open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Idea] bleedthrough...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.26 07:07:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 26/02/2011 08:07:25
Hey all!! Cool
Been toying with this idea for a while and it is based on current achievable eve-tech too!! so no ''ifs or buts' on implementation here. \o/

I apologise in advance if this has been covered but i have searched a lot and only found a couple of off the cuff references to what im proposing on the forums, but none in the CSM meeting minutes as such.... and yes for all of you thinking u know what this is going to be its another discussion on hybrids! :P

------------------------

I completely understand the problems with hybrids and the fact that theyre immensely unpopular due to their performance.
I also understand the need to differentiate themselves from other weapon systems, which from a game dynamic is completely understandable.
The issue of optimal range and tracking is a sore one and a well argued one. any solution brought about by arguments on it will never give hybrids a new perspective or unique selling point compared to the other weapon systems in eve.

------------------------


So my thoughts on a unique selling point to hybrids is bleed-through. obviously there will be obvious opposition to this, and i am expecting there to be.

What i am proposing is:

ArrowBlasters to be a tailored Gallente weapon system designed to work to penetrate shields of Caldari vessels and give a tailored 'core' that has a base damage bleed-through equivalent to 5% of the primary damage of the charge,

Say the charge delivers a maximum of 30HP damage.
The base bleed-through damage would be 1.5HP.
This 1.5HP would be selectable depending on what charge u loaded, and could be EM, explosive, thermal or kinetic damage.
The primary damage of the charge will be mitigated by shield resistances but the bleed through would only be mitigated by the next level of resistances.


key factor here is the bleed through has a base damage amount unaffected by the prior level of resistances.
This dual core design has a stable and definable punch but requires careful selection of damage type to be most effective.
Blasters keep most to all of their original design of being high cap extreme close range weapon systems, but have the potential rewards there that they dont have at the moment.


ArrowRailguns would be a caldari adaptation of this bleed-through hybrid design designed to penetrate armour and encroach on hull damage, much like earthly RPG7 and anti armour weapons.

Instead of the bleed-though damage being selectable, the damage stays thermal, with the selectable charges differing between primary damage types.
This time there's no base damage bleed-through amount, but the amount of bleed through is calculated at 5% of the damage after armour resistances have been applied to the main damage type.

What this means is that to get the best bleed through u need to be hitting the weakest armour resistance, in order to get a higher damage after armour resistances, and hence a higher 5% bleed-through into hull.



Both these systems offer a unique selling point. i dont feel they're in any way overpowered when running numbers. the bleed-through percentages / base damage equivalents tailor to the damage amounts of the charge sizes.
There would be no mental Assault frigate 'bleed through' popping a drake in a few minutes.


In terms of Lore these systems operate more in line with what i believe hybrid charges are were originally intended to be.
Both systems operate the way the races are envisioned to idolise.
The Gallente thinking around a problem against their nemesis race, and the Caldari using might to further their advantage over an over-thinking opponent.

This kind of change could also see the rising use of both armour and shield logistics in the same fleet, maybe even creating a 3rd possible hull logistics that could bring the Oneiros back into use as something other than just a cap generator.


please please discuss!!

(ps-im tired and i think my eyes are about to die!) Shocked

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.26 07:32:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud on 26/02/2011 20:47:18
Also... in relation to using this form of blasters against armour targets, base bleed-through would hit armour resistances that are equal across the board so using the blasters would mean its inherent advantages of selectable bleed-through damage type is rendered useless.

Same goes with railgun advantages against shield targets as the bonuses to Thermal bleed-through damage would be met with relatively high base thermal armour resistances inherent on all ships.

Once again, please please discuss!

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2011.02.26 13:38:00 - [3]
 

one question... Why?
You have 1.5 damage bleed through. A drake has ~5 k armor and ~5k struture. It will take you a year to kill a drake with this kind of bleed-through damage.
Apart from killing a ship who's tank you cant break, bledthrough damage is going to be useless.

Shoopa Whoopa
Posted - 2011.02.26 14:15:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 26/02/2011 14:18:30
It makes quite some sense. Railguns should be the ultimate armor piercing weapon.

If we say the shields work better against fast moving mass their effectiveness would be something like this, in descending order:
Railguns
Autocannons
Artillery
Missiles
Blasters
Lasers (being the most effective against shields)

Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2011.02.26 15:31:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 26/02/2011 15:38:52
Hybrids are pretty much fine.

And stop that gallente/caldari racism. Both use blasters and rails.

