EVE Search - Projectile Weapons

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Projectile Weapons - Balancing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 90 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.09.23 13:36:00 - [1] Over the years we've made many changes to other weapon systems, ships and mechanics that have rendered some of the projectiles advantages moot. We're going to attempt to fix this with various tweaks and fixes. Here's a graph that shows the damage trend of small ammunition types. You'll quickly notice what players have already been pointing out here on the forums. The high damage / close range projectile ammo is subpar when compared to the other ammo types, but when you look at the bigger picture, you'll also see there are some compensations. The original balance of projectile ammo seems to be skewed towards long range variations. Adjusting the projectile ammo to match its counterparts gives Phased Plasma ammo a 10% damage increase and EMP ammo a ~9.1% damage increase, while reducing the damage of the long range variations. The change will give auto-cannons a good performance boost, and make long range munitions easier to balance through the damage modifier. Mid-range crystals and hybrid charges give a bonus to capacitor consumption, projectile ammo is reduced in size. We don't like this, so we're looking at changing it to a tracking bonus. After ship hitpoint adjustments, the alpha strike of artilleries isn't nearly as impressive as it was a while back. In our first iteration of these changes we've increased the damage modifier by 50%, along with the rate of fire. The DPS stays in place, but the volley damage is increased significantly. With the increased volley damage, and increased rate of fire, the clip size doesn't matter as much. We still feel that it can use a boost. We're looking at doubling it across the board, now with uniform ammo size. Other things we might be looking at: ò Auto-cannon tracking adjustments ò Auto-cannon tier balancing Please leave feedback in this thread. The changes will be made available for public testing next Wednesday on Singularity. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Mag's the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2009.09.23 13:55:00 - [2] Nice to see you make this move.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.09.23 13:55:00 - [3] Apart from stats, what could boost Projectile weapons would be a method to mix and match damage types with range. Like separating the delivery system from the warhead and the players can assemble them as desired. A while ago I was fiddling around with this and drew some tables with damage relations, ranges and started with the material requirements, so I know it'll be quite some fiddling and number juggling to sort it out. But it'd make versatility of damage type a strong point of Projectile Weapons only rivaled by Missiles with the pure damage type. At least for T1 ammunition, T2 should and faction might be left out for this. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Atreus Tac Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:11:00 - [4] any news on blasters as this will reduce their damage advantage by a consideralbe amounts (already low compared to lasers). [/left]
Juliette DuBois	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:17:00 - [5] Switch fusion to be top damage ammo instead of emp.
Serric Lords of Chaos Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:23:00 - [6] Thank you. A hundred times over.. thank you.
Lumy Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:24:00 - [7] While you're at it, could you reorder ammo a bit? Imho the best order would be: Fusion, Phased plasma, EMP, Titanium sabot, Nuclear, Proton, Depleted uranium, Carbonized lead. The point is to have racial damage ammunition types as most damaging, best tracking and longest range ones. Than have mixed damage ammo sprinkled in between. Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS.
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:26:00 - [8] Homogenization once again. It doesn't look like this ammo rebalance will change much (if you want to boost damage - increase the damage modifier) but it will take away one small flavour of projectiles. Alpha strike increase is a very bad for gameplay. No one enjoys being insta-killed. There are other, better ways to boost projectiles and make them different from other turret-type weapons. I like what Abrazzar suggests: You can make ammo to select damage type only and range vs damage selection to be done via script on separate high slot module (all minmatar ships have "utility" high slots). Call it a "Range Controller" or something. Looks like a much better alternative to me.
mazzilliu	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:29:00 - [9] what about range? the tempest and maelstrom are the worst ranged fleet snipers compared to all other races. in fleet fights you hardly ever see minmatar ships. because even with maxed out range they cant touch what the other races can bring. MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU.
Juliette DuBois	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:32:00 - [10] Edited by: Juliette DuBois on 23/09/2009 14:32:40 Maybe they could add third tier of large arties, say 1650mm? And give 1400/1200 somewhat better tracking.

