open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Railgun balance, when do they get some love ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 : last (25)

Author Topic

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.01.27 02:09:00 - [691]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Fortunately, they all have optimal bonuses already so we can just tweak that up by 5%/lvl... ;-)

-Liang


I see you went up from your initial proposal of 10% to my proposed 15% damage modifier increase. Good, it means you are finally realizing that the sky will not fall, if rails get more damage. However, you are still failing to accept that the extra optimal is redundant for Caldari, eh? Stop being so short sighted.

Let's examine your proposal for a 5% increase in optimal.
Let's see if there is such a module/ rig available in game, such as those that are being primarily used by sniperHACs and Fleet BS, to provide an optimal bonus:
a) Tracking Enhancer II
b) Tracking Computer II
c) Large/ Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator I

Let us also remember that the most common complain for Caldari railboats is their abysmal PG, which forces them to fit a RCU II or Large/ Medium Ancillary Current Router + PDU II in order to be able to fit either 250mm or 425mm T2 rails on Eagle and Rokh respectively. It is uncanny that both ships need a 10% increase in PG in order to be able to fit all the necessary top tier guns without a fitting mod. By the way, Megathron and Deimos have no such issues.

If there was no such need for a fitting mod, a low or rig slot would become available in both Eagle and Rokh, therefore allowing their pilots to fit for more damage (marginal increase, since it would be the 4th Magstab) or more range.
As a mental exercise, what is the percentile increase to optimal in an Eagle with 2 x Tracking Computers if you add a Tracking Enhancer? Just to hint at the answer, it let's you use Plutonium for 70Km sniping, lower range ammo for higher damage, which is exactly what Liang has been telling us that Caldari should be doing anyway.

What does all the above tell us? It denotes that there is a consensus which demands at least 15% increase in the railguns damage output, so that their damage is up to par with the rest of the W/S. It also tells us that apart from the damage buffs for the rails, Caldari railboats are lacking and there is a need for a 10% increase of their PG output in order to achieve balance with the Gallente ones.

There you are, how much more of a simple and elegant solution can you ask? It incorporates both mine and Liangs approaches, is balanced and covers two issues that have been repeatedly reported.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.01.27 04:37:00 - [692]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/01/2010 04:36:48
Originally by: Tagami Wasp
I see you went up from your initial proposal of 10% to my proposed 15% damage modifier increase.


My initial proposal was 10-15% damage in post 266. Let me see if I understand your proposal. Concisely:
- +15% rail damage
- +10% PG for Caldari rail ships

Umm, I kinda like this. I think we'll still end up with complaints of the Eagle sucking because they use the last low for a damage control though, so I wouldn't be too terribly opposed to 10% optimal -> 12.5% optimal (or maybe still 15%) and the PG boost.

I still disagree with blasters needing more range (they need damage), but I can support your modified (greatly toned down) rail proposal.

-Liang

Ophelia Ursus
Posted - 2010.01.27 06:23:00 - [693]
 

I don't think a 10% grid increase is really sufficient; 15 - 20% would be more reasonable. Consider the generic core of a sniper HAC fitting: Y-T8 MWD, LSE II, and a full rack of highest tier racial long range guns. With a max-skilled character, fitting this lot on each of the racial sniping HACs consumes:

Zealot: 1511.25 of 1475 grid available (2.5% shortfall)
Muninn: 1511.25 of 1450 grid available (4.2% shortfall)
Deimos: 1337.5 of 1237.5 grid available (7.9% shortfall)
Eagle: 1337.5 of 1093.75 grid available (22.3% shortfall)

The Eagle thus requires at least two fitting mods (RCU II: +15% grid; ACR: +10% grid) to remedy its deficiency, whereas all the others require only one. A 10% PG boost would still leave the Eagle with a 11% grid deficit, leaving it considerably worse off than the others and being the only HAC that requires an RCU II to fit.

