|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
   |
Posted - 2009.09.23 17:50:00 -
[1]
The Minnie shield-tankers would also benefit from balancing the fitting requirements of shield transporters with those of remote armour repairers, so they'd be able to receive remote rep love from ships other than the dedicated logistics platforms. At the moment, non-logistics remote repping is hopelessly skewed in favour of armour tanks via fitting requirements, which really hurts the poor Minnie shield-tankers.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 14:43:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 29/09/2009 14:43:41
It's self-evident that Fusion is the best ammo to use against T1 armour tanks, and that Phased Plasma is the best to use against T1 shield tanks. 
The problem is, obviously, when you don't know your target, or have a mix of known ones, leading to EMP.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 17:34:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
My T2 ammo proposal:
HAIL: -50% falloff, no optimal penalty. no tracking penalty
VOID: -25% falloff and -25% optimal. no tracking penalty
CONFLAG: -50% optimal no falloff penalty (just like it is right now) and 75% thermal / 25% EM damage. no tracking penalty
RAGE: -50% flight time, T1 base explosion raidus/velocity
This is T2 ammo that's intended to be used against the same targets as T1 ammo, but at closer range. I don't like that intended role. It would be too common - the T2 ammo would be the "default" choice too often.
The current intended role is "to be used against ships larger than yours" - hence the penalties to tracking, explosion velocity etc. I like that - it keeps ship DPS okay against its peers, but gives options against larger ships. The problem is in the implementation - Rage/Fury are fine (~11% more damage than faction), but Void barely offers any extra DPS over faction. Similarly Conflag, I believe. And this intended role has no requirement or justification for the addiction cap/sig penalties etc. - surely the tracking etc. penalties are enough?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 10:47:00 -
[4]
So projectiles are weak, and are getting boosted. Now people are saying that hybrids are weak and deserve a boost, and they have a point...
...wouldn't it have just been simpler to have nerfed lasers? 
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:15:00 -
[5]
BTW, after we boost projectiles, then boost hybrids, I'll be starting some "boost missiles" whinethreads. 
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 17:41:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Balancing a game is not same thing as balancing 2 weights. There is more than transitivity and equality. There is the concept of having a role, being fun to use and enrich the game.
The choosen patch by CCP is the only correct one!
I don't know turrets like I know missiles, but even I know that projectiles are much weaker on the BS scale than the cruiser/frigate scale. So yeah, obviously they deserve a boost - hence my comment about tweaks. My concern is that the scale-independent boost being proposed will be such that it will leave hybrids looking pathetic, and deserving their own boost - which is bad balancing and the sort of power creep that we should be avoiding.
If one weapon system is much better than the other two, the answer isn't to boost the others, it's to nerf the one and damn the whiners. I'm very sympathetic to some sort of boost for projectiles, particularly on the BS scale, but using lasers and especially Scorch L as a model is not wise.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 22:34:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Caldor Mansi
Edited by: Caldor Mansi on 29/10/2009 19:47:14
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
About half of a ship EHP comes from shield and hull.
I am not wrong and you need to refresh your arithmetics :-P
Bog standard dual plate, dual EAM trimarked Mega: 116k EHP, 12k shield, 21k hull, making 28%. Geddon is similar.
Buy a calculator, mate.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 11:30:00 -
[8]
Originally by: 1600 RT
the current boost is ok anything less will make AC stay carp compared to laser, with current changes the can compete.
sure blaster are left a bit behind but they still hold theyr dps advantage in web range, probably isnt a great thing to justify the small range but this is another story and regard blaster.
If projectiles and hybrids are weak relative to lasers, then the answer is clearly not to boost projectiles and hybrids (and then, inevitably, missiles), but just to nerf lasers.
Yes, large projectiles need help, the tiers needs to be better defined and falloff is a bit crappy, but, as pointed out, small- and med-using projectile ships are basically fine. Using lasers and especially Scorch Apocs as a basis for BS AC balance is probably a recipe for abominations like the autoRokh.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 14:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Caroline Nikon
9/10 times missile launchers fire kinetic of EM.
On the BS scale? Er, no.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 15:23:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 30/10/2009 15:24:40
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
Shield omni-tanks on the other hand always fit em hardener, or at least a rig, just because of the lasers. If this is OK on shields, why is it unacceptable on armor?
For a T1 shield tank, it's unwise to drop an extender rig for an EM resist rig. Take a basic buffer Raven, with dual LSE, dual Inv and DC. With three extender rigs and overheated Invs, you have 113k EHP to multifreq in gang. Drop an extender for an EM resist and you lose EHP even to multifreq, dropping to 111k EHP.
|
|
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 16:26:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Nuts Nougat
The only ships that have a "thermal hole" are t2 amarr. And they already plug that hole usually.
