine, who think Tach fitting requirements are a *balanced* counterweight to their ridiculous stats.

How broken are Small ACs now? How underpowered is the Vagabond, or Rupture or the Hurricane now? How on earth could small and medium ACs deserve a bigger boost than Large ACs, which are clearly broken?

You're losing your focus on balance because you want to hold on to everything given to you, and let nothing slip by. Screw that. I want balance, and the proposed changes are too much. Astrophobic, I know for a fact your suggestions were 30-35% falloff for balance, not 50%. The current changes on the BS level work, they DO NOT work on the small and medium level.

This is just...infuriating. I know you guys have more sense than this. I know you can look at the numbers and see that they are clearly lopsided to close range, lopsided to smaller size guns, when it's the larger guns that need the boost.

Math is a tool, and a tool I believe in. But you can selectively use it to prove any point you want. Use it even handedly, and look at both sides of the issue. You have to at least try to prove yourself wrong, before you can prove yourself right.


Also, minmatar cruiser and frigate hulls are already 50% of the ships of these sizes. Do you guys really want to see even less different targets than now?

Morka'Dor
Minmatar
Tribal Core
Posted - 2009.10.30 12:13:00 - [1645]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/10/2009 10:05:30
Fits
Hyperion, Etho's Suggested Hype
8x Neutron II (CN AM/Null)
Quad Lif, Disruptor II, Web II, MCB III, TC II
1600 RT, EANM II, DC II, 3x MFS II
3x Trimark I
-- Drones are ignored

CN AM: Opt: 5175, Falloff: 16250, Tracking: 0.05412
Null: Opt: 12937, Falloff: 20312, Tracking: 0.04059

Abaddon, Megapulse
8x MP II (AN MF/Scorch)
Quad Lif, Disruptor II, Web II, Hvy Cap Booster II
1600 RT, EANM II, ANP II, DC II, 3x HS II
3x Trimark I
-- Drones are ignored

AN MF: Opt: 15000, Falloff: 10000, Tracking: 0.0419
Scorch: Opt: 45000, Falloff: 10000, Tracking: 0.03164

Maelstrom, Ganker
8x 800 AC II (RF EMP/RF Fusion/RF PP/Barrage)
Quad Lif, Disruptor II, DG XL, 2x Invuln II
3x Gyro II, TE II, DC II
Anti-Thm I, 2x Ambit I
-- Drones are ignored

RF EMP/PP/Fusion: Opt: 3450, Falloff: 52786, Tracking: 0.05913
Barrage: Opt: 6900, Falloff: 79179, Tracking: 0.04435

Your fits are quite unbalanced...

The Hyperion requires a 3% CPU implant to fit, if you allow fitting such an implant you can give the Abbadon better EHP without changing DPS output:
[Abaddon, Ganker]
Damage Control II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets
Warp Disruptor II
Stasis Webifier II
Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800

Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L

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

The Maelstrom is quoted as using a DG XL Shield Booster. No need for that, a XL C5-L requires the same CPU amounts, but its a bit more sensible on the wallet.

The 3% CPU Abaddon has 138k EHP, lowest resist Explosive at 61,7%. The Maelstrom has 70k EHP (repairs 150 hp per second), lowest resist EM 54,7%. A slight edge in DPS means nothing when you're the first off the field...

So, which one pops first? Sad

Otebski
Posted - 2009.10.30 12:20:00 - [1646]
 

Edited by: Otebski on 30/10/2009 12:23:24
When going into pvp in tech 1 shield ship i always plug EM hole.
Forcing armor tankers to do just them same is good for the game. Right now armor tanking is the king of the hill. If all those trimarked plated ships replced one eanm with explosive hardener not only they will up their defenses vs minmatar but also lower vs other ships.

Liang can you please post graphs if target BS used eanm + explo hardener instead of double eanm?

Also posting relevant EHP of ships in question would be cool too.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.10.30 13:32:00 - [1647]
 

Can I see the same charts without transversal please?

Terianna Eri
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2009.10.30 13:33:00 - [1648]
 

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
Can I see the same charts without transversal please?

I don't think those had transversal, but did take into account typical resistances.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.10.30 13:41:00 - [1649]
 

Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
Can I see the same charts without transversal please?

I don't think those had transversal, but did take into account typical resistances.
With 0 transversal, all ships will be doing full damage at 0km.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.30 13:46:00 - [1650]
 

Liang, you're a god for providing the graphs. I'll try to email you something later today. After looking those over, now I'm wondering if even my suggestion to tone down the ammo is too extreme. I think I purified the "colors" even more in what I posted...


Pages: first : previous : ... 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 ... : 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