Also, while I certainly wouldn't object to a blanket 10% grid boost for the other Caldari turret boats, I'm not sure they all need it. The Harpy and Rokh work OK as is; it's the Moa, Eagle, and Ferox (and maybe Vulture?) that have real problems when fitting rails.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2010.01.27 09:43:00 - [694]
 

Originally by: Ophelia Ursus
I don't think a 10% grid increase is really sufficient; 15 - 20% would be more reasonable. Consider the generic core of a sniper HAC fitting: Y-T8 MWD, LSE II, and a full rack of highest tier racial long range guns. With a max-skilled character, fitting this lot on each of the racial sniping HACs consumes:

Zealot: 1511.25 of 1475 grid available (2.5% shortfall)
Muninn: 1511.25 of 1450 grid available (4.2% shortfall)
Deimos: 1337.5 of 1237.5 grid available (7.9% shortfall)
Eagle: 1337.5 of 1093.75 grid available (22.3% shortfall)

The Eagle thus requires at least two fitting mods (RCU II: +15% grid; ACR: +10% grid) to remedy its deficiency, whereas all the others require only one. A 10% PG boost would still leave the Eagle with a 11% grid deficit, leaving it considerably worse off than the others and being the only HAC that requires an RCU II to fit.

Also, while I certainly wouldn't object to a blanket 10% grid boost for the other Caldari turret boats, I'm not sure they all need it. The Harpy and Rokh work OK as is; it's the Moa, Eagle, and Ferox (and maybe Vulture?) that have real problems when fitting rails.

Yep +20% pg would needed, oh and dont forget the Raptor out :)
So far:
- +15-20% pg for caldari rail boats, +5%pg for gallente (maybe)
- change caldari optimal bonuses to 15% /lvl
- give rails around 15% dps boost
- and maybe some cap reduction for hybrid guns
- decrease ammo size

So all in all a complet hybrid ships/weapons redesign would be needed :P

Pod Amarr
Posted - 2010.01.27 10:52:00 - [695]
 

Originally by: Naomi Knight
Originally by: Ophelia Ursus
I don't think a 10% grid increase is really sufficient; 15 - 20% would be more reasonable. Consider the generic core of a sniper HAC fitting: Y-T8 MWD, LSE II, and a full rack of highest tier racial long range guns. With a max-skilled character, fitting this lot on each of the racial sniping HACs consumes:

Zealot: 1511.25 of 1475 grid available (2.5% shortfall)
Muninn: 1511.25 of 1450 grid available (4.2% shortfall)
Deimos: 1337.5 of 1237.5 grid available (7.9% shortfall)
Eagle: 1337.5 of 1093.75 grid available (22.3% shortfall)

The Eagle thus requires at least two fitting mods (RCU II: +15% grid; ACR: +10% grid) to remedy its deficiency, whereas all the others require only one. A 10% PG boost would still leave the Eagle with a 11% grid deficit, leaving it considerably worse off than the others and being the only HAC that requires an RCU II to fit.

Also, while I certainly wouldn't object to a blanket 10% grid boost for the other Caldari turret boats, I'm not sure they all need it. The Harpy and Rokh work OK as is; it's the Moa, Eagle, and Ferox (and maybe Vulture?) that have real problems when fitting rails.

Yep +20% pg would needed, oh and dont forget the Raptor out :)
So far:
- +15-20% pg for caldari rail boats, +5%pg for gallente (maybe)
- change caldari optimal bonuses to 15% /lvl
- give rails around 15% dps boost
- and maybe some cap reduction for hybrid guns
- decrease ammo size

So all in all a complet hybrid ships/weapons redesign would be needed :P

Yeah pretty much what they did with projectiles so if we can make conclusions about how long it will take acoording to how long it took for them to fix the projectiled we can expect it somewhere at late 2012 around the time of the end of the world.

justin666
Posted - 2010.01.27 11:51:00 - [696]
 

rails are fine mostly they just need a extra 5 percent to the main damage mod thats all.... but range wise and tracking is fine so leave it ccp :)

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.01.27 14:45:00 - [697]
 

Originally by: Ophelia Ursus
I don't think a 10% grid increase is really sufficient; 15 - 20% would be more reasonable. Consider the generic core of a sniper HAC fitting: Y-T8 MWD, LSE II, and a full rack of highest tier racial long range guns. ...

Also, while I certainly wouldn't object to a blanket 10% grid boost for the other Caldari turret boats, I'm not sure they all need it. The Harpy and Rokh work OK as is; it's the Moa, Eagle, and Ferox (and maybe Vulture?) that have real problems when fitting rails.


Consider that if you are fitting them like that, you are doing it wrong. No cookie cutter failfit please. As I have stated once, I finished training for railguns before I ever got my T2 HMLs, and was flying Merlin, Harpy and Ferox for quite some time.A properly fitted Eagle requires only an RCU II to fit everything. That's smack on 10%. Rokh, requires an PDU II + Ancillary, again roughly 10%. Merlin needs a MAPC and 2 Ancillaries to fit even Ions + MSE. After trying a multitude of fits, I surmised that all Caldari railboats lack just 10% PG. There is no need to ask for more, but that 10% gimps them utterly. Btw, if Ferox get's a 10% PG increase that transfers to Vulture AND Nighthawk, so with one fell move, you sweep 3 issues at the same time.