irion felpamy Minmatar HellJumpers Corp	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:41:00 - [11] Originally by: Gripen Homogenization once again. It doesn't look like this ammo rebalance will change much (if you want to boost damage - increase the damage modifier) but it will take away one small flavour of projectiles. Alpha strike increase is a very bad for gameplay. No one enjoys being insta-killed. There are other, better ways to boost projectiles and make them different from other turret-type weapons. I like what Abrazzar suggests: You can make ammo to select damage type only and range vs damage selection to be done via script on separate high slot module (all minmatar ships have "utility" high slots). Call it a "Range Controller" or something. Looks like a much better alternative to me. Being a bit crap is not flavour.
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:44:00 - [12] claiming some CSM credit for this one. This issue was pushed by CSM1, 2 and 3. Director of Education :: EVE University Chairman of the CSM
Pattern Clarc Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:49:00 - [13] I believe battleship artillery tracking and optimal range could use a boost. Perhaps introducing a new higher tier artillery? Also, any chance of a review of the Tempest, and Minmatar battleship niches in general? ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
BlackHorizon The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:53:00 - [14] Edited by: BlackHorizon on 23/09/2009 14:53:25 The proposed changes look very good. Adding to them, I have always felt that the Trajectory Analysis skill should be 10% to falloff per level rather than the current 5%. This helps blaster ships somewhat too.

CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:55:00 - [15] Oh, and also Tracking Computers. We're looking at some falloff love. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh C C P	Posted - 2009.09.23 14:58:00 - [16] Originally by: Lumy While you're at it, could you reorder ammo a bit? Imho the best order would be: Fusion, Phased plasma, EMP, Titanium sabot, Nuclear, Proton, Depleted uranium, Carbonized lead. The point is to have racial damage ammunition types as most damaging, best tracking and longest range ones. Than have mixed damage ammo sprinkled in between. This interests me. We took a look at the over all damage type distribution, and it could do with some tweaking. How do people feel about the damage types the ammo is dishing out now? Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Thorvik Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:04:00 - [17] Originally by: BlackHorizon Edited by: BlackHorizon on 23/09/2009 14:53:25 The proposed changes look very good. Adding to them, I have always felt that the Trajectory Analysis skill should be 10% to falloff per level rather than the current 5%. This helps blaster ships somewhat too. Agree with this one as well as the damage/utility slot. Make the Trajectory Analysis skill harder to get at or add another training Tier so that it makes it that much more difficult (and rewarding) to get to the bonuses.
JordanParey Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:09:00 - [18] I would actually leave EMP the way it is, but boost Fusion and PP a bit. Fusion and Phased Plasma should really be used more imo, and EMP loses half its damage to tanks anyway (the explo damage goes away when shooting shields, the EM damage goes away when you shoot armor, not to mention the optimal range kill) Otherwise, I'd say the changes are good, though I disagree with the idea of having to use a scripted highslot module to change damage/range types..that would be TOO much
Linas IV	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:11:00 - [19] Edited by: Linas IV on 23/09/2009 15:13:03 Two words on my mind: "Finaly!" and "AWESOME!!" Changes look really promising, glad to see something is going to change. Concerning you question on damage types; In my opinion EMP is a kinda double edged sword at the moment: While the EM-damage can be nice in some situations, the large portion of Explo damage ruins the advantage most of the time. (for example because of the extremly high Explo resist on dual Invul-field Setups) Therfore i totally recommend the tier change of Ammo posted earlier: Quote: Fusion, Phased plasma, EMP, Titanium sabot, Nuclear, Proton, Depleted uranium, Carbonized lead Maybe switch titanium and nuclear, and increase the EM/Explo Ratio on EMP, but the rest seems fine. (this will hopefully stop the dual-EANM DC Tank Dominance in PVP aswell)
