open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Gallente buff/fix
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Kingston Black
Posted - 2011.04.30 13:25:00 - [31]
 

yeah gallente have their faults, i just trained another race :P

But seriously buffing drones is not really the answer.

Even if you buff them, you cant really use drones as a lowsec pvp'r as you will invariably be fighting on the gate and gate guns will 1 volley all your drones i end up buying hundreds. And if your fighting in 0.0 when ever you have to gtfo you'll be leaving your drones and most of your dps behind.

Not to mention the new AI like sleepers loves popping your damn drones :(

There are good gallente ships tho. The megathron is a good close range ship, and the dominix is nice and versatile as a cheap missioner or neuting/bait/repping ship. The ishtar is one of the best plexing ships in the game (the T3's and the gila probably top it) and the myrmadon is a good ship if you shield tank it and fit autocannons (your drones will prob die in a fire halving your dps most of the time but ehh.)

if anything i'd up the alpha on gallente guns it will reduce most of the complaints

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.04.30 20:06:00 - [32]
 

Dev Blog 25th July 2008

11 November 2008 Patch


This had a big impact on close range combat for Gallente pilots using close range set-ups, which is where their highest DPS is dealt.

It affected and changed everything - unless it is changed back, Gallente will be inferior if trying to fight against another race using the same class of ship, using their highest racial weapon setups respectively, at racial distances.

There is nothing wrong with Gallente DPS, there never was, it's the above patch that made it a meaningless statistic.

AK

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.04.30 23:43:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 01/05/2011 00:00:30
Quote:
unless it is changed back


That patch was good for the game overall. Reversing it would break so much it's not even funny.

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with Gallente DPS


You mean besides being purely on-paper and inferior to autocannons in almost all practical situations?

Ok, let me put this nice and simply:
What's easier for a balanced game:
- Buffing tracking on blasters to compensate for reduced web strength
OR
- Every ship packing 90% webs?

Bonn Marto
Posted - 2011.05.01 00:22:00 - [34]
 

The issue here is less that drones need a buff than it is that hybrid turrets on a whole are almost totally broken. Blasters aren't even the issue as much as railguns, though there are serious issues with both.

-For having essentially no range, blasters track for crap
-The much vaunted "fixes" for T2 ammo did next to nothing for hybrid guns (void and javelin remain useless, especially compared to navy antimatter)
-Railguns do no damage; I am being a little hyperbolic, yes ... but only a little

There's something to be said for a fighting style that demands that you get in close to do your damage, but then only if you ACTUALLY do more damage once you get in there. The answer to this is not buffed sentries (which makes no sense whatsoever) but is instead buffed hybrid guns. The caldari carebears will thank you, too.


AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.05.01 00:26:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
unless it is changed back


That patch was good for the game overall. Reversing it would break so much it's not even funny.

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with Gallente DPS


You mean besides being purely on-paper and inferior to autocannons in almost all practical situations?


I'm sorry, but the patch was very good with regards to its intentions of removing 4 km/s typhoon setups and all the other 'ludicrous speed' setups, but it was very poor in the way it was introduced.

It gimped Gallente, probably forever, for its highest DPS setups and its racial speciality.

Yeah, on paper, there is nothing wrong with Gallente DPS - that's exactly the problem. If you look at the stats, it would appear to be the race to pick for close range PvP, but its not is it?

Fact number 1 about PvP in EVE: once you get someone outside of their optimal; you've won.

Gallente lost out on this patch...

AK

Quade Warren
Posted - 2011.05.01 01:18:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
Rails need a buff. I've never found a reason to use them over blasters


Umm, what? Why are you comparing rails to blasters? Compare them to beam lasers and arties.

Quote:
Increase range on blasters


No. This game does not need another (inferior) autocannon clone.
I still say buff blaster damage and tracking. They have a defined role, they just need to be better at it than autocannons.

Quote:
increase tracking on rails while decreasing range


Right. Yeah. Cripple the one advantage they actually have in favour of something totally irrelevant while totally ignoring the biggest issue:

Railgun damage barely chips paint.



You took what I had said out of context, which is apparent because you didn't show the rest of the sentence. I was merely sharing that if I absolutely had to use hybrid weapons, I'd never choose rails, no matter what. I'd just rather use beam or artillery for longer range.

As for the comments about tracking, range and optimal, I'd like to read why you don't think those are viable solutions. Increasing the optimal/range on blasters would make them more effective at close range. It's too easy to get out of damage dealing range with those weapons.

As for tracking and range changes on the rails, that is simple. The better your tracking, the more consistent the damage you're dealing because you're never partially hitting the target. The more consistent any weapon in the game does damage, the more reliable it is.