I am glad we finally reached an agreement.
To reiterate, in order to improve railgun performance and bring it up to par with the restof the W/S, CCP shoud proceed to implement:
- +15% railgun damage modifier
- +10% PG for Caldari railgun ships

Dabljuh
Posted - 2010.01.27 16:58:00 - [698]
 

Originally by: Tagami Wasp
+10% PG for Caldari railgun ships
And you'll reduce the CPU as well to bring em in line with the other sniper HACs? You realize that what you want there is to be able to fit the highest tier T2 guns, MWD, damage mods AND a fat buffer tank without having to be limited by fitting?

Forget about it. Every ship with more than 3 slots has problems fitting max gank and max tank at the same time.

Grut
The Protei
Posted - 2010.01.27 17:22:00 - [699]
 

Edited by: Grut on 27/01/2010 17:22:11
Originally by: Tagami Wasp

A properly fitted Eagle requires only an RCU II to fit everything. That's smack on 10%.




5x250 II's mwd+lse is atleast 1324, an eagle gets 1257 with an rcuII .... hmmm.

Originally by: Tagami Wasp

To reiterate, in order to improve railgun performance and bring it up to par with the restof the W/S, CCP shoud proceed to implement:
- +15% railgun damage modifier
- +10% PG for Caldari railgun ships


That looks good though.

Ophelia Ursus
Posted - 2010.01.27 17:27:00 - [700]
 

Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 27/01/2010 17:36:41
Was going to reply at length, but :effort:

In no particular order, then.

MSEs on cruisers: lawl (edit: and an RCU II is +15% grid, not +10%)
Merlin: its problems are numerous, but having difficulty in fitting an MSE isn't really one of them. The bigger problem is that there's no shield equivalent of a 200mm plate. And the 2/2 highslot layout. And the fact that it's sloooooow. And... f*** it, fly Rifters.
Grid, eagle, other HACs: every Eagle pilot in the game would be delighted to take a 15% CPU reduction in return for a 15% grid increase.

Max Payne
Posted - 2010.01.27 17:29:00 - [701]
 

eh, just give 10% ROF bonus to medium and long ranged ammo, give 10% tracking and falloff to AM ammo, caboom - fixed

marakor
Gallente
Anti Lag Forum Smackers
Posted - 2010.01.27 17:36:00 - [702]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/01/2010 04:36:48
Originally by: Tagami Wasp
I see you went up from your initial proposal of 10% to my proposed 15% damage modifier increase.


My initial proposal was 10-15% damage in post 266. Let me see if I understand your proposal. Concisely:
- +15% rail damage
- +10% PG for Caldari rail ships

Umm, I kinda like this. I think we'll still end up with complaints of the Eagle sucking because they use the last low for a damage control though, so I wouldn't be too terribly opposed to 10% optimal -> 12.5% optimal (or maybe still 15%) and the PG boost.

I still disagree with blasters needing more range (they need damage), but I can support your modified (greatly toned down) rail proposal.

-Liang


The rail idea seems ok.

And yea Blasters dont need more range, they just need to do a lot more dmg in the range they already have.



Dabljuh
Posted - 2010.01.27 17:59:00 - [703]
 

Originally by: marakor
And yea Blasters dont need more range, they just need to do a lot more dmg in the range they already have.
No, that's not the problem. Blasters do more damage than any other gun at their optimal. The problem is, even rails who really aren't supposed to do any damage at that range still do ~2/3rds, maybe 1/2 the damage of blasters. That sort of difference doesn't cut it when you consider how much damage blasters do at railgun optimal. (Zarro)

Altaica Amur
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.01.27 20:00:00 - [704]
 

Quote:
Before making suggestions for Railgun changes based on your graphs, I would really appreciate it if you put a sniper fit Megathron on the graph as well.

The reason is that if you try to balance rails around the Rokh alone, you always come back with a Megathron that makes the Apocalypse look impotent. I do appreciate someone trying to support their argument with proper effort, however.


The reason I didn't include the mega is because it wouldn't emerge above the lines of lasers on the graph, the 350 damage with spike just isn't enough. For the same reason I didn't include the tempest, geddon or other ships that would have failed to secure any portion of preformance on the graph. The mega with the proposed changes to damage would do 420 or so damage at just shy of 200km which is 30km short of where a tach apoc can sit with 400 damage giving it some nice territory around it's ideal sniping range but too far either way and it'll find itself outclassed by lasers once more.

