| 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) |
RedSplat
   |
Posted - 2009.09.28 16:28:00 -
[331]
 Originally by: Yalezorn
Been rollin this around in my head the last few days, seeing a lot of posts talking about how bad projectile weapons are right now. One of the issues I've seen is the small clip size they have, resulting in having to reload often, and an overall drop in DPS.
So, what if projectile ammo was all belt fed? What I mean is basically a combination of hybrid turret and laser mechanics, where basically your clip size is only limited by your cargo hold. You select the type of ammo for your guns to use from your hold, and the guns will fire continuously as long as you have ammo in your cargo bay. This would eliminate reloading for projectiles, allowing steady damage during a fight.
That is a quality idea, devs getting this?
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective
Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 16:29:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Kalia Masaer
Really the only way for a fair comparison is with items fitted in ships with the same equivelant bonuses or no bonuses. As really when you consider it if you balance AC's in a Hurricane compared to a Myrmidon well that is just going to end badly because it would be so hard to see the line. Now comparing the turrets on an Abaddon and a Maelstrom well you may was well compare turrets without bothering with a ship bonus.
All weapon systems need to be viable on an unbonused ship unless the intended race for those ships receives an additional bonus or you simply create more imbalance.
Yes. This is why minmatar don't fit laser, and amarr don't fit projectiles, yet its not that uncommon for the gallente myrmidon to fit autos.
Bear in mind, all of you, after this patch, that projectiles might be blurring the line again with other weapons with a dps boost, which has in the past led to oddly effective ships breaking the game by ganking people with multiracial hardware, which previously resulted in a severe nerf to minmatar projectiles.
Projectiles are not like missiles where their weapons have no competition and there is no reason to care - projectiles compete with two other weapons systems that each use cap, and if the balance between these weapons is too similar, then what reason is there to keep the racial standard? With a possible increase in falloff with autos, and artie increasing alpha, we may very well see a reason for cpp to nerf minmatar again after this buff :(
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 16:31:00 -
[333]
Edited by: isdisco3 on 28/09/2009 16:37:34
As a testament to how borked things are (and how much time I have on my hands), I submit to you a damage graph of all primarily-turret-based battleships (ignoring the dominix and phoon). All ships are fit with largest short-range weapon and nothing else, using lvl 5 skills (except the tempest, which got 2 siege launchers). Drones are ignored, as is tracking.
and i still can't get images to work, so here's the link: Linkage
Each tick is 2.5km.
Things to note:
a. scorch is hugely overpowered, on all 3 amarr ships. this can be fixed by nerfing scorch or by buffing all other race's ammunition.
b. the difference between mael and tempest is extremely marginal over both ranges. Ship bonuses should be changed to make them be more different, imo.
c. mid-range minmatar actually looks pretty decent with barrage, they'd be quite nice if it weren't for scorch.
|
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 17:41:00 -
[334]
Edited by: AstroPhobic on 28/09/2009 17:44:53
Originally by: Roland Thorne
Originally by: Kalia Masaer
Really the only way for a fair comparison is with items fitted in ships with the same equivelant bonuses or no bonuses. As really when you consider it if you balance AC's in a Hurricane compared to a Myrmidon well that is just going to end badly because it would be so hard to see the line. Now comparing the turrets on an Abaddon and a Maelstrom well you may was well compare turrets without bothering with a ship bonus.
All weapon systems need to be viable on an unbonused ship unless the intended race for those ships receives an additional bonus or you simply create more imbalance.
Yes. This is why minmatar don't fit laser, and amarr don't fit projectiles, yet its not that uncommon for the gallente myrmidon to fit autos.
Bear in mind, all of you, after this patch, that projectiles might be blurring the line again with other weapons with a dps boost, which has in the past led to oddly effective ships breaking the game by ganking people with multiracial hardware, which previously resulted in a severe nerf to minmatar projectiles.
Projectiles are not like missiles where their weapons have no competition and there is no reason to care - projectiles compete with two other weapons systems that each use cap, and if the balance between these weapons is too similar, then what reason is there to keep the racial standard? With a possible increase in falloff with autos, and artie increasing alpha, we may very well see a reason for cpp to nerf minmatar again after this buff :(
Disagree. The move towards the almighty cap booster and EHP have made cap a moot point, and it's far less of an issue compared to the gameplay style of 2004/5.
