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 : ... 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 ... : last (90)

Author Topic

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.11.02 17:39:00 - [1831]
 

Originally by: Nian Banks
In regards to autocannons and the changes that give increased falloff for the higher tiers, I will personally say that the is a better option to give different autocannon tiers a use and I will tell you what that is.

Give the lowest tier the greatest falloff and reduce significantly down to tier3 ac's.

Then give a significant damage increase to the higher tiers.


In this way, the highest tier ac will be a point blank weapon similar to blasters with a respectable amount of damage, but will also only be effective against it's own ship size or higher because of it's poor tracking compared to the lower tier ac's
Sorry but that is a horrible idea. Less range AND less tracking? What did we say was wrong with artillery? Oh now I remember!

Just. No.

Veryez
Posted - 2009.11.02 17:45:00 - [1832]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: To mare
projectile are not born to suck they need this boost to be competitive


Competitive with what? Blasters or lasers?


Lasers, I think CCP has begun to realize the error of their ways that was Revelations. Boosting tanking that much was simply insane. It destroyed any balance that eve had achieved at that point and completely changed the way people played. I am beginning to suspect that rather than roll back those changes, lasers are the new baseline.

Why do I think that way? CCP can clearly see that the laser/amarr changes were over the top, they have a pretty good idea what people are flying, using, and training at all times (the data is easily obtainable), yet there is not a peep about nerfing amarr/lasers. Perhaps, they are happy with where lasers/amarr are at this point. A line that both hybrids and projectiles (and so some extent missiles - aka rockets) will need to be brought up to. Projectiles, being the furthest from that line are (hopefully) just the first.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.11.02 18:01:00 - [1833]
 

Originally by: Veryez
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: To mare
projectile are not born to suck they need this boost to be competitive


Competitive with what? Blasters or lasers?


Lasers, I think CCP has begun to realize the error of their ways that was Revelations. Boosting tanking that much was simply insane. It destroyed any balance that eve had achieved at that point and completely changed the way people played. I am beginning to suspect that rather than roll back those changes, lasers are the new baseline.

Why do I think that way? CCP can clearly see that the laser/amarr changes were over the top, they have a pretty good idea what people are flying, using, and training at all times (the data is easily obtainable), yet there is not a peep about nerfing amarr/lasers. Perhaps, they are happy with where lasers/amarr are at this point. A line that both hybrids and projectiles (and so some extent missiles - aka rockets) will need to be brought up to. Projectiles, being the furthest from that line are (hopefully) just the first.


this
actually all the changes in this thread make AC a viable choice to laser, i really hope CCP will implement them as they are and maybe in a couple of years (standard time for CCP to fix a weapon) we could see a boost blaster thread where all the amarr/minmatar/missile user will go in to whine because that weapon is getting boosted.

and tbh aven if all those changes get implemented blasters will still be cool for close range gankage much better than where AC are now on TQ compared to blaster

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2009.11.02 18:18:00 - [1834]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 02/11/2009 18:26:59
Originally by: Veryez
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: To mare
projectile are not born to suck they need this boost to be competitive


Competitive with what? Blasters or lasers?


Lasers, I think CCP has begun to realize the error of their ways that was Revelations. Boosting tanking that much was simply insane. It destroyed any balance that eve had achieved at that point and completely changed the way people played.
When was the last time you've fitted a tank without plates/extenders and trimarks/field extender rigs?
Rigs have been the boost that made everything else redundant.
Three trimarks and one or several 1600mm plates make cruiser, battlecruisers and battleships awesome. Not the base hp buff. Yet I always get the impression people keep complaining about that instead of rigs and (oversized) plates/extenders.
Or didn't you refer to the base hp boost? In that case I'm sorry.