Quote:
Umm, I kinda like this. I think we'll still end up with complaints of the Eagle sucking because they use the last low for a damage control though, so I wouldn't be too terribly opposed to 10% optimal -> 12.5% optimal (or maybe still 15%) and the PG boost.


More optimal on caldari boats is of dubious use until you can get Thorium out to ~200km due to t2 ammo messing with the otherwise smooth curve. Until t2 ammo is somehow harmonized with other ammo types giving caldari more optimal just means their spike range is further beyond the lock limit. Perhaps changing t2 ammos like spike from super-specialized only provides range bonus but at the cost of tracking to something with smaller bonuses but accross the board. Doing tungsten damage with the 80% range bonus and removing the tracking penalty would at least level out the t2 damage spike a bit (the last kick up on the graphs, second to last point) and promote the use of non-t2 ammo, otherwise the 'you can use more damaging ammo' bonus for the Rokh is a bit of a farce.

So re-iterating my suggestions, barring any radical changes to all the t2 ammo out there some measured bonuses to the damage higher ranged hybrid ammo would be thoroughly appreciated as well as some serious easing of the cap requirements for firing railguns. Unless we want to make hybrids require no ammo as well the fact that they have a more difficult time then laser boats in sustaining themselves is rediculous. The other boat-specific suggestions mentioned here, 10% PG on caldari rail boats, even -more- range added to them seem to me besides the point as the megathron isn't exactly preforming that stellar either, helping or even fixing the Rokh but ignoring the mega would probably just complicate future attempts to balance the mega out as well.

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.01.27 21:03:00 - [705]
 

Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: Tagami Wasp
+10% PG for Caldari railgun ships
And you'll reduce the CPU as well to bring em in line with the other sniper HACs? You realize that what you want there is to be able to fit the highest tier T2 guns, MWD, damage mods AND a fat buffer tank without having to be limited by fitting?

Forget about it. Every ship with more than 3 slots has problems fitting max gank and max tank at the same time.


Hmm, you know what in my line of work your line of thinking is called?
Every post you have made is destructive, not constructive, you ask for negative changes, you just complain, you use inverse logic and you only contribution so far was to try to reinvent transversal. Spare us your thoughts and opinions, if you don't have anything positive to say, STFU.

In case you are wondering if there is a way of thinking that can be used to achieve better results, please google Demming and Juran. If you want to really go deep into the matter check this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma. After you've read both their books and as many as possible out of the relative literature, come back to us and tell us what of these concepts you have used to provide constructive criticism.

BTW, in my line of work, your approach = failure.

P.S. Also, since I live and breath by the numbers, and since you are out to prove how smart you are, MENSA ID and IQ dude, or STFU. Don't bother with your EQ, we can all see that it's under 90.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.01.27 21:43:00 - [706]
 

Originally by: Tagami Wasp
P.S. Also, since I live and breath by the numbers, and since you are out to prove how smart you are, MENSA ID and IQ dude, or STFU. Don't bother with your EQ, we can all see that it's under 90.


Hell Tagami, I don't even have a Mensa ID. I thought about joining them when I was a kid, but decided that it was really just a bunch of whiny honky kids that wanted some sort of peer validation of their "high IQ".

Then I got into high school and got a mandatory official IQ test + psych profile and decided that Mensa was for tards. Seemed that everyone and their puppy had an IQ in the 120-140 range, and every (dumb but rich) person I knew was in Mensa. I even talked to some friends about how they must have redefined what "normal IQ" was in an effort to help the systemic self esteem problem.

I thought about trying to get into the Prometheus Society since they had higher requirements than Mensa. It seemed pretty quiet (read: dead) from the outside, and I didn't have the cash anyway, and it still smacked of wanting some sort of peer validation... so I didn't. /shrug

I wonder if I could get another copy of that IQ + Psych profile... Neutral

Uh. This was probably way revealing.

-Liang

Dabljuh
Posted - 2010.01.28 01:14:00 - [707]
 

Originally by: Tagami Wasp
Blah blah "Wanting to nerf tracking in general" = negative thinking blah blah IQ blah blah
Your post makes me kinda sad. I have brought forth good arguments why tracking in general is too high (with the possible exception of, of all things, blasters) and none of those arguments so far have been refuted. All that's been produced was "Nooo! I like having tons of tracking! I like hitting things without having to put the slightest effort in it!"