Your ship fit nos, period. It probably had two armor reps and a cap booster, and you used the nos to both kill the cap of the other ship and fuel your own personal active tank, and with the rest of the slots you fit in some turrets and stuff. Autos were great here because they didnt mess with the very fine cap balance that fluctuated like mad. It was a mess and turrets that drained cap made it even messier.
Your typical tempest setup back then was 6 ACs, 2 heavy nos, MWD, 20km, web, and either a cap booster and ECM, or two damps, or a tracking disruptor or something. You'd then fit a 5-6 slot armor tank and possibly squeeze on a damage mod. You weren't doing great damage, but you had a lot of nasty tricks up your sleeve (cap warfare and other EW, cap fueling a double rep tank, etc).
Damage has become much more relevant though since the nerf of the utility. EHP tanks dont need 6-7 slots, so damage mods made a re-appearance. Triple repped nossing apocs with autos aren't likely to pop up any time soon.
It was a different time, and back then a projectile boost would have led to madness. Today... not so much.
Quote:
Things to note:
a. scorch is hugely overpowered, on all 3 amarr ships. this can be fixed by nerfing scorch or by buffing all other race's ammunition.
b. the difference between mael and tempest is extremely marginal over both ranges. Ship bonuses should be changed to make them be more different, imo.
c. mid-range minmatar actually looks pretty decent with barrage, they'd be quite nice if it weren't for scorch.
Did this graph account for hit quality in falloff?
re b. Tempests don't usually fit siege launchers, so the mael will typically be doing more DPS while the pest fields dual neuts.
re c. It's terrible when compared to scorch and missiles (torp raven), the only weapon system it eclipses is blasters and that's over a chunk of range, which is a no brainer.
|
Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 17:43:00 -
[335]
Just as an idea, how about instead of (or in addition to) giving us ammo that increases tracking, how about ammo that decreases the gun's sig resolution? I mean, you can boost your tracking by mods and rigs already, whereas a sig res bonus would be something really unique...
And if you are reading this, you have arrived at the signature without noticing...
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 17:49:00 -
[336]
After more testing and feedback we're happy with our first iteration to go out on Singularity.
Ammo Damage Base:
- EMP - EM +1
- Phased Plasma - Thermal +1
- Carbonized Lead - Explosive -1
- Nuclear - Explosive -1
Ammo Volume:
- Small: 0.0025
- Medium: 0.0125
- Large: 0.025
- XL: 0.12
Ammo mid-range compensation:
- Tracking Bonus Modifier, 1-1.2
Damage / Duration Increase û Artillery:
- Small: 0%
- Medium: 25%
- Large: 75%
Tracking Enhancer / Tracking Computer:
- Falloff Bonus equal to Optimal Range Bonus
- Tracking Computer scripts Falloff Bonus Equal to Optimal Range Bonus
About the optimal range and tracking increases people are asking about. With a greatly increased alpha tracking becomes even more important, since a single shot counts more. With an increased optimal, tracking becomes less of a problem. We don't want too many "one volleys" on our hands, with feedback and testing gathered from Singularity we'll revisit this for a closer look. If weÆre not happy with the tracking bonus on the ammunition we might take a look at some other solutions, someone here suggested an ôalphaö bonus, which could be interesting.
These are as said before the first iteration of these changes, with playtesting and feedback from Singularity, we'll iterate further and hopefully find projectiles turrets right
Nozh
Game Designer
CCP Games |
|
AstroPhobic
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 17:55:00 -
[337]
Edited by: AstroPhobic on 28/09/2009 17:56:55
I think the alpha scaling across small/medium/large was a good move. Also happy to see that EMP got a bump in EM.
I'd still like to see fusion put as top damage dealer (like most others), and see autocannons get some more falloff across the board.