Please explain why you disagree, I am interested. <--- No sarcasm.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.01 01:32:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 01/05/2011 01:33:43
Quote:
You took what I had said out of context, which is apparent because you didn't show the rest of the sentence.


I took nothing out of context. What I said makes exactly as much sense with the entire post quoted.

Quote:
Increasing the optimal/range on blasters would make them more effective at close range.


So would just buffing their tracking.
The difference that you seem to be missing here, is that if you buff the range all you get is an autocannon clone. EVE doesn't need yet another mid-range weapon. Blasters should be very, very good at or near scram range with a very sharp decrease out of it.

Quote:
Railgun crap


Railguns can already get better tracking than other long range weapons because they can use faction ammo rather than spike. Know why that doesn't make them uberweapons? Because tracking just doesn't make that much difference at the ranges they operate at.

My personal favorite suggestion I've seen for rails is up their rate of fire considerably, but lower their clip size.
Result:
Beams put out steady dps
Arties put out alpha
Rails put out good dps in bursts

You're saying tracking will make them so much more viable, but the Rokh can use faction ammo instead of spike easily and I dunno about you but I don't see many Rokh fleets flying around.


Quote:
Yeah, on paper, there is nothing wrong with Gallente DPS - that's exactly the problem. If you look at the stats, it would appear to be the race to pick for close range PvP, but its not is it?


Solution: Buff blaster damage and tracking to the point where they do significantly higher dps than autocannons and can actually apply it.
Being easily kited would be the tradeoff for having that much firepower within the range they're meant to operate at.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.01 08:49:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Solution: Buff blaster damage and tracking to the point where they do significantly higher dps than autocannons and can actually apply it.
Being easily kited would be the tradeoff for having that much firepower within the range they're meant to operate at.


Actually no, even a 100% tracking buff would not be sufficient to really apply the dps at point blank and still doesn't help with range control what is also extreme important for blaster ships. At the other end of the spectrum it would enable shield hypes to rip AHACS at 20km into a new one without even putting effort in it.

You can't fix pvp at extreme close ranges for ships bigger than frigs with tracking. You need the ability to pin stuff down, force them into a peak dps situation and make blaster ships not just sucking a bit less at point blank but actually a weapon system that can apply 102% of his dps against a target at point blank and keep it up till somebody dies.

tla s'hpyt
Posted - 2011.05.01 11:40:00 - [39]
 

I've always thought blasters should do a lot more damage than they do, they also need a decent bit more tracking since the web nerf.

However they also need a bit of a nerf to their range. Right now with 2 TE they can hit 25km easily with AM, if you load null your hitting out to 40km..... that's not what I call short range.


keeping them in range and getting into range is a whole other story, not sure what changes you need to her if any. boosting speed I think would either be too small or would **** all over minmatar.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.01 12:32:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 01/05/2011 12:35:47
Quote:
Actually no, even a 100% tracking buff would not be sufficient to really apply the dps


Are you talking webbed target or unwebbed?

Quote:
still doesn't help with range control what is also extreme important for blaster ships.


Again, range control problems should be the price of that kind of dps.

Quote:
At the other end of the spectrum it would enable shield hypes to rip AHACS at 20km into a new one without even putting effort in it.


Wait, what?
First you're saying a double tracking buff would be insufficient to hit a virtually stationary equivilent target at close range but now you're saying it'd let battleship guns pop off cruisers?
Right, I'm off to the calculators.

...

Ok, a 50% increase in tracking on a medium ion blaster would enable it to hit a tackled, equivilent size target for 93% damage, an increase of 8% from the current.
A 75% increase in tracking brings this up to 95%.

That doesn't sound too bad for me. Now, regarding shield hyp vs armour HACs - why is that such a bad thing anyway?
(Also it's already in falloff at 20km, even with null ammo. Even then, I really don't see the problem with blaster battleships reaching out to the 10-20 range. Besides, aren't armour hacs well capable of engaging further out than that?
Still, that's a whole other discussion.

Quote:
You need the ability to pin stuff down, force them into a peak dps situation


Well as long as you're not fitting a zero tackle shield gank setup, this doesn't seem too hard.

Quote:
However they also need a bit of a nerf to their range. Right now with 2 TE they can hit 25km easily with AM, if you load null your hitting out to 40km..... that's not what I call short range.


I love how you forgot to mention hitting out to 40km is on a Rokh, with null ammo, at deep falloff.
Oh and AM at 20 is also in deep falloff.
Don't think I'm as clueless as you, please. I am actually aware shield blaster ships exist and what they're capable of.