Also your whole EQ/Business strategy blurb makes me think of something else:

Do you honestly believe that the devs are reading this? Like "if we whine about rails long enough, they'll change them"?

That's not how it works. The devs don't care in the slightest about who whines how much about what on the forums. That is entirely not how their approach to balancing works. Now you're probably pointing towards the CMs who are supposed to read the forums for the devs, as a reasoning why whining on the forums could be effective. The reality is the CMs couldn't care less either. The CMs simply laugh about the amount of whining going on, and a CM who decides to start annoying the devs about how much whining about a particular balance issue is going on, will be out of a job pretty soon - since he obviously didn't understand what his job is. It's not "making sure the game is balanced"...

The reason why you so strongly want to believe that massed whining on the forums is effective as a tool to influence balance, is because you perceive that as the only tool at your disposal. And you're wrong in both counts.

Read my lips: You're not going to change the game by any amount of whining on the forums. If you want to change something about the game, make a petition. Those may get forwarded by the GOs and actually reach the devs. Here on the forums, you're talking to non-devs and the best you can achieve is starting a nice little circle-jerk of how railguns and caldari gunships are undpowered.

Or you could actually try to engage in real and proper argument, so that when you end up doing a petition, or talking to someone who actually matters, the argument that you do bring forward is well thought out and was critically tested by peer review.

Your peers here are your best bet to improve your position to a point where it has legs to stand on. 5% or 10% more DPS is not an argument, it's a cheap cop-out as you try to achieve an advantage for your position but at the same time making it so small that any counter-argument can be shot down with the words "It's just 10%, whats the worst that could happen" - I tell you what: it wouldn't change anything.

You need to deal with the arguments. If you don't do that, your position is no better than if selected by random chance. I.e., its crap. If you try to shoot down all opposing position with ad hominems, that doesn't improve your position.

Of course now someone will go "OMG HYPOCRISY!" at me attacking you for your strategy of ad hominems. Ad Hominems aren't bad as a general rule, they're just bad when they're used to avoid an argument.

The only legitimate reason you should ever engage in ad hominems is because your opposing side doesn't produce arguments, or is simply too stupid to understand your own argument even after you've made an effort to explain it in plain, simple language. Those people disrupt the discourse and need be removed.

I can forgive you because you probably missed the part where I contributed (Pages ~5-15, read the whole thread before you accuse people of not contributing), but this thread is now ~25 pages and I feel like I'm still the only one who produced an alternative suggestion to laughably minuscule increases on rails / platforms.

TL;DR: Stop whining and deal with the arguments of people who disagree with you instead of attacking them personally as a general rule instead of attacking those who are simply not contributing to the discussion.

marakor
Gallente
Anti Lag Forum Smackers
Posted - 2010.01.28 01:20:00 - [708]
 

Edited by: marakor on 28/01/2010 01:23:14

Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: marakor
And yea Blasters dont need more range, they just need to do a lot more dmg in the range they already have.
No, that's not the problem. Blasters do more damage than any other gun at their optimal. The problem is, even rails who really aren't supposed to do any damage at that range still do ~2/3rds, maybe 1/2 the damage of blasters. That sort of difference doesn't cut it when you consider how much damage blasters do at railgun optimal. (Zarro)


Blasters do insignificantly more RAW dmg than lasers in blaster optimal, and actually less than a torp raven but thats another story.

But in a baddon vs mega fight after resists on standardly available passive tanks and at the megas 4.5K optimal the baddon out damages the blaster mega, oh and before you emo rage about the tier 3 vs tier 2 crap it does the same to the hyperion as well AT 4.5KM......



Thats just wrong.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.01.28 01:23:00 - [709]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 28/01/2010 01:25:54
Originally by: Dabljuh
Read my lips: You're not going to change the game by any amount of whining on the forums.


You're provably wrong. The last projectile boost was a direct result of intelligent forum whining. The devs even referenced prior work from the projectile threads. The biggest difference between those threads and this one is that people like you are wantonly flaming and making almost believable points.

Also, it is beyond doubt that the devs and game balancers DO read (and post on) the forums with alts. There's even been alts that had to be deleted/removed because of accidental posts with them.

-Liang

Dabljuh
Posted - 2010.01.28 01:25:00 - [710]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
You're provably wrong. The last projectile boost was a direct result of intelligent forum whining.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Also, nice for you to admit why you're posting here.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.01.28 01:28:00 - [711]
 

Originally by: Dabljuh
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


You know that big thread that you declined to read? Go read it. :)

Quote:
Also, nice for you to admit why you're posting here.