On a side note it was not until the speed rebalance that Amarr became absolutely fotm.
Originally by: Veryez
Why do I think that way? CCP can clearly see that the laser/amarr changes were over the top, they have a pretty good idea what people are flying, using, and training at all times (the data is easily obtainable), (..)
I can't help but quote from the Fanfest Game Design Retrospective presentation:"There are HOW MANY in game now?!" (CCP meeting about titan balancing).
So yeah.. I guess the data is easily obtainable. But that's no guarantee for things to work out right.

Regarding lasers/Amarr, those have actually never been really changed (apart from pulse tracking, which messes up balancing atm). It's more like everybody else has been changed, first with Nos rebalance, then with the EM/Exp resistance reduction, and then with the speed rebalance.

This shows how powerful some changes not directly related to weapons can be.
It's also the reason I'm very sceptic about changing projectiles weapons, ammo, and stuff like tracking modules.
I think a tracking module change alone would have quite an impact.
Now just add in less buffer tank (good for alpha) and more importance for capacitor and you both reduce Amarr effectiveness and boost Minmatar effectiveness.
Both changes wouldn't even touch projectiles weapons themselves. That would be just an added extra for variety and the last bit of balancing tweaks.

Alpha India
Posted - 2009.11.02 18:21:00 - [1835]
 

Edited by: Alpha India on 03/11/2009 23:48:49
Edit#1: I contemplated writing something insightful and such, like Minmatar aren't getting a new fifth damage type, or it's just a test server, they have to start big and scale back, but I know you all know this. And you're all reacting the way you are because of past choices by the developers...

Edit#2: Boy, the first iteration was 100% over the top. Now the latest is 10% below. I know they got their hands full, though. Hopefully they'll find the middle and make everyone happy.

Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
Posted - 2009.11.02 18:50:00 - [1836]
 

Originally by: Nuts Nougat
Originally by: Nian Banks
In regards to autocannons and the changes that give increased falloff for the higher tiers, I will personally say that the is a better option to give different autocannon tiers a use and I will tell you what that is.

Give the lowest tier the greatest falloff and reduce significantly down to tier3 ac's.

Then give a significant damage increase to the higher tiers.


In this way, the highest tier ac will be a point blank weapon similar to blasters with a respectable amount of damage, but will also only be effective against it's own ship size or higher because of it's poor tracking compared to the lower tier ac's
Sorry but that is a horrible idea. Less range AND less tracking? What did we say was wrong with artillery? Oh now I remember!

Just. No.



You didn't read it did you? Oh I'm sure you looked at the works, but the comprehension wasn't there.

I approve all the new changes to artillery, ammo and tracking mods.

I just done believe the ac's would benefit enough from just increasing the falloff for higher tiers, and the debs don't like it either.


My suggestion did not include a reduction to tracking for the higher tiers, just more falloff the lesser the tier.

I want to see the lowest tier having the best falloff and tracking but worst dps, then the highest tier having the best dps but worst falloff and tracking, lastly having the mid tier as an all rounder.

I want a significant dps boost to the highest tier.
Oh and keeping the tracking as it was, no change. Hence highest tier is the worst at tracking.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.11.02 18:55:00 - [1837]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Branko keeps saying things like "too good", "too much", "similar damage at range", without any real fact to back up these claims.

Then people come here and post damage graphics of full gank minnie fits against compared to tanky amarr fits, firing against armor tanked targets and say "foul".

That is so stupid it is out of the scale.
if there weren't (almost) pure emp and thm ammos, then yes, it probably would be. feel free to think it through yourself to see how redundant those comparisons will be. i, personally, am looking at worst case scenarios - we _will_ exploit any advantage we get, no matter what race we are. and in this world of armor tanking BS fleets it's way more than just a niche.

besides... there is no "tanky" minmatar fits, but a whole lot of tanking freedom for amarr. these comparisons do reflect the real eve world. 2x invul shield tanks dont except for some angel ratting ravens unles they have even less of an idea and fit explo hardeners -.-

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:18:00 - [1838]
 

Originally by: Uncle Smokey

To hell if I trade my competent fits for 10% more falloff. Would you, really?