Ah yeah, also - with the figures you've given, that would put battleship guns at roughly the same level as medium projectiles range-wise. This seems pretty balanced to me.

AlleyKat
Gallente
The Unwanted.
Posted - 2011.05.01 13:10:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Ok, let me put this nice and simply:
What's easier for a balanced game:
- Buffing tracking on blasters to compensate for reduced web strength
OR
- Every ship packing 90% webs?


- The base speed needs increasing of Gallente ships - they get into range faster.
- Gallente ships need a webifier bonus - to compensate for using low tracking guns.
- The scram MWD deactivate removed when using module against Gallente - allowing them to get into range.


To balance the above:

- increase the sig radius on Gallente ships using MWD
- increase cap usage for MWD
- increase cpu fitting for Gallente ships using MWD, Webs.


I do believe Gallente ships should be vulnerable when not inside of their Optimal for close range setups - but they should be able to get inside of Optimal and keep the victim held there.

It's either the above, or you completely rework high DPS Gallente setups, which makes them less Gallente and more like another race.

I prefer just changing the ships, not the modules - much easier to do from a programming perspective and it makes it more Racial than across the board.

I cannot think of a negative outcome from this...just change the ship statistics and how they interact with Destiny.

AK

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.01 13:45:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 01/05/2011 14:17:54
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Quote:
Actually no, even a 100% tracking buff would not be sufficient to really apply the dps


Are you talking webbed target or unwebbed?


Webed.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Quote:
still doesn't help with range control what is also extreme important for blaster ships.


Again, range control problems should be the price of that kind of dps.


Range control at web range. Also yeah the massive dps advantage, story of my live.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Quote:
At the other end of the spectrum it would enable shield hypes to rip AHACS at 20km into a new one without even putting effort in it.


Wait, what?
First you're saying a double tracking buff would be insufficient to hit a virtually stationary equivilent target at close range but now you're saying it'd let battleship guns pop off cruisers?
Right, I'm off to the calculators.

...

Ok, a 50% increase in tracking on a medium ion blaster would enable it to hit a tackled, equivilent size target for 93% damage, an increase of 8% from the current.
A 75% increase in tracking brings this up to 95%.

That doesn't sound too bad for me. Now, regarding shield hyp vs armour HACs - why is that such a bad thing anyway?
(Also it's already in falloff at 20km, even with null ammo. Even then, I really don't see the problem with blaster battleships reaching out to the 10-20 range. Besides, aren't armour hacs well capable of engaging further out than that?
Still, that's a whole other discussion.


I think it is pretty obvious why this is terrible. To make it simple a target at 20km is a lot easier to hit than a target at 1km. It is not sufficient at point blank(500m - 3000m) and far to much at 20-30km.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
You need the ability to pin stuff down, force them into a peak dps situation


Well as long as you're not fitting a zero tackle shield gank setup, this doesn't seem too hard.


This is a joke right? If not you should ask yourself why a blaster ship 2.5 years ago did build up the perception that they where able to outgank any other hull type(actually not really true if you really good with tackle). The key here is not about the 10% extra eft dps but the ability to actually fully apply it to the target, where other ships in the same situation did lose dps applied to range or tracking.

Since QR this is basically reversed giving the ship with the worst engagement range also the worst damage projection at his own range making it even pointless as a gank ship without tackling stuff into the ground. Also if you have this kind of tackle amarr hulls are far superior since they still got the range advantage if you already took care of the tracking problem.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.01 14:15:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 01/05/2011 14:49:49
Quote:
Webed.


Well I've just shown you a 50% boost is perfectly sufficient to apply almost full dps to a webbed/scrammed target.

Quote:
I think it is pretty obvious why this is terrible. To make it simple a target at 20km is a lot easier to hit than a target at 1km.


Yes. It is. And these are still battleship guns aimed at small, fast targets using ammo that carries a tracking penalty and already into falloff.
But the scenario you gave could generate a whole new thread worth of discussion. The number of variables involved there is insane, especially as there's no way that Hyperion is alone.

Wait, the ship you're describing a short range but very ganky battleship that works well in a gang.
Isn't that exactly what Gallente should be?

Quote:
Blah blah blah Quantum Rise


If you will recall, 2.5 years ago blasters had no real rival for short range weapon system. Pulse lasers had the worst tracking at that distance and autocannons had yet to receive the massive overhaul that made them seriously competitive today and indeed better than blasters in nearly every way.

That and back then, MWDs could not be shut down, hence the need for 90% webs. Now you can turn off their MWD and then cut 60% or so off their base speed.