What, so I can finally use Liang's 40M SP in Gallente instead of living out of an Armageddon/Abaddon like I've been doing?

-Liang

SpinDoctor15
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.01.28 01:38:00 - [712]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
...Current we have blasters which are painfully short ranged and railguns (the AC/2 of Eve)...



Awesome quote: that gun was RIDONCULOUSLY AWFUL in MechWarrior 2...

Dabljuh
Posted - 2010.01.28 01:42:00 - [713]
 

Edited by: Dabljuh on 28/01/2010 01:47:03
Originally by: marakor
But in a baddon vs mega fight after resists on standardly available passive tanks and at the megas 4.5K optimal the baddon out damages the blaster mega, oh and before you emo rage about the tier 3 vs tier 2 crap it does the same to the hyperion as well AT 4.5KM......
I cannot confirm all your data, testing Abaddon vs hype, the hype out-dpses the abaddon by about 13%, taking resists into account, although the abaddon out-EHPs the hype by about 40%. Plus you're talking about survivability comparing buffer tanks on a ship that has a buffer tank bonus vs one that has an active rep bonus.

But see, static survivability tests are not that interesting, they don't reveal the more underlying problem. At 4.5k, the Hypes blasters should have a distinctive advantage through tracking, which given any realistic movement should reduce the baddons DPS to a fraction of its original value. This does however not happen, with pulses the damage is reduced by at most 10%, and even using long range weapons, battleships frequently do almost their full DPS at 4.5km. A general, strong reduction in tracking would make blasters far superior to other weapons at 4.5km, simply by making the other turrets miss more often.

Originally by: Liang Nuren
You know that big thread that you declined to read? Go read it. :)
If I remember correctly, and I only skimmed over the thread, it went something like this:

Originally by: CM
We're gonna buff projectiles. We're thinking about doing something to the ammo, maybe even increase falloff. You can pitch some ideas here.

Originally by: Community
*Lots and lots of bad ideas*

Originally by: CM
We've decided that you guys are ****ing worthless and we're just gonna go ahead with what we previously planned.


Now that you mention it, maybe forum whining is really the driving force behind all creative processes!

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.01.28 01:43:00 - [714]
 

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 28/01/2010 01:49:46
Originally by: Dabljuh
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Also, nice for you to admit why you're posting here.


Even if you haven't followed this forum very long (which I doubt) or you intentionally ignored the monthly Minmatar threadnaughts before Dominion, the very least you could say is that all that forum warrioring built up enough groundwork and consensus to get CCPs attention when the petitions started coming around.

You could say these forum threads don't matter at all, but the petitions turn into a fractious **** storm if you can't get any agreement before hand.


The issue that you're dealing with is the fact that very, very few people would back you up on your suggestion to massively reduce tracking. You can write a book about how ham-fisted a solution you think +10% DPS is, but a simple change like that where it's easier to predict the ramifications will always get more support.

You're right that this thread probably won't be getting many people's attention because it's engulfed in too many flames, but somehow you're at both the firing and receiving end of almost all of those flames. Neutral

The majority of the posters in this thread (not the majority of posts, you are clearly winning there), including a great many well-informed forum regulars, disagree that large weapon tracking relative to frigates has much - if anything at all - to do with making Rails a desirable weapon system again.

I'm sorry man, but it's just gone on long enough...

ED: I really think Tagami and Liang are having the most productive "argument" so far. It looks like there's a good amount of consensus on the solution, just not on the degree of change.

Dabljuh
Posted - 2010.01.28 02:02:00 - [715]
 

Originally by: Seriously Bored
The issue that you're dealing with is the fact that very, very few people would back you up on your suggestion to massively reduce tracking. You can write a book about how ham-fisted a solution you think +10% DPS is, but a simple change like that where it's easier to predict the ramifications will always get more support.
Given the track record of this and other communities, people don't like massive nerfs and much rather tolerate if everything else gets buffed instead. This is a purely irrational psychological issue. When you, on the other hand, look at the track record of CCP with how they deal with things that "people like, but should get nerfed", you'll notice that they tend to neuter the everliving **** out of them.

Most people simply don't notice tracking being too high in the same way they notice a battleship going 30'000m/s. But these are all psychological explanations of why the tracking hasn't been nerfed yet, there's still a good argument missing why it shouldn't get nerfed - as it would fix so many things about the game.