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:22:00 - [20] Fully Minmatar specced crew reporting in! Nozh, you are awesome. Thank you. Good changes overall. Some ships might need rebalancing after that (Rupture and Rifter are already good, might be too good with this, depends on whether you adjust the guns themselves; not that I'll complain if you don't :-)). The biggest problem remaining that I can see is range of arties. The problem there is the rather "timid" optimal range, but only compared to the other ships. We're talking about 150km, 180km and then two 250km-ish ships. If you reduce the Apoc bonus to some sensible one so it can hit the same range as Tempests or a bit above (160-170km), but retain their advantage of best dps and best tracking of the long-range guns, I think you don't have to change arti range at all. Gives all the long-range guns a useful spot to work at, too. Quote: This interests me. We took a look at the over all damage type distribution, and it could do with some tweaking. How do people feel about the damage types the ammo is dishing out now? A few thoughts. EMP looks very weird at a first glance, as it combines the two extreme damage types (EM and EXP), which means you do a bad damage type against anything. On the other hand, this is actually quite good: For most ships, you need to first kill the shields (EM shines), then the armor (EX shines). This is often forgotten, and makes EMP a very good all-round damage type. A problem that adds to making EMP such a good ammo type is that EM is too good a damage type overall after the resist changes. It's the best damage type against shield tankers, armor tankers with triple hardeners, and every T2 ship that plugs its resist hole with an active hardener except for Minmatar ones. I do think this is a balance problem that needs addressing (especially as lasers seem to be often balanced regarding typical armor resists ;-)). Regarding projectile ammo, if "choose your damage type" is a design goal for projectiles, then allow just that. Fusion and Phased Plasma show how it's done: One "main" damage type, another "supplementary" damage type at roughly 20% total damage. The "supplementary" damage type below has been chosen as the "opposite" of the main damage type - extreme damage types get a medium damage type as complementary, mediums an extreme. Finally, EX being the Minmatar racial advantage, swap Fusion and EMP (but please, only if you fix the general "EM is such a good damage type" problem above :-)). Fusion (12 total, 9 ex, 3 th) EMP (11 total, 8 em, 3 ki) Phased Plasma (10 total, 8 th, 2 ex) Titanium Sabot (9 total, 7 ki, 2 em) Depleted Uranium (8 total, 6 ex, 2 th) Proton (7 total, 5 em, 2 ki) Nuclear (6 total, 5 th, 1 ex) Carbonized Lead (5 total, 4 ki, 1 em) This would need some sanity checks still, esp. expected damage output vs. normal armor/shield resists and normal T2 resists.

Varrakk Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:33:00 - [21] With reloading take as long as it does. For minmatar its mostly EMP + Longest range ammo thats being used for PVP.
Juliette DuBois	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:33:00 - [22] Maybe you could just make EMP, PP and Fusion even statwise and just have different damage types to choose from? Triple hardeners aren¦t that common except maybe for armor tanked minmatar ships that already have em resist bonus.
teji Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:34:00 - [23] Are you going to be taking a look at ways to increase range on Minmatar BS or perhaps more of a buff to falloff mechanics?
Caldor Mansi	Posted - 2009.09.23 15:57:00 - [24] Seriously, I think we already got enough of your awesomness... I hoped we will never see you again :(
Natalia Kovac Minmatar Phoenix Tribe Cult of War	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:00:00 - [25] Edited by: Natalia Kovac on 23/09/2009 16:04:04 Edited by: Natalia Kovac on 23/09/2009 16:03:42 Add a falloff script to tracking computers and give tracking enhancers a falloff stat would be two easy fixes. Other than that large autocannons and artillery need more optimal.