I do happen to agree that Gallente ships should get a bit of a speed buff, but keep agility relatively low for the same reason I'm opposed to a range increase: we don't need a Minmatar clone race.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.01 15:33:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 01/05/2011 15:34:40
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
Webed.


Well I've just shown you a 50% boost is perfectly sufficient to apply almost full dps to a webbed/scrammed target.


Not really, as far as pvp beyond docking range goes. The web nerf was about a 400% tracking nerf, throw in the terrible scrams and it ends up as a 2000% tracking nerf for point blank pvp ships like blaster hulls.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Quote:
I think it is pretty obvious why this is terrible. To make it simple a target at 20km is a lot easier to hit than a target at 1km.


Yes. It is. And these are still battleship guns aimed at small, fast targets using ammo that carries a tracking penalty and already into falloff.
But the scenario you gave could generate a whole new thread worth of discussion. The number of variables involved there is insane, especially as there's no way that Hyperion is alone.

Wait, the ship you're describing a short range but very ganky battleship that works well in a gang.
Isn't that exactly what Gallente should be?


What you think I describe is already on the server and not really gallente(beside the ability to actually combine speed, damage application and gank in a useful fashion for solo/small gang pvp similar like blaster pvp did once). It uses neuts and range control to overcome his own tracking issues and is in the similar bad situation when it comes to point blank pvp(where it sucks just as hard as the blaster hulls).

What I actually want back is a ship class that rip people into a new one at point blank in skilled hands. A blaster ship at point blank should provide full control over range and transversal giving you the tools for flawless damage projection if you are a good pilot.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Quote:
Blah blah blah Quantum Rise


If you will recall, 2.5 years ago blasters had no real rival for short range weapon system. Pulse lasers had the worst tracking at that distance and autocannons had yet to receive the massive overhaul that made them seriously competitive today and indeed better than blasters in nearly every way.


Keep believing this. There where a lot amarr and mini hulls in use before QR. The amarr hulls where obvious at the advantage against nano in small gangs, however most where to slow to actually catch stuff on her own, the mini hulls where better in catching them but worse for brawling stuff vs amarr/gallente hulls and gallente hulls somewhere in the middle ok for brawling, agile/fast enough to catch bad nano pilots but in the worst position if you can't land tackle and a solid option when you need a quick dps injection in situations where the targets burn out or you run a time battle against docking/jumping timers.

Duchess Starbuckington
Posted - 2011.05.01 15:47:00 - [45]
 

Quote:
Not really, as far as pvp beyond docking range goes. The web nerf was about a 400% tracking nerf, throw in the terrible scrams and it ends up as a 2000% tracking nerf for point blank pvp ships like blaster hulls.


... I just spelled it out for you, right there, in detail, that the web nerf was compensated for in other ways. Target speed and thus transversal is reduced as much or more than previously.

Quote:
What you think I describe is already on the server and not really gallente(beside the ability to actually combine speed, damage application and gank in a useful fashion for solo/small gang pvp similar like blaster pvp did once). It uses neuts and range control to overcome his own tracking issues and is in the similar bad situation when it comes to point blank pvp(where it sucks just as hard as the blaster hulls).


What the hell are you talking about?

Quote:
What I actually want back is a ship class that rip people into a new one at point blank in skilled hands. A blaster ship at point blank should provide full control over range and transversal giving you the tools for flawless damage projection if you are a good pilot.


Yes, so do I, and what I'm saying is that a tracking and damage buff goes a lot further towards fixing this than you seem to think.

Quote:
Keep believing this


Thank you, I shall - because it's true. Autos and lasers could not compete with blasters at point blank back then, which was a large part of why they dominated scram range combat back in QR.

Nowadays, ACs can and do compete at close range, and the difference is too small to make blasters worth their disadvantages. Hence why I'm saying: give blasters the tracking and extra dps to outdamage projectiles to a significant extent, while keeping their damage projection lower than ACs. This would be the first of several steps but the most fundamental change needed.

I ignored the rest of this section lecturing me on ship roles because it's completely irrelevant and missing my point entirely. Dear god this is like talking to a five year old.

X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Posted - 2011.05.01 16:22:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: X Gallentius on 01/05/2011 16:37:44
Alternative: Take away minmatar drones. They already have too much of an advantage with them. Lowers overall dps, makes them more vulnerable to frigs which means they may actually have to make a choice on how to fit their ships.

Another alternative: Quit giving Minmatar ships every conceivable ship performance advantage like speed, agility, acceleration, scan resolution, and signature resolution.