And 5-6% DPS. On some ships, yes. On some ships, no. Are HPL IIs/neutron blasters a no-brainer to fit? Hm, hardly so. Still, fitting smaller then largest guns post Dominion is sheer idiocy, because the range increase is just massive.

Sure, now you can fit a plate Rupture with D180s/220s and a 1600mm plate... alternatively, you could make a shieldfit and have ~30km barrage falloff with 3K EHP less, more mobility/agility/everything, and still a comfortable anti-frig defense up close.

But I also use Hail, reload in combat, and kill laser ships, blasterboats and crap point blank which means I'm a clueless noob who doesn't know how to fly Minmatar but only does EFT warrioring.

Originally by: Uncle Smokey

Even double falloff bonus on TE's is not that overboard when falloff is closer to a third of optimal's worth.



Complete nonsense even if we disregard your opinion that falloff is closer to a third of optimal's worth.

A 15% TE provides you with essentially a 15% effective range increase. The fact DPS drops down noticeably after, eg. 1/3 falloff (let's use your number) simply means your base effective range is pretty damn short.

But saying falloff is closer to a third of optimal's worth is pretty bogus really. Would you trade the range of a 425mm II as it is on TQ with the range of a Heavy Neutron Blaster II? I sure would not.

According to your evaluation, the 425mm IIs, as they are on TQ, outrange, effectively, a heavy neutron blaster II by a mere 100 metres, or 4.5km effective range vs 4.4km effective range, both using faction ammo. I call BS on that. In practical application the 425mm AC II is a longer ranged gun then the neutron blaster and has the option of playing the range game quite easily. Saying "it's as useful as 1/3rd of optimal" doesn't make it true.

A boost to falloff as such, if you consider Minmatar to be too short range (I don't, since they are a long/short range hybrid and are supposed to do worse at range then Amarr generally do) is much more warranted then 30% TEs, since they offer more of a effective range increase then they do for optimal based ships, assuming that effective range is 1/3th of your falloff or 1/2 of your falloff.

That's not making modules equal across all the races, that is making them specifically better on falloff based ships, and a specific boost to shieldfits (along with the massive differentiation of guns) which can in fact fit these modules since the range increase they offer is just incredibly massive.

tl;dr: 30% TEs are stupid

Succubine
Caldari
Succubine Dynasty Technologies
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:22:00 - [1839]
 

Originally by: Roemy Schneider
if there weren't (almost) pure emp and thm ammos, then yes, it probably would be. feel free to think it through yourself to see how redundant those comparisons will be. i, personally, am looking at worst case scenarios - we _will_ exploit any advantage we get, no matter what race we are. and in this world of armor tanking BS fleets it's way more than just a niche.

besides... there is no "tanky" minmatar fits, but a whole lot of tanking freedom for amarr. these comparisons do reflect the real eve world. 2x invul shield tanks dont except for some angel ratting ravens unles they have even less of an idea and fit explo hardeners -.-


Tanks can change, but I doubt they will considering that the average BS fleet contains many more Gallente and Amarr than anything else. Also, damage types and even dps advantages mean little if you are dead before you get in range to max out dps.

Uncle Smokey
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:26:00 - [1840]
 

Originally by: Roemy Schneider
if there weren't (almost) pure emp and thm ammos, then yes, it probably would be. feel free to think it through yourself to see how redundant those comparisons will be. i, personally, am looking at worst case scenarios - we _will_ exploit any advantage we get, no matter what race we are. and in this world of armor tanking BS fleets it's way more than just a niche.


I don't get it. You look at the worst case scenario. You look at it when you find out that the pure damage ammo you just loaded was the wrong choice, or you have to fight at falloff and the target has an active/regen tank.

Whatever the real eve world was, is determined by the ships and modules, and what players CAN do, not what they prefer to. And what they prefer to, is going be changing along until we have the ultimate eve experience 1.0 in our hands.

Maybe we should boost laser dps, because they have such horrible damage types against armor, now that everyone's using that. hmm?