Blaster damage melts ships and if you're gallente you got drones to add to even that. Blaster caldari ships are actually more useful than railgun ones, since at least you're going to do damage even without damage bonus.

Railguns are currently only useful if you got gallente ship with damage bonus. Difficult to say if it's useless to do useless damage from useless range.

I think if there's a problem it's with ammo types and smaller guns. Just look at (c)raptor or longer range dmg etc.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.26 18:58:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
one question... Why?
You have 1.5 damage bleed through. A drake has ~5 k armor and ~5k struture. It will take you a year to kill a drake with this kind of bleed-through damage.
Apart from killing a ship who's tank you cant break, bledthrough damage is going to be useless.


Well u see i worked it out like this: Blaster BC vs Shield BC (brutix vs drake)

Pure gank brutix can deal out close to 1k of DPS bt most fits reach around the 500 - 600 mark
The 30HP damage i used in my OP was for 1 charge in one gun.
if the bleedthrough was 5% of base damage before resists then 600DPS Brutix would deal 30HP of bleedthrough per second.
A drake with 5k armor and 5k hull would have 10k of HP to go through without resistances added. Say the damage type chosen hits armor resists that are 25%, 7.5HP of potential damage is removed and the armor (5k) would decay at a rate of 22.5HP/sec. To chew through that would take 222 seconds or 3.7 Minutes. if the drake doesnt have a Dc2 on the hull resistances are 0% meaning hull (5k) depleats in 167 seconds, or 2.7 minutes.
6 minutes 29 seconds to pop a shield tanked drake in a gank brutix by bleedthrough ONLY.

At first when thinking of figures to go for this i was thinking percentages of around 25 but when actually doing the calcs itd be waaaay overpowered. if you're flying a blaster fit boat doing 600+ DPS, ur generally not tanked, so the tactic is one of teamwork, with a buddy providing logistic support for you.
even at the current 5% base of theoretical maximum, i think if you were flying a perma 800DPS tanked drake ud be pretty ****ed getting popped from bleedthrough alone in 6 and a half minutes. the length of time required to go though armor and hull is very much a massive alert to get help!

The blaster and railgun concept i wanted to share actually forces co-operative pvp, as aposed to solo pvp.
It also pushes the use of hull repping as a pre-emptive measure, as aposed to an after combat deep space rep'n'go.

Shoopa Whoopa
Posted - 2011.02.26 19:12:00 - [7]
 

Not a bad suggestion at all.

Ardamalis
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.

Posted - 2011.02.27 02:55:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Ardamalis on 27/02/2011 03:05:30

Instead of making the blasters and railguns bleed-through armor and shield themselves, perhaps there should be special ammo types for this. You could use regular ammunition that does full damage and then "bleed-through" ammo which does slightly less damage but can penetrate shields/armor by the 5% you described. In fact, we could have ammunition of varying degrees of penetration.

Just to throw an example out there:
100% base damage, 0% penetration (regular ammo)
90% base damage, 5% penetration
80% base damage, 10% penetration

Basically a trade-off between sheer damage output and bleedthrough (maybe other penalties to balance ammunition with more bleedthrough but you get the point)


Thumbs up for concept.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.02.27 03:55:00 - [9]
 

I too like nerfing active tanks. I hear they really need it.

-Liang

Shoopa Whoopa
Posted - 2011.02.27 04:05:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
I too like nerfing active tanks. I hear they really need it.

-Liang


There's no difference between ignoring an active tank and ignoring a buffer.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.02.27 08:08:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Shoopa Whoopa
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I too like nerfing active tanks. I hear they really need it.

-Liang


There's no difference between ignoring an active tank and ignoring a buffer.


There obviously is.

-Liang

Aamrr
Posted - 2011.02.27 08:50:00 - [12]
 

And if you can't see the difference, you obviously should't be making sweeping design decisions like this. -1.

Silen Boon
Posted - 2011.02.28 15:15:00 - [13]
 

I like the concept of this idea, which why I'm supporting it. I'm not sure on the balancing issues, but like the way it fits in with Eve lore. Gallente developing weapons to penetrate shields, while the Caldari focus on penetrating armour. The Gallente ships tending to have more structure fits nicely with that back story.


Shoopa Whoopa
Posted - 2011.02.28 15:23:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
There obviously is.


And it is what? Nothing? That's what you said.

Silen Boon
Posted - 2011.02.28 16:30:00 - [15]
 

The effect on passive and active tanks is subtle but important and not necessarily bad. I'm not sure if the OP intended the bleed through damage to be in addition to the base damage, or instead of.