And I'm not talking about battleships tracking frigates, those are just calculative examples on how you can calculate more appropriate values. I'm talking about turning the tracking advantage caldari rail ships have at the long ranges into a real, tactically valuable advantage that translates into real DPS. And at the same time - and this I assure you - it's the only thing you can do to the game to make blasters useful in a way that's still balanced.

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2010.01.28 04:04:00 - [716]
 

Originally by: Dabljuh
Given the track record of this and other communities, people don't like massive nerfs and much rather tolerate if everything else gets buffed instead. This is a purely irrational psychological issue. When you, on the other hand, look at the track record of CCP with how they deal with things that "people like, but should get nerfed", you'll notice that they tend to neuter the everliving **** out of them.

Most people simply don't notice tracking being too high in the same way they notice a battleship going 30'000m/s. But these are all psychological explanations of why the tracking hasn't been nerfed yet, there's still a good argument missing why it shouldn't get nerfed - as it would fix so many things about the game.

And I'm not talking about battleships tracking frigates, those are just calculative examples on how you can calculate more appropriate values. I'm talking about turning the tracking advantage Caldari rail ships have at the long ranges into a real, tactically valuable advantage that translates into real DPS. And at the same time - and this I assure you - it's the only thing you can do to the game to make blasters useful in a way that's still balanced.


You know what I just realized? You don't have a f***king clue about sniping BSes and sniperHACs engaging at their optimal. It is obvious that you are theorycrafting, without having ever witnessed action as a sniper, or you would not spew all this crup. Have you ever tried hitting a Ranis ABing @ 70Km perpendicular to your line of attack in an Eagle? You are tickling his shields and will never take him down, and that in a HAC. And you want to nerf tracking?

I think I know what is the problem here. You fail to understand that there is already a provision for reduced tracking in game for those ships that the devs have deemed that they need to be lacking.
It's called T2 ammo.
Both Zealot and Deimos need Aurora and Spike to reach Eagle range, but lasers do a lot more dps when they are there, Munnin can use CarboLead or Tremor, depending on fit, but that is the characteristic of Minmatar versatility.
The inherent advantage of using the Caldari rail platform is that you can achieve those ranges with T1 ammo.
The problem is that the damage applied by the W/S in either Caldari or Gallente boats is not enough to justify it's use in comparison to a Zealot even with the increased tracking Eagle gets. That's why rails do need a damage increase.

But please amaze us with the number of frigate kills you have achieved in your sniping BS and prove me wrong.

Even though Liang and I have gone head to head a few times before, I respect the fact that when he tries to provide a solution it is in a positive and constructive way and he uses numbers and logic to come up with them. I may not agree with his results, or the premises upon he constructs his logical propositions, but I can see that there is cohesive thought behind his arguments.
On the other hand, you barge into the argument, trolling and crying that you are the sole and undisputed authority on all things pertinent, then proceed to make an equus asinus of yourself by stating inanities and trying to reinvent the wheel.

To conclude, if you are interested in fixing rails, please refrain from being such an uncouth troll, bring arguments to the table or hold your tongue. What you have come up with up to now amounts to trash; however, we've managed to reach a consensus, in spite of your many efforts to derail the discussion. If you insist on your suggestions, make a different topic about them and try to gather support. I believe that you will not find many.

Thank you and goodbye, I will personally ignore you from now on.


P.S. In the last thread I commented about a W/S a dev replied specifically to my comment, so I presume that they, as well as the CSM, read threadnaughts about game balance issues.
Of course they could always be ignoring just YOU.LaughingCool

Jardine Khan
Caldari
Grey Wolves Mercenary Guild
Posted - 2010.01.28 07:59:00 - [717]
 

Being relatively new to Eve, I'm not familiar with the mechanics behind weapons beyond cap use: Missiles and Projectiles don't use cap, everything else cap hungry. However, after reading some of the posts in this thread, it does seem that hybrids, especially rails, are in need of a bit of tweaking.

What I find odd is this: "Having long suffered the lack of an adequate hybrid platform, the Caldari State's capsule pilots found themselves rejoicing as the Rokh's design specs were released. A fleet vessel if ever there was one, this far-reaching and durable beast is expected to see a great deal of service on battlefields near and far." That is the description for the Rokh, and after working with the Rokh in EFT (not having one myself yet), I've found little to rejoice about aside from the fact that itís a gun platform; Iíve got ships that can do more damage at similar ranges as the Rokh while being able to tank better. If a ship is going to have bonuses to hybrids it should be able to use them along with a decent tank, meaning it should have increased cap recharge/capacity to compensate. If a ship is going to call itself a hybrid platform, then had better be able to cope with the capacitor demands of said hybrids.