Another alternative: If you're going to make Projectiles so OP in performance, then increase their ridiculously easy fitting requirements.

Another alternative: Reduce OP alpha on artilleries. Or give rails some sort of real dps advantage after arties get their double damage buff.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.01 17:25:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 01/05/2011 18:10:57
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
Not really, as far as pvp beyond docking range goes. The web nerf was about a 400% tracking nerf, throw in the terrible scrams and it ends up as a 2000% tracking nerf for point blank pvp ships like blaster hulls.


... I just spelled it out for you, right there, in detail, that the web nerf was compensated for in other ways. Target speed and thus transversal is reduced as much or more than previously.


Yes since there is obvious no difference with ships going 4 times as fast(and till 10 times as fast with AB) within web range. And obviously the speed tanking option of the nano age(mwd) helped a lot with reducing incoming dps at close range thx to the minimal sig bloom. You are pretty good at analyzing game changes in regard of her overall impact of the game, seriously you remind me a bit of the awesomeness of game knowledge that Nozh and Zulu managed to show back in the days.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Quote:
What you think I describe is already on the server and not really gallente(beside the ability to actually combine speed, damage application and gank in a useful fashion for solo/small gang pvp similar like blaster pvp did once). It uses neuts and range control to overcome his own tracking issues and is in the similar bad situation when it comes to point blank pvp(where it sucks just as hard as the blaster hulls).


What the hell are you talking about?


About the ships that people fly today to archive high dps on the spot w/o fighting at a range where they can't hit **** and that this role is already filled.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Quote:
What I actually want back is a ship class that rip people into a new one at point blank in skilled hands. A blaster ship at point blank should provide full control over range and transversal giving you the tools for flawless damage projection if you are a good pilot.


Yes, so do I, and what I'm saying is that a tracking and damage buff goes a lot further towards fixing this than you seem to think.


So you bag your head against the wall for a insufficient tracking boost that mostly will help a few undockpoint warriors and refuse to actually fixing the main point where QR broke blaster pvp? Good job.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Thank you, I shall - because it's true. Autos and lasers could not compete with blasters at point blank back then, which was a large part of why they dominated scram range combat back in QR.


Exept most of the frequently used hulls(gedon, abaddon, Harb, ruppi, cane, phoon, raven) had similar dps compared to not fully gank fitted gallente hulls. If the gallente hulls where fully gank fitted they had a EHP advantage instead what made the fights even in simplified 1o1s pretty even and down to personal skills when it comes to solo or small gang. The time when gallente hulls actually had a real advantage for point blank was 2006 before rigs, hp boost and addition of mass to the mwds to deal with the first nano bs.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

Nowadays, ACs can and do compete at close range, and the difference is too small to make blasters worth their disadvantages. Hence why I'm saying: give blasters the tracking and extra dps to outdamage projectiles to a significant extent, while keeping their damage projection lower than ACs. This would be the first of several steps but the most fundamental change needed.


That is still not a useful role if they stay as gimped as they are today at point blank.

Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

I ignored the rest of this section lecturing me on ship roles because it's completely irrelevant and missing my point entirely.


It's not since you look a bit clueless in regards on the overall usability of blaster pvp compared to other options back in the days.

Nikuno
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:02:00 - [48]
 

How about reducing the time it takes hybrids to switch ammo? Amarr do it in no time flat and that allows them to always fight at the ideal range for their lasers; Minmatar you leave at 10 second reloading as the changing range is less of a trouble for them and they change ammo to select a better damage type which brings it's own advantages; Gallente need to swap ammo for range so drop their reload times to say 3 seconds. This means a switch from null to anti-matter isn't the death of your ship as you try to close, or from spike to uranium as the frigs zoom into range on you. Currently with hybrids it seems you pick an ammo type and are pretty much stuck with it unless you just want to give up.

This would be a small change, in no way game breaking, gives a bit of variety to hybrids and makes them a little bit more usable.

Vive la difference?

Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov
The Eleusinian Mystery Cult
Posted - 2011.05.02 17:56:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov on 02/05/2011 18:12:50
Edited by: Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov on 02/05/2011 18:05:53
The problem, as far as blasters are concerned, is that they just do not do enough damage to justify their shortcomings. There is a real place in Eve for a weapon system that is a challenge to use (i.e. very limited in range, cap reliant, etc) but its faults have to be balanced by a major strength - and that is supposed to be damage!

Simply, give blasters more damage. Lots more damage. They should not be doing 10% more damage than the next most damaging weapon, especially when that weapon has many times as much range; blasters should be doing upwards of 25% more damage than the next most powerful weapon.