I'd be interested to hear the details from people suggesting that this would nerf active tanks. The effect on active shield tanks is very different to active armour tanks. I imagine this type of change would have a greater impact the use of resists (active or passive)

Shoopa Whoopa
Posted - 2011.02.28 16:34:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 28/02/2011 16:36:48
You keep arguing there is a difference.

NAME IT.

If there's 5 DPS bleedthrough through your tank against 500 hitpoints below your tank your type (act./pas.) of tank has relevance how?

Zilberfrid
Posted - 2011.02.28 17:17:00 - [17]
 

In a fight, active tanks shoot for the long run, effectively taking a lot more damage, but repairing it again.

If damage bleeds trough, you'll get to an untanked part of the ship, thus diminishing the gain that an active tank would have in a longer fight.

Shoopa Whoopa
Posted - 2011.02.28 17:48:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Zilberfrid
In a fight, active tanks shoot for the long run, effectively taking a lot more damage, but repairing it again.

If damage bleeds trough, you'll get to an untanked part of the ship, thus diminishing the gain that an active tank would have in a longer fight.


Good point! I suppose that makes an impact in 1vs1 (sometimes) and PvM, but in most situations should be negligible.
In fact, it might be considered an advantage to separate Hybrids from the rest of the crowd a bit more.

Silen Boon
Posted - 2011.02.28 17:51:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Shoopa Whoopa
Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 28/02/2011 16:36:48
You keep arguing there is a difference.

NAME IT.

If there's 5 DPS bleedthrough through your tank against 500 hitpoints below your tank your type (act./pas.) of tank has relevance how?


I think the difference is most obvious if you compare an active shield tank with active hardners with a passive buffer tanks.

Lets say you have a buffer tank of 1000 effective hit points (ehp) and no resists. Then lets say for simplicity you have an active shield tank with 1000ehp, but 50% of that ehp is due to active hardners. Of the incoming damage 95 is normal damage and 5 is bleed through. The buffer tank takes 100 damage, but the active tank takes effectively more because 5 of the damage is applied without resists.

There are obviously far more factors, but I hope that simple example helps.




GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.28 17:59:00 - [20]
 

I'm glad people are discussing this topic :) I've seen bleed-through working on structures before so i know its totally possible in eve right now.

This could be considered a change in hybrid charges and not the hybrid guns at all.

But there's different scenarios to consider, solo and fleet, active/passive and buffer, and ive been toying with the idea of t2 ammo having having an increase to 10% bleed-through

------------------

i completely understand the difference between passive and active tanks as well as buffer tanks.
Bleed-through negates all of these, because the fundamental change from current hybrid charges is the 5% of total damage that gets through to the next level of resistances regardless of the HP level that gets the other 95%.

Bleed-through is a consequence of penetration. and penetration isn't something that's been regularly seen in eve apart from PVE structures.

------------------

Railguns don't have considerable alpha compared to projectiles and lasers, and i don't think they should be otherwise they just become clones. so trying to find a different flavour requires some obscure thinking.
the Lore angle makes a lot of sense and as Gallente and Caldari have a considerably turbulent past. it makes sense they'd devote huge resources to try and get the better of one another.




GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.28 18:16:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Silen Boon
Originally by: Shoopa Whoopa
Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 28/02/2011 16:36:48
You keep arguing there is a difference.

NAME IT.

If there's 5 DPS bleedthrough through your tank against 500 hitpoints below your tank your type (act./pas.) of tank has relevance how?


I think the difference is most obvious if you compare an active shield tank with active hardners with a passive buffer tanks.

Lets say you have a buffer tank of 1000 effective hit points (ehp) and no resists. Then lets say for simplicity you have an active shield tank with 1000ehp, but 50% of that ehp is due to active hardners. Of the incoming damage 95 is normal damage and 5 is bleed through. The buffer tank takes 100 damage, but the active tank takes effectively more because 5 of the damage is applied without resists.

There are obviously far more factors, but I hope that simple example helps.






the issue with this is that factors are the things that make or break a concept so understanding and including all factors needs to be the way.
buffer tanks are never buffer HP only, they're normally omni buffer/resist, actives are part rep/part resist.

im hoping that these encourage co-operative pvp, as this is the area that eve excels at (lol, can imagine some will contest that, especially large scale pvp)

theres also a large mostly unused area in repping that frankly doesn't get seen practically at all compared to shield and armor, and that's hull repping.
it would also make hybrids a new contender in fleet alpha, and spur the integration of mixed shield and armor logi gangs in fleets.