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:27:00 - [1841]
 

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 02/11/2009 19:28:07
I've been working on a series of graphs to show what the changes do to the balance at Large, Medium, and Small levels.

IMO, the changes don't overpower Projectiles at the Large level. I'm finding that pure damage selection isn't quite so powerful at the BS level because most ships can fit very decent resists across the board. When you calculate a battleship's averaged resists across all of its EHP, Fusion isn't looking so overpowered.

(My graphs are going to be against a ship's whole EHP, not just armor or shields.)

Preliminary look at the Medium and Small levels...it's just stupid. True damage selection is looking like it matters more at these sizes because it's harder to fill in resist holes while still fielding a good tank, and the differences in range are easier to cover. Not to mention that Minmatar is already represented very, very well at these levels.

I'm still leaning toward 11-9-6 damage, with a DPS boost to ACs. But it's going to take me a little bit longer to prove it.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:27:00 - [1842]
 

Originally by: To mare

projectile are not born to suck they need this boost to be competitive


Being competitive with lasers all the way until the end of Scorch optimal is broken by default. I mean, SURE, if you intend to make them consume cap (which is a massive thing on sub BS ships tbh), get locked into racial only damage types and so on and so forth. Then we'd have balance. And two equal, carbon-copied weapon systems. Screw that.

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:36:00 - [1843]
 

Originally by: Nian Banks
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
Originally by: Nian Banks
In regards to autocannons and the changes that give increased falloff for the higher tiers, I will personally say that the is a better option to give different autocannon tiers a use and I will tell you what that is.

Give the lowest tier the greatest falloff and reduce significantly down to tier3 ac's.

Then give a significant damage increase to the higher tiers.


In this way, the highest tier ac will be a point blank weapon similar to blasters with a respectable amount of damage, but will also only be effective against it's own ship size or higher because of it's poor tracking compared to the lower tier ac's
Sorry but that is a horrible idea. Less range AND less tracking? What did we say was wrong with artillery? Oh now I remember!

Just. No.



You didn't read it did you? Oh I'm sure you looked at the works, but the comprehension wasn't there.

I approve all the new changes to artillery, ammo and tracking mods.

I just done believe the ac's would benefit enough from just increasing the falloff for higher tiers, and the debs don't like it either.


My suggestion did not include a reduction to tracking for the higher tiers, just more falloff the lesser the tier.

I want to see the lowest tier having the best falloff and tracking but worst dps, then the highest tier having the best dps but worst falloff and tracking, lastly having the mid tier as an all rounder.

I want a significant dps boost to the highest tier.
Oh and keeping the tracking as it was, no change. Hence highest tier is the worst at tracking.
Oh I understood it alright. Looks like I didn't get my point across well enough though.

What is the problem with artillery (apart from it's rather horrid dps)? Yes that's right. It's the lowest range coupled with the lowest tracking. With dominion the horrid dps part is getting fixed afaik to the point that it will be even higher than rails. But do you think rail users will train for artillery then? I don't think so, the range+tracking combo makes rails still superior for pure sniper work.

425/800mm autocannons are already so bad noone fits them, unless they by some kind of magic have too much grid (mael/sleip, that's about it). If you give a falloff bonus to 180mm noone will fit them unless you also give them a 50% damage boost or some other silly boost like that. And even then I'd probably rather fit 180mm and probably still do more damage, because I can start doing damage sooner and I will track the enemy better.

No. As you go up in tier, you should get a more useful weapon for the much higher grid requirements they have, not a weapon that might be better in about 1% situations you happen to find yourself in.

Plus 180mm tracking and higher falloff would be completely imbalanced against smaller ships, as you could easily track and kill them with stabbers/vagabonds/vargurs before they could even hope to close the distance.

Fake edit: Now that i think about it... why don't you just fit blasters? It seems like this is what you want. And what will you do about the blaster whine that ensues? Cause if you bump autocannon damage "significantly" while not reducing tracking they're just plain better than blasters are, with all the "damage type versatility" thing going on.