The reward for sustaining all that damage until you get into your gun's low optimal (and this should remain difficult) is to see your enemies' armour and shields melt away at a speed incomparable to any other weapon. Then blasters will be balanced.

As for railguns, well, I haven't got a clue. :/

Eidric
Tears of Terra
SOLAR WING
Posted - 2011.05.03 01:46:00 - [50]
 

I dont want to copy&paste so Clickety!

IIIAsharakIII
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.05.03 07:49:00 - [51]
 

As far as I can tell, the hybrid turrets are supposed to sit in between the projectile turrets and the energy turrets. This middle of the road difference comes down to damage, rate of fire, tracking, and falloff.

Maybe a good way to tackle that without making it "just another gun" is addressing the falloff.

Blasters could be high damage, high tracking, high rate of fire, WITH low falloff. This would mean that they were infinitly powerful only in their specific ranges.

Personally I'd be happy seeing railguns in the same shape.

This would still provide a middle of road turret compared to the other more versatile and damaging turrets without making it a carbon copy. It will also give hybrid turret users a reason to use all of our ammo types, as range will be significant in determining success.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.05.03 14:02:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: The Djego
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

1. No other turret type in the game needs a dedicated EWAR just to be viable. Hybrids should not be the first.


Actually blasters do need a dedicated EW module(today it is mostly 3-5) to be effective and always where this way.


You keep on going on about the web nerf and blasters' tracking. But I don't believe that blasters have a fundamental problem with tracking same-size targets. If they did, then ACs and lasers would have a similar problem at these ranges, and since one of the problems with blasters is that lasers and ACs are almost as good as blasters at being blasters, it suggests that tracking is not really the problem. Similarly, range dictation within web range - and therefore transversal dictation - is not really an issue either, since, a typical AC- or laser-boat such as a Hurricane will not be fitting a web.

But this doesn’t mean that blaster tracking should not improved. Another of the problems with blasters is that ACs and Pulse can use their range advantage to track and hit smaller ships at range. Blasters, in contrast, cannot – they have neither the tracking nor range. This is the real argument for boosting blaster tracking.

But we still come back to the fundamental problem with blasters - lasers and ACs are simply too good at being blasters. Their applied DPS close up is too good, and this can only be solved by changing lasers and ACs. You can change this by reducing their base DPS, but a more sophisticated solution is to reduce their tracking. Weapons that are designed to be used in falloff, or at medium range, do not need or deserve blaster-like tracking.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.03 18:16:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 03/05/2011 18:20:36
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: The Djego
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington

1. No other turret type in the game needs a dedicated EWAR just to be viable. Hybrids should not be the first.


Actually blasters do need a dedicated EW module(today it is mostly 3-5) to be effective and always where this way.


You keep on going on about the web nerf and blasters' tracking. But I don't believe that blasters have a fundamental problem with tracking same-size targets. If they did, then ACs and lasers would have a similar problem at these ranges, and since one of the problems with blasters is that lasers and ACs are almost as good as blasters at being blasters, it suggests that tracking is not really the problem. Similarly, range dictation within web range - and therefore transversal dictation - is not really an issue either, since, a typical AC- or laser-boat such as a Hurricane will not be fitting a web.


Most ak/laser ships don't fight at this ranges in solo/small gang pvp, for the simple reason that it wracks you DPS and makes you very easy to engage for small stuff(the only exception is if you try to get under the guns or using a active tank and try to migrate dps). Dedicating range is much easier if you have a choice depending on the target to fight it out of or within web range(plus dual neuts are far more powerful against smaller stuff than a single web). This is not a option in a blaster ship, also by the lack of range the blaster ship has the smallest range window where it tracks ok and can still deal fairly good dps(and this window is like 1-2km away from a range where you can't hit for any reasonable amount of damage and get humiliated by smaller stuff).

Originally by: Gypsio III
But this doesn’t mean that blaster tracking should not improved. Another of the problems with blasters is that ACs and Pulse can use their range advantage to track and hit smaller ships at range. Blasters, in contrast, cannot – they have neither the tracking nor range. This is the real argument for boosting blaster tracking.


A useful web strenth also fixes this.

Originally by: Gypsio III

But we still come back to the fundamental problem with blasters - lasers and ACs are simply too good at being blasters. Their applied DPS close up is too good, and this can only be solved by changing lasers and ACs. You can change this by reducing their base DPS, but a more sophisticated solution is to reduce their tracking. Weapons that are designed to be used in falloff, or at medium range, do not need or deserve blaster-like tracking.