Shoopa Whoopa
Posted - 2011.02.28 18:35:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Shoopa Whoopa on 28/02/2011 18:35:54
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
the issue with this is that factors are the things that make or break a concept so understanding and including all factors needs to be the way.
buffer tanks are never buffer HP only, they're normally omni buffer/resist, actives are part rep/part resist.

im hoping that these encourage co-operative pvp, as this is the area that eve excels at (lol, can imagine some will contest that, especially large scale pvp)

theres also a large mostly unused area in repping that frankly doesn't get seen practically at all compared to shield and armor, and that's hull repping.
it would also make hybrids a new contender in fleet alpha, and spur the integration of mixed shield and armor logi gangs in fleets.


^ what he said. Razz

(no, I'm not his alt)

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.28 19:21:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 28/02/2011 19:22:35
Sounds like someone owns a T2 DCU BPO and wants everyone to fit them on all their ships.

Pretty sure this has been suggested before. I guess the bleed through idea was part of the original design idea for hybrid weapons (so said some old player in the original thread) but wasn't implemented because it was overpowered and/or made kittens cry.

Honestly, I think bleed through would either do very little or cause so many people to complain about it on the forums that it would get nerfed to having no real impact. I would have been a reasonable thing to have in the game if it had been in the game since the beginning. As it is, there would be too much crying about it if it was made in a reasonable way.

Ardamalis
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.02.28 19:55:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Bagehi
Edited by: Bagehi on 28/02/2011 19:22:35Honestly, I think bleed through would either do very little or cause so many people to complain about it on the forums that it would get nerfed to having no real impact. I would have been a reasonable thing to have in the game if it had been in the game since the beginning. As it is, there would be too much crying about it if it was made in a reasonable way.

There is a lot of crying about the current state of hybrids also.
-----------------------------
I agree with a lot of what the OP said. Lasers and projectile weapons have good alpha but railguns are left behind in the dust. They need to be better long fighting capabilities. If you are prepared to slug it out for several minutes, then hybrid weapons should be the best choice.

While I can understand soem fo the concerns about active tanks, is it really the end of the world if your ship is blown up after 6 or 7 minutes of constant shooting? Your tank would probrably be broken long before that ever happened. The bleedthrough is really just an extra bonus for those extremely long battles.

Combat in Eve is primarily decided in the fitting room. if you want to coutner a blaster boat, it may be a good diea to bring a single small armor repairer if you feel that the battle will be drawn out for a very long time.

Just my 2 cents.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.02.28 20:32:00 - [25]
 

tbh on some shield ships u can still fit a 500+ passive tank and have 1 low slot to fit a small armor repper, that would protect you against any bleed-through so no DCU involved.

in that sense i think bleed-through should be balanced so that t1 does 5% of damage done and t2 ammo should do 10%. t2 hybrid charge use should just about have the edge over an equally sized ship thats dual tanked (like the example given above). also consider t2 gun training times...

Training t2 guns takes considerably more than t2 missiles. you can have t2 heavy missile skills bt cant use t2 standard missiles. cant do that with t2 guns.


and no im not an owner of any t2 bpo's... wish i had bt am not that old a character to have been a part of the bpo lottery of olde.

sadface/facepalm! Sad

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.02.28 22:48:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
tbh on some shield ships u can still fit a 500+ passive tank and have 1 low slot to fit a small armor repper, that would protect you against any bleed-through so no DCU involved.


So now we just need to make armor tanks fit a shield booster to prevent hull damage! Rolling Eyes

-Liang

Sofaking Weetawded
Posted - 2011.02.28 22:52:00 - [27]
 

not supported.

Shoopa Whoopa
Posted - 2011.02.28 23:18:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
So now we just need to make armor tanks fit a shield booster to prevent hull damage! Rolling Eyes


That wouldn't help at all... or well, it would help... your aggressor.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.01 13:02:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
tbh on some shield ships u can still fit a 500+ passive tank and have 1 low slot to fit a small armor repper, that would protect you against any bleed-through so no DCU involved.


So now we just need to make armor tanks fit a shield booster to prevent hull damage! Rolling Eyes

-Liang


or just fit a hull repper in your utility mids as you're armor tanked with low slots

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.03.01 22:06:00 - [30]
 

I think that's too small of a niche when you consider how many ships are hybrid weapon platforms (over 1/3 of the combat ships). They really need something that provides a benefit in fleet fights, something the bleed proposal does not provide them.


Pages: [1] 2

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