Just. No.

Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:49:00 - [1844]
 

Edited by: Schmell on 02/11/2009 19:50:08
nvm

Succubine
Caldari
Succubine Dynasty Technologies
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:50:00 - [1845]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko

Being competitive with lasers all the way until the end of Scorch optimal is broken by default. I mean, SURE, if you intend to make them consume cap (which is a massive thing on sub BS ships tbh), get locked into racial only damage types and so on and so forth. Then we'd have balance. And two equal, carbon-copied weapon systems. Screw that.



Projectiles will become competitive when Tyhpoons fit AC more than Torps and when a fleet of RR Tempests with naturally high EM resist don't get laughed into oblivion by another fleet of RR Armageddons. Just a little fear would be nice.

To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:57:00 - [1846]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: To mare

projectile are not born to suck they need this boost to be competitive


Being competitive with lasers all the way until the end of Scorch optimal is broken by default. I mean, SURE, if you intend to make them consume cap (which is a massive thing on sub BS ships tbh), get locked into racial only damage types and so on and so forth. Then we'd have balance. And two equal, carbon-copied weapon systems. Screw that.



the only way projectile can compete with laser at range is with range mods TE TC ambits, and laser at raw damage are still superior, dmg type difference are just speculations it depends on what you are facing and at that range you going to use barrage anyway.

the only thing i call OP is ambit rigs if they get boosted to 30%, not because is too much in itself but because it make barrage less useful a ship with 2 ambits and T1 ammo have the same range of the same ship w/o rigs and barrage.


Caldor Mansi
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:01:00 - [1847]
 

Originally by: Succubine
Projectiles will become competitive when Tyhpoons fit AC more than Torps and when a fleet of RR Tempests with naturally high EM resist don't get laughed into oblivion by another fleet of RR Armageddons. Just a little fear would be nice.

This is quite flawed logic.

You take the strongest side of one ship/race and use it as measurement for performance of other ship/race. That way, we could simply make all BS turn into Armageddons.

What is needed is to define a role for large AC, since that is what they are currently lacking and all changes currently suggested are not following any goal, they are just flat boost of 'broken' platform.

What are they supposed to be good at?

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:01:00 - [1848]
 

Originally by: Succubine
Originally by: Cpt Branko

Being competitive with lasers all the way until the end of Scorch optimal is broken by default. I mean, SURE, if you intend to make them consume cap (which is a massive thing on sub BS ships tbh), get locked into racial only damage types and so on and so forth. Then we'd have balance. And two equal, carbon-copied weapon systems. Screw that.



Projectiles will become competitive when Tyhpoons fit AC more than Torps.


Because it's well known that ACs have the same fitting requirements as torps, they should do roughly the same damage. Oh, wait, Siege II takes over twice as much CPU as 800mm II...

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:04:00 - [1849]
 

Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 02/11/2009 20:09:47
Originally by: Succubine
Originally by: Cpt Branko

Being competitive with lasers all the way until the end of Scorch optimal is broken by default. I mean, SURE, if you intend to make them consume cap (which is a massive thing on sub BS ships tbh), get locked into racial only damage types and so on and so forth. Then we'd have balance. And two equal, carbon-copied weapon systems. Screw that.



Projectiles will become competitive when Tyhpoons fit AC more than Torps and when a fleet of RR Tempests with naturally high EM resist don't get laughed into oblivion by another fleet of RR Armageddons. Just a little fear would be nice.
This. Laughing

You, sir, win this thread.

Edit @ Caldor: You keep talking about Large AC roles. What about mediums? When was the last time you've a pilot that can fly a zealot fly a vagabond/muninn? The only platform that still uses projectiles are t1 frigates, but as people have said before, this is only because the rifter has the very good 3mid 3low slot layout and 3 damage bonused guns. As soon as you move into t2 frigates though, any minmatar frig is easily outclassed by the taranis/retribution/crusader.

Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:05:00 - [1850]
 

Originally by: Nuts Nougat
Oh I understood it alright. Looks like I didn't get my point across well enough though.

What is the problem with artillery (apart from it's rather horrid dps)? Yes that's right. It's the lowest range coupled with the lowest tracking. With dominion the horrid dps part is getting fixed afaik to the point that it will be even higher than rails. But do you think rail users will train for artillery then? I don't think so, the range+tracking combo makes rails still superior for pure sniper work.

425/800mm autocannons are already so bad noone fits them, unless they by some kind of magic have too much grid (mael/sleip, that's about it). If you give a falloff bonus to 180mm noone will fit them unless you also give them a 50% damage boost or some other silly boost like that. And even then I'd probably rather fit 180mm and probably still do more damage, because I can start doing damage sooner and I will track the enemy better.

No. As you go up in tier, you should get a more useful weapon for the much higher grid requirements they have, not a weapon that might be better in about 1% situations you happen to find yourself in.

Plus 180mm tracking and higher falloff would be completely imbalanced against smaller ships, as you could easily track and kill them with stabbers/vagabonds/vargurs before they could even hope to close the distance.

Fake edit: Now that i think about it... why don't you just fit blasters? It seems like this is what you want. And what will you do about the blaster whine that ensues? Cause if you bump autocannon damage "significantly" while not reducing tracking they're just plain better than blasters are, with all the "damage type versatility" thing going on.

Just. No.



No sorry, I do believe you could do with a new mind, ask god next time he talks to you in your quiet padded room.



For the other people who may read this

AC's need more range, AC's need more tracking. Not ALL AC's need more range and more tracking, because if you do that, why use the lower tiers?
AC's in truth need variation, not just having higher tiers meaning better stats. Oh sure, the lowest tier has the best tracking, and lowest fittings, but it has the worst range and dps. Still how much tracking do you need now that we will get ammunition with a tracking bonus, and for falloff we have a plethora of modules to increase it.

Hence my mentally deficient friend (in case hes still reading and not listening to the voices in his head) I suggested something interesting.
If you want a deep falloff with good tracking, you have a lower dps weapon, the shorter your range and worst the tracking, the greater your dps gets, the dps not been a small increase but a hefty one. To the point that you are going from a semi automatic rifle (D180mm) to a semi automatic shot gun (425mm).

It gives you options, more options means more possibility. More flexibility. There for, More Minmatar


Restating for you once more... Low tier = high tracking high falloff low dps, mid tier = balanced between low and high, same as now (maybe a slight falloff increase), top tier = low tracking low falloff very high dps.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:06:00 - [1851]
 

Any eta on when this may hit Sisi?? Less than a month to go now.

Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:15:00 - [1852]
 

Edited by: Nian Banks on 02/11/2009 20:15:15
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
Edited by: Nuts Nougat on 02/11/2009 20:09:47
Originally by: Succubine
Originally by: Cpt Branko

Being competitive with lasers all the way until the end of Scorch optimal is broken by default. I mean, SURE, if you intend to make them consume cap (which is a massive thing on sub BS ships tbh), get locked into racial only damage types and so on and so forth. Then we'd have balance. And two equal, carbon-copied weapon systems. Screw that.



Projectiles will become competitive when Tyhpoons fit AC more than Torps and when a fleet of RR Tempests with naturally high EM resist don't get laughed into oblivion by another fleet of RR Armageddons. Just a little fear would be nice.
This. Laughing

You, sir, win this thread.



This is the truth, an undeniable fact, they may as well remove the projectile bonus on the typhoon and add a drone damage bonus, as who the hell would fit the typhoon as a projectile using ship now with the 5 missile hardpoints?

Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
FREE KARTTOON NOW
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:27:00 - [1853]
 

Originally by: Nian Banks
AC's need more range, AC's need more tracking. Not ALL AC's need more range and more tracking, because if you do that, why use the lower tiers?
I never said lower should have lower tracking. 180mm will stay as highest tracking, people will still use it, the new 15% tracking per tier is a huge hit. Plus there's the rather large issue with higher tier not fitting at all on most ships without them having no tank at all.

Originally by: Nian Banks
Restating for you once more... Low tier = high tracking high falloff low dps, mid tier = balanced between low and high, same as now (maybe a slight falloff increase), top tier = low tracking low falloff very high dps.
So let me get this straight finally. Are you going to nerf 180mm and 220mm dps, so that people will want to fit 425mm? Or are you going to nerf 425mm tracking?

You will need to nerf something, because if you boost the dps on 425mm they become blasters, but with any damage type, thus making blasters utterly obsolete. If you then nerf tracking to fix that they again become completly useless, because they can't track anything at their intended "shotgun" range.

On the other hand, if you nerf 180mm dps to the point that they can't kill frigates thanks to their now high falloff and already superior tracking (they are already very good at this when fitted on vagabonds or sleipnirs, mind you), what exactly are you supposed to do with them? I thought guns were supposed to do damage? Or are you going to lower the tracking on these too, to fix this?

I'm sorry but I really don't see where you're going with this. Either make useless guns or make them blasters mk2. Or maybe you just haven't thought this out thoroughly.

Uncle Smokey
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:36:00 - [1854]
 

Edited by: Uncle Smokey on 02/11/2009 21:40:14
Originally by: Cpt Branko



That's why I wrote words "closer" and "of optimal's worth". I still see a practical difference in doing my 39.75% at 15% further, to 100% at 15% furher. I suppose the balance team sees the same thing?

Even if 10% (hey, 800m of falloff, how could you resist?) was enough for you, you're probably the only one.

Medium blasters gain 20/25% optimal and 25% falloff. Being the middleway turrets, AC's should get 10% in falloff only, and equivalent laser more than 10% in optimal + 25% on whatever falloff it has, so that even lasers end up with more falloff (+1km). Yeah, that seems about right, doesn't it? Not to even mention the damage... No brainers, huh?

You could have saved alot of trouble if you did not speak on my behalf too. Why you did... Well, I don't care.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.11.02 21:10:00 - [1855]
 

Originally by: Seriously Bored
IMO, the changes don't overpower Projectiles at the Large level. I'm finding that pure damage selection isn't quite so powerful at the BS level because most ships can fit very decent resists across the board. When you calculate a battleship's averaged resists across all of its EHP, Fusion isn't looking so overpowered.



It's true, but are you considering repping? I know - nobody fits *actual* reps anymore, but on-color damage is far more effective against remote rep fleets. BTW, Do you need help adapting the app to auto calculate EHP for you or anything?

Anyway, I'm refraining from further commentary until they put these changes on sisi. There's really far too many graph requests (I'll get to the ones I can), and far too much uncertainty as to what the hell the changes are. Everything so far is speculation run rampant.

-Liang

Raw Matters
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.02 21:54:00 - [1856]
 

My feeling is that while Minmatar has the fastest ships, they should as well have the best tracking. But from what I experienced with my weapons is that both auto cannon and artillery miss very frequently unless you have some kind of tracking enhancement on your ship (and even in this case for 1400 artillery). When I missed a painted BS that was circling me at 50 km distance at 110 m/s speed, I knew something was wrong. ;)

Giving projectile a good tracking boost and say "We don't hit that hard, but we hit!" would be my favorite solution.


Miriiah
Posted - 2009.11.02 22:27:00 - [1857]
 

Give TE's 15% falloff, 30% is too much considering all the other bonuses they have aswell, but keep 30% on Tracking Comps(you'll actually have to gimp something to fit TC's on Matari ships)

Uncle Smokey
Posted - 2009.11.02 22:39:00 - [1858]
 

Edited by: Uncle Smokey on 02/11/2009 22:48:09
Originally by: Miriiah
Give TE's 15% falloff, 30% is too much considering all the other bonuses they have aswell, but keep 30% on Tracking Comps(you'll actually have to gimp something to fit TC's on Matari ships)


I agree with fixing TC's, and would be fine with TE's 15% falloff, but then optimal should be dropped to 7.5%. Maybe 10% / 20% ?