Blasters are just terrible at blaster pvp, they don't provide what it takes to fight at point blank reasonable well against a huge target selection(what is pretty much a must have for solo/small gang ships), not a single weapon system does atm(mini hulls do agreeable fix this issues better by speed, range, neuts). But in the end they are not really effective at point blank.

What made blaster pvp facemelt people was is the play style, not the extra dps. You might have seen this on my KMs. Even the ship with the lower theoretical damage comes out on top most of the time if it has the ability to project damage reasonable well and got the ability to force targets into peak DPS situations. As we speak blaster ships simply don't offer this and this will not change if you don't address her issues within web range, where tracking doesn't help with range control.

You simply creating a lot more issues for solo/small gang pvp where you will be even more screwed without counterfits against undersized stuff as it is now.

Joe Phoenix
The Commonwealth Federation
Posted - 2011.05.03 18:18:00 - [54]
 

What? They do the most damage...?

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2011.05.04 07:59:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 04/05/2011 08:02:10
For what it is worth.

What made the blaster ship a good choice as a damage dealer for small gang/solo pvp before QR?

- It was reasonable fast/agile and every hull could fit a 24km point. This makes a massive difference in the ability to lay a point and your ability to move the hull in range(read catch a target you try to kill outside of warp to zero or undock points). Most notable difference are in the BS class where the changes where just wrecking(40s to reach 800m/s in a BS isn't practical with 4.5km optimal, leave alone catching the omnipresent BCs).

- In skilled hands you had reasonable control over the target. Note that a nano HAC would have still moved at high speeds within web range, however this created mostly range issues that you needed to compensate by staying a the ball with manual piloting, not really tracking issues.

- Most important is actually the ability to deal full damage against the general target at point blank, what actually was a advantage. Projectiles did lose damage to falloff, lasers to tracking, missiles to sig/speed(a massive amount against nano stuff actually). This did lead to the impression that blasters do face melt(even if the actual damage advantage wasn't this huge) and reinforced the opionion that blaster ships tank badly(since they also expose herself to a peak damage situation if they force another ship into it, beside of being mostly fitted for good dps instead of good tanks).

- Ability to get under the guns at blaster optimal for undersized stuff makes them extreme questionable for solo pvp, especially for BS since this makes you ineffective against 95% of the common targets. You could already range tank them reasonable well(what you can't with any other weapon system within point range as it stands). Also the ability to deal with undersized tacklers did add a lot more survivability to blaster ships back in the days, since they couldn't immobilize you for bigger ships to come and aid them without getting killed herself really quick.

Today you actually got nothing of this. You have ships that are hard to fit, bad for damage application at her range and got a lot issues regarding undersized stuff what makes the unpractical at best in the role they once had. This can't be fixed with a bit of tracking/damage or gimping anything around it.

The concept of the blaster hull only works if moving it to close range actually hands out a considerable advantage against the target, making it hard to fight/survive it at blaster ranges and making it resistant enough against tackle by the ability to use brute force against it to make it a good solo option again.

Van Derka
Posted - 2011.05.04 14:13:00 - [56]
 

how about new ewar mod and an appropriate bonus to using that mod on gall ships.
still takes up a slot but more effective and cheaper than the most expensive mods...

and perhaps increase the railgun damage bonus for some gall ships, particularly those with no or little drone bandwidth/space.

Ogogov
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2011.05.04 14:58:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: The Djego
Edited by: The Djego on 04/05/2011 08:02:10
For what it is worth.

What made the blaster ship a good choice as a damage dealer for small gang/solo pvp before QR?


Today you actually got nothing of this. You have ships that are hard to fit, bad for damage application at her range and got a lot issues regarding undersized stuff what makes the unpractical at best in the role they once had. This can't be fixed with a bit of tracking/damage or gimping anything around it.

The concept of the blaster hull only works if moving it to close range actually hands out a considerable advantage against the target, making it hard to fight/survive it at blaster ranges and making it resistant enough against tackle by the ability to use brute force against it to make it a good solo option again.



Based on this, a simple and significant mass reduction on all Gallente blaster boats would be a good idea. Turn them into alligators - very fast acceleration, high agility but a low top speed and fast locking.

This would put them back into the game as short range tacklegankers with the ability to outpace other ships over a short distance - so that vagabond might have a few seconds of real danger before it begins to accelerate to its higher top speed and is able to kite effectively.