I've seen it recommended that hybrids also get an increase to damage and a decrease in powergrid needs. Both of these suggestions seem reasonable, especially the increase to damage, and I agree with them. Railguns fire a solid metal slug at hyper-sonic speeds, a whole hell of a lot faster than traditional projectile weapons like what the Minmatar use. Instead of using a warhead to do damage, the railgun slugs use sheer kinetic energy, allowing them to do much greater damage than a traditional projectile slug with a warhead. And given the fact that there is nothing in space to cause to slug to slow down, like air resistance or friction, railgun slugs should be hitting with the same amount of force at 100km as they would at 10km, with the only variation in damage amount resulting in the material the slug is made from, which is partially the case now.

In real life, researchers are working on a developing a railgun system that would fire a slug that is smaller in size that current rounds with a muzzle exit velocity of Mach 10 (10 times the speed of sound) and hitting a target nearly 200km away with a velocity of Mach 4 (4 times the speed of sound). Given the reasoning above, this means that in space, a slug fired from a railgun should be hitting its target regardless of range at the same speed at which it left the barrel. I donít know about you, but I would think that a solid metal slug travelling at 10 times the speed of sound would do a significant amount of damage. There. Thatís my argument for increasing the damage of railguns.

Iím not gonna argue for or against the decrease in powergrid needs of railguns primarily because I donít know the mechanics behind the relationship between powergrid and railguns, plus I think the arguments for a decrease in powergrid needs have all been made sufficiently enough. What I am going to say is that the bonuses to cap usage that current hybrid ammo has is fine; some materials require more/less battery power in order to effectively launch them from the turret at a set velocity. What needs to be done with regards to cap is to increase the cap size and/or recharge rate of ships that claim to be hybrid platforms, i.e. ships that give bonuses to hybrid weapons. I would suggest maybe a 25-30% increase in capacitor size and a 5-10% increase in capacitor recharge rate for ships that are hybrid platforms compared to non-hybrid platforms, i.e. the Moa vs. Caracal, Ferox vs. Drake, Rokh vs. Raven.

So, in summary: increase railgun damage, decrease powergrid needs, and increase capacitor size and recharge rate.

p.s. You may have noticed that I didnít mention blasters Ė thatís because I havenít used blasters enough to pass judgment on them aside from saying their range sucks.

Dabljuh
Posted - 2010.01.28 11:55:00 - [718]
 

Originally by: Tagami Wasp
Have you ever tried hitting a Ranis ABing @ 70Km perpendicular to your line of attack in an Eagle? You are tickling his shields and will never take him down, and that in a HAC. And you want to nerf tracking?
Now I seriously must have you STFU and go back and actually read this thread. I've brought an extensive analysis detailed in numberous posts why the fact that you're even tickling the ranis in that situation means you have orders of magnitude too much tracking. Read the goddamned thread because otherwise I'll just be repeating myself over and over. And yeah - you still didn't bring an argument as to why tracking shouldn't get nerfed, all you brought is an argument for insulting you for your arrogance.

Quote:
P.S. In the last thread I commented about a W/S a dev replied specifically to my comment, so I presume that they, as well as the CSM, read threadnaughts about game balance issues.
Of course they could always be ignoring just YOU
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of your central importance to the world of EVE, how could I have known the EVE balancing process solely revolves around your personal amount of whinage. In the future, I shall try to make you whine about things, whenever I feel things in the game need changing.

wallenbergaren
Posted - 2010.01.28 13:33:00 - [719]
 

The point is, he thinks you're theorycrafting and so do I

How many sniper fights have you actually been in? A few pages back you were making very inaccurate statements about them

marakor
Gallente
Anti Lag Forum Smackers
Posted - 2010.01.28 13:51:00 - [720]
 

Originally by: Dabljuh


A general, strong reduction in tracking would make blasters far superior to other weapons at 4.5km, simply by making the other turrets miss more often.



Your dreaming buddy.

scenario 1.

1 laser bs vs 1 blaster bs both webbing each other ok?.


lets include pilots with brians:

The pulse BS is burning in a str8 line to reduce transversal effect on its lasers and the blaster BS trying to orbit to increase the transversal ok?.....


The lasers would neeed to have their tracking nerfed to dreadnought blaster levels to see any real measurable effect.


Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 : last (25)

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