-Hybrids would get slightly less than the full glory.
-Both laser and projectiles would gain about as much for it.

Miriiah
Posted - 2009.11.02 22:57:00 - [1859]
 

Originally by: Uncle Smokey
Edited by: Uncle Smokey on 02/11/2009 22:48:09
Originally by: Miriiah
Give TE's 15% falloff, 30% is too much considering all the other bonuses they have aswell, but keep 30% on Tracking Comps(you'll actually have to gimp something to fit TC's on Matari ships)


I agree with fixing TC's, and would be fine with TE's 15% falloff, but then optimal should be dropped to 7.5%. Maybe 10% / 20% ?

-Hybrids would get slightly less than the full glory.
-Both laser and projectiles would gain about as much for it.


Naw, 15% opti is fine tbh, but giving "abit of everything" is sorta fine, 15% opti and 15% falloff seems reasonable to me ;O

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.11.02 23:22:00 - [1860]
 

Originally by: Uncle Smokey
I don't get it. You look at the worst case scenario. You look at it when you find out that the pure damage ammo you just loaded was the wrong choice, or you have to fight at falloff and the target has an active/regen tank.

Whatever the real eve world was, is determined by the ships and modules, and what players CAN do, not what they prefer to. And what they prefer to, is going be changing along until we have the ultimate eve experience 1.0 in our hands.

Maybe we should boost laser dps, because they have such horrible damage types against armor, now that everyone's using that. hmm?
nah... we already did that twice (and a half), more or less directly... tracking boost, armor em resi down to 50% and ship bonuses to damage were a rarity before the zealot got it and the aba was introduced.

but if you're trying to say that we're using armor tanks these days because of lasers then that is a wrong conclusion, i'm afraid. snipers have their mids stuffed with MWD, cap booster, sensor booster. then there's the topic of RR which is more interesting for the shorties. scorps rather fill the mids with MOAR jam. etcetcpp

unless there's more battleships with 7-8 mid slots, this is not going to change. until then, explo will rock. will people skill more minnie bs? possibly yes, although the tempest is far from promising. will people use projectiles on "foreign" bs? heck yes, i'm skilling amarr bs IV for either a cute resist bonus on the abaddon or 7turrets+1RR+drones on the geddon at lvl I without having to skill minnie BS V for 6.67 effective turrets on the phoon [doesn't have the cap for more high slot fun anyways]. insert obligatory loltempest comment here.

yes i'm a minnie pilot, dare i say; through and through - and i am "all" for a change. these boosts would make the tempest competitive, yes - and push all ships that were ok'ish before over the top. let's face it, the tempest is one of these split things that get mistake for having something double. labeling this approach versatility is interesting polemics at best and didnt work for phoon or nagl. nor does it work on nidhoggur, huginn, fleet scythe, lachesis, eris, .........

and i'm not the only one seeing history repeating; a weapon system gets this boost, that tweak, some love there and bam! or maybe it won't be "visible" right away; maybe imagine it sitting on our faces when another straw is added. idk... fixing shield transporters or a boost to afterburners in general.. stuff like that *shrug*

the focused-damage-ammo is quite a healthy boost by itself. the falloff on tracking mods is only logical. extra falloff on higher tiers? unnecessary and the sole reason we post these graphs. again; i'm minnie and i think this is too much.
- unless (!!!) the range modifiers on ammos will include falloff. would also be kinda logical but if that's the case, you'll find me right back on the rusty barricades; we'd be looking at a nerf summa summarum, condemned to medium range ammo [but with excellent tracking ugh ]


Pages: first : previous : ... 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 ... : 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