This could be coupled with an armor reduction (yes, reduction) and a stronger emphasis on resists. Active tanking is gay and nobody uses it, which is why it doesn't figure into this discussion unless the mechanic sees significant alteration (like local rep bonuses applying to received RR to make BS competitive in fleet again, or some other change along those lines)

Blasters, just give the T2 ammo less of a penalty (yes, even more less of a penalty) and relax the fitting requirements. Fitting a full rack of neutrons should not completely gimp the ships ability to move and tank, because otherwise it never lives long enough to use them. Might as well fit pinatas in the highslots instead...

kerradeph
Gallente
CATO.nss
Posted - 2011.05.06 04:21:00 - [58]
 

something that could be done is rather than giving rails and blasters a direct boost, give them effects. rails, because of their extreme velocity start doing shield pass through 25% higher than other weapon systems. and blasters, because of the instability of the matter of the round, it lowers the hardening on the shields of an equal or lower class hulls by 5% or something and on ships one class up it does the same effect to 2.5%.
the blasters would then give an effective boost to anyone firing on your current target.

something else, that is not directly related but would have a similar effect, is race specific skills.
a skill that would boost the damage/armor of drones as long as your are using a gal ship
a skill that gives better missiles or shields to caldari ships
a that gives boosts to armor or lasers to amarr ships
and a skill that boosts the speed of minmi ships.

for cross faction, they would either stack with both races or not affect it at all. I would vote for the latter to encourage race specific ships being brought into combat. or have more skills like this for the pirate factions.

General Domination
Posted - 2011.05.06 16:22:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: shadowraven001
This will not do anything but make drone boats even more overpowered in pve.

Blasters are acceptable pvp guns atm imo(but if you did want to give them a buff then increasing the base speed of galent hulls would be the way to do it helping blaster boats get in range).

The problem really lies with railguns which have little or no use in either the pvp or pve arena these need to be completly revisited imo.

Regards

Raven

Drones boats overpowered?

I think you are relating to afk-missions only, because I really hate my armor tank and drone usage in sleeper sites, where they are far from overpowered.

So I support the gallente boost.

Annasys
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.05.07 02:34:00 - [60]
 

I just found and read the posts in this thread. I think that while there are many arguments as to why Gallente (specifically hybrids) is bad, there are not any really defining arguments as to why they are bad.

I trained purely Gallente. I have fairly decent Drone skills and fairly decent hybrid skills (everything to 4/5 relating to drones and/or hybrids.) I can fly most Gallente Ships: Frig/Cruiser 5, BS 3, AF/EAS/Recon/Hac/Inty 4.

I have found in my travels that hybrids are generally ineffective in comparison to other weapon systems. When I started playing Eve, I was told over and over that hybrids were the weapon of choice due to the very high damage. I was told that in close-range fights, blasters were the kings of weapons. I was told that railguns offered decent damage at medium ranges with an excellent rate of fire.

Over the past few years, I have found that this is basically untrue. The only thing Gallente have going for them at the moment is drone skills.

I propose the following changes:

Blasters: Increase base damage substantially. Increase base optimal decently. Remove falloff almost entirely. A possible increase in tracking would be nice, but is less of an issue. This would ensure that Gallente blaster boats would have to stay at specific ranges, and the fits for those ships would also have to be geared towards staying at specific ranges. The lack of falloff would make their damage useless outside of optimal range. By substantial, I mean 50% or more increase in base damage. Optimal range could be increased 2-3km, while falloff would be reduced to 1-2km.

Railguns: Increase rate of fire substantially. Remove falloff as per blasters. Reduce magazine capacity. By substantial rate of fire increase, I mean that railguns should have the fastest rof in the game. Maybe 2 shots per second. This sounds horribly bad at first, until you factor in the reduced magazine capacity. Very high burst damage would make railguns a unique weapon system. Their damage wouldn't need to be changed much, possibly lowered a little bit. It would allow them to deal near-artillery damage at specific ranges, but have the adverse effect of both using a lot of ammo (charges are larger than projectiles) and having a reload time on a more regular basis. The reduction in falloff for railguns wouldn't have to be as severe as with blasters, say 3-5km maximum. Ammo would have to be tweaked a little bit to create specific ranges that would mimic the current ranges.

As to the ships in the Gallente line, it's difficult to say. One poster had made a good point that increasing agility/maneuverability, while maintaining a lower than Minmatar top speed would be a great change to Gallente. It would force the issue of maintaining a tackle on a Minmatar ship, while still filling the role of excellent dps at close ranges.

Back to the OP: If there were small/medium webifier drones, that would probably be a nice addition to the game, although they will likely be as ineffective as other combat utility drones outside of ECM Drones. Drone implants would be a great addition, in my opinion, as they really are an important weapon in the Gallente skillset. I do not, however, feel that more drone modules is going to be as useful as it would be to overhaul drone rigs.


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