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:01:00 - [26] The thing is I find. Dmg mod vs optimal range mod isnt really where they fail. It's the nature of the modules themselves. Comparing t2 pulses + scorch or multifreq vs any other short range ammo is practically lulztastic. Take Null. Null has all the same disadvantages of scorch... yet kinda peaks around 10km or so? for optimal? Sure it has a nice falloff... but soon as you are in falloff as opposed to optimal. You lose dps. Which when the amarr boost a couple expansions ago happened... it gave them an advantage over gallente. Blasterboats didnt worry too much. Then web and mwd nerfs hit and blasters just dont do what they used to. On the other side of thing. Long range sniper bs gangs. It's very possible to get meta 3-4 mods for amarr and gallente and get out to 150km optimal. Minnie REQUIRE T2 ammo to get to 150km optimal. Quote: This interests me. We took a look at the over all damage type distribution, and it could do with some tweaking. How do people feel about the damage types the ammo is dishing out now? In pvp now... you pretty much omni tank. So doesnt matter so much really. The idea would be moreso to look at prjectile damage types vs range vs rats. Currently the ammo to get a certain range to make you effective for killing say guristas. Which closest is Titanium Sabot but it's -12.5% range. So it sucks for killing guristas who orbit at 50km. the same thing goes for the majority of the rats. Do believe serps are the only one where the ammo matches for them. Might be wrong about that. Consider that projectiles are next to non-existent being used in missions due to the list of problems. The ammo itself does need a fix for use within mission running-ratting. The real issue in projectiles lay within the modules themselves. Note the requirement for t2 ammo to get the proper optimal range to obtain the relative same dps as the counterparts. The issue is. You can balance projectiles like this... but then it makes them capless hybrids? YAWN. How about bring something special to minnie. I propose something like heat warfare. Say sleipner is shooting a megathron. The racks for the megathron per volley take X amount of heat. Thusly invalidating the possibility for that megathron to overload or else the megathron basically loses their modules in the first cycle. If the megathron had no intention of overheating... then it makes no difference. It could bring that something special to small gang warfare. Afterall who cares if i cant overload if im being shot in mid-large gang bs... i die anyway. Then capitals is makes it even more fun. :) ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Pattern Clarc Celtic Anarchy	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:07:00 - [27] Originally by: Arkady Sadik Regarding projectile ammo, if "choose your damage type" is a design goal for projectiles, then allow just that. Fusion and Phased Plasma show how it's done: One "main" damage type, another "supplementary" damage type at roughly 20% total damage. The "supplementary" damage type below has been chosen as the "opposite" of the main damage type - extreme damage types get a medium damage type as complementary, mediums an extreme. Finally, EX being the Minmatar racial advantage, swap Fusion and EMP (but please, only if you fix the general "EM is such a good damage type" problem above :-)). Fusion (12 total, 9 ex, 3 th) EMP (11 total, 8 em, 3 ki) Phased Plasma (10 total, 8 th, 2 ex) Titanium Sabot (9 total, 7 ki, 2 em) Depleted Uranium (8 total, 6 ex, 2 th) Proton (7 total, 5 em, 2 ki) Nuclear (6 total, 5 th, 1 ex) Carbonized Lead (5 total, 4 ki, 1 em) This would need some sanity checks still, esp. expected damage output vs. normal armor/shield resists and normal T2 resists. Pretty much this. At the moment, it's some hybrid between the way missile users choose ammo, and the way rail users choose there ammo. It needs to be skewed more to the way missile users choose ammo, with extreme range and damage ammo remaining, but with a number of ammo types with roughly the same range and damage, but with clearly different damage types. Most of the time the advantage of a using a particular damage type is negated by the fact that reload time is +cycle time + 10 seconds (for blasters and hybrids anyway), and the other fact that another ammo type may just do more damage due to having a higher damage total. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest)
anheuser Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:21:00 - [28] Originally by: CCP Nozh This interests me. We took a look at the over all damage type distribution, and it could do with some tweaking. How do people feel about the damage types the ammo is dishing out now? Like a few of the other posters, I've always wondered why the Minmatar racial damage of explosive is not the highest damage rounds. I definitely like Lumy's order with exp, therm and then EMP. The other races have fixed damage types according to racial profiles, minmatar doesn't, but that doesn't mean they should have their highest damage type being the same as their arch enemy's, even if for just lolrp reasons.
ardik GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:23:00 - [29] Let's discuss barrage ammo, current description: An advanced version of the standard Nuclear ammo with a Morphite-enriched warhead and a smart tracking system. Smart-tracking, but it gives a tracking penalty instead of the tracking bonus it used to give, what's up with that?
Rivqua Caldari Omega Wing R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2009.09.23 16:35:00 - [30] Originally by: ardik Let's discuss barrage ammo, current description: An advanced version of the standard Nuclear ammo with a Morphite-enriched warhead and a smart tracking system. Smart-tracking, but it gives a tracking penalty instead of the tracking bonus it used to give, what's up with that? Incorrect. Default T2 tracking is -50%. Barrage has a +50% tracking bonus to that, landing at -25%. _________________ - Rivqua - --- R.E.P.O. ---



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 90 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.