And T1 shield tankers that plug their EM hole. Which, according to you, is all of them.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 17:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: To mare
projectile are not born to suck they need this boost to be competitive
Competitive with what? Blasters or lasers?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:01:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Succubine
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Being competitive with lasers all the way until the end of Scorch optimal is broken by default. I mean, SURE, if you intend to make them consume cap (which is a massive thing on sub BS ships tbh), get locked into racial only damage types and so on and so forth. Then we'd have balance. And two equal, carbon-copied weapon systems. Screw that.
Projectiles will become competitive when Tyhpoons fit AC more than Torps.
Because it's well known that ACs have the same fitting requirements as torps, they should do roughly the same damage. Oh, wait, Siege II takes over twice as much CPU as 800mm II...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 00:42:00 -
[14]
This is hopeless, there are so many variables being changed at once that it'll be impossible to get a good idea of the results. All I will say is that the changes to damage types are a massive boost to projectiles, that the problems with projectiles really only exist on the BS scale and that balancing ACs around lasers and Scorch is ****ing stupid.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 13:46:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
That means ACs MUST become imbalanced at first compared to blasters, as much as pulses are, then we fix Blasters next and everything will be right.
No. A balancing strategy that involves making things worse before they get better is clearly stupid. And that's even without considering the boost to missiles that will be inevitably required, following boosts to projectiles and hybrids.
Originally by: Seriously Bored
but on all points the best solution is to nerf Amarr...or we're starting to play Power Creep Online.
Indeed. It's obvious that attempting to balance turrets by only changing projectiles is not the answer. A bit less tracking for pulse lasers, a bit less optimal or damage for Scorch, a bit more tracking for blasters, and a fix to BS projectiles. Surely that's easier?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 16:30:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Nothing will get "WORSE".
Currently there is one short range turret system that is clearly better than the other two. After the changes there will be one short range turret system that is clearly worse than the other two.
And thus the attempt to improve turret balance is a complete failure. That kind of balancing strategy is ufckign stupid. Because this thread isn't really about projectile balancing, it's about turret balancing. Are you one of those people who are dogmatically determined never to nerf anything, as if you believe that turret balance is defined by absolute capabilities, rather than relative capabilities?
If one system is too superior, relative to the other two, then fix the one. Don't advocate a heavy-handed fix that ignores the true problem and creates more problems than it solves, just because it boosts you personally.
Anyway, where's the motivation for boosting small and med projectiles? Yes, there's issues with the silly tier systems, but look at ship performances. Where is the subpar performance that proves the need to boost the Rifter? Or the Thrasher? The Hurricane, Vaga or Rupture? There's nothing fundamentally the matter with the performance of these ships. The Muninn isn't great, but neither is the Eagle - so the problem that needs fixing is really the Zealot, and any remaining problem is best fixed by fiddling with individual ships.
Only on the BS scale do projectiles break down, with both AC and artillery deserving substantial boosts, either to themselves or their host BS platforms. These broad-spectrum projectile boosts are as blunt and as badly thought-out as the AF AB changes were.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 19:34:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
egotistical drivel
Calm down, cone boy.
You've whined about gank/tank balance a few times, specifically the HP boost. Not only do your whines have no place in a turret balancing thread, you're wrong anyway. Gank/tank balance doesn't really mean much. The typical whine that it promotes blobbing is simplistic and stupid. Blobbing is simply the inevitable result of a more popular game.
You are dogmatic. You refuse to discuss or consider nerfs. I do. You worship a "no-nerfing" dogma, and possibly a "wah wah boost me" one. Foolish. You are also too narrow-minded to see the greater issue of turret balance, one that I as an outsider, as it were, am well placed to observe without vested interest.
I detailed specifics in my previous post. The main problems are BS projectiles, pulse tracking, Scorch and blaster tracking. If your attention span is too short, cut out the caffeine.
Muninn and Eagle are both poor relative to the Zealot. The solution is obvious. Cyclones is competitive with the tier 1 BCs. Claw is average, the problem really being its role. Vaga is fine. The Hurricane's tank is unremarkable, you're wrong there, it's advantage is in mobility and good DPS when it chooses to clsoe range. The "other ships" that you refer to appear to be the BS. Well, thanks, Sherlock, for telling us that the Tempest and Maelstrom are crap.
FYI, I didn't get where I am in Eve by not understanding turrets or other weapon systems. All my comments on missile boats and missile performances are based on a comparison, implicit or explicit, of them with other weapons systems. I normally only comment on missiles because there's plenty of good authorities on turrets (like Branko). And my capital alt doesn't fly a Phoenix.
If you remember, after the QR missile boost, everyone else was whining "omgwtf missile nerf". I called it as a boost straight away, and a boost relative to the turret systems. And I was right. You? You don't even know when to use Hail.
|
|
|
| |
|