Oh, and I will never use a tracking computer for an AC boat if the falloff gain is the same as optimal. That's absurd. Optimal as a mechanic is over 2x as strong as falloff, the returns diminish almost immediately for such a small percent of falloff added. There's no way I'm sacrificing a midslot for +10% falloff. Even a target painter would be more useful, and that's saying something.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:09:00 -
[338]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 28/09/2009 18:09:22
Really, as Astrophobic said above, falloff bonuses mean a lot less than optimal bonus. To keep a balance EVERYTHING that gives falloff bonus should give considerable MORE bonus than the equivalente Optimal range modifier.
That applies to:
- Ambit Rigs
- TC/TE AND TLs (lets not forget tracking links, please)
- Trajectory Analysis Skill
- Falloff Implants
- Ship bonuses
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:24:00 -
[339]
Edited by: RedSplat on 28/09/2009 18:24:29
Either increase base falloff on AC's or Make the tracking computer script give 1.5* the optimal bonus in Falloff
Falloff sucks.
20km optimal or 20 km falloff- if you dont see the disparity in effectiveness between these two then you need to go back to square one and redesign Minmatar weapons.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
|
Schmell
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:28:00 -
[340]
Will be clip size for artillery increased?
|
Mioelnir
Minmatar
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:34:00 -
[341]
Totally hooked on the belt-feed idea. That would be so awesome.
@ Nozh:
Ammo base: could we keep carbonized lead at 50/50? e.g. -0.5 / -0.5?
New Clipsizes:
125mm AC II: 200
150mm AC II: 160
200mm AC II: 120
250mm Artillery II: 40
280mm Howitzer II: 20
D180mm AC II: 200
220mm AC II: 160
425mm AC II: 120
650mm Artillery II: 40
720mm Howitzer II: 20
D425mm AC II: 200
D650mm AC II: 160
800mm AC II: 120
1200mm Artillery II: 40
1400mm Howitzer II: 20
6x2500mm AC: 83.333
Quad 3500mm Artillery: 41.666
Looks nice, although I'd suggest 0.125 instead of 0.12 for the XL Ammo.
Damage / Duration Increase:
since I don't think this means a 75% dps increase for large artillery, by which percentage is the duration increased?
|
Elaron
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:37:00 -
[342]
Originally by: AstroPhobic
Oh, and I will never use a tracking computer for an AC boat if the falloff gain is the same as optimal. That's absurd. Optimal as a mechanic is over 2x as strong as falloff, the returns diminish almost immediately for such a small percent of falloff added. There's no way I'm sacrificing a midslot for +10% falloff. Even a target painter would be more useful, and that's saying something.
I have a feeling that the falloff modifier on tracking computers is meant to help with the range issues on artillery, not autocannons. That is, CCP wants projectile sniping to be in deep falloff if attempting to match ranges with railguns and tachyons.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:37:00 -
[343]
Sorry if I did not understood. But that means em got 1 base damage extra on EM and not the 9.1% damage boost (to match AM)? That on all the sizes? (fized +1?)
Care to clarify?
|
Mioelnir
Minmatar
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:45:00 -
[344]
Emp S currently has EM 5, Explosive 4, Kinetic 2, Total 11.
New Emp S gets +1 EM for EM 6, Explosive 4, Kinetic 2, Total 12 (+9.1%)
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:49:00 -
[345]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Ammo Damage Base:
- EMP - EM +1
- Phased Plasma - Thermal +1
- Carbonized Lead - Explosive -1
- Nuclear - Explosive -1
So what I'm seeing here is that you're leaving EMP 4.5 points behind the other racial ammos? /facepalm
Quote:
Ammo Volume:
- Small: 0.0025
- Medium: 0.0125
- Large: 0.025
- XL: 0.12
So this gives 720s a clip size of 20 - a big improvement.
Quote:
Ammo mid-range compensation:
- Tracking Bonus Modifier, 1-1.2
Probably not worthwhile to use. What ammos is this going on specifically?
Quote:
Damage / Duration Increase û Artillery:
- Small: 0%
- Medium: 25%
- Large: 75%
I'll run some numbers on large artillery, but mediums definitely not getting any love here. 
Quote:
Tracking Enhancer / Tracking Computer:
- Falloff Bonus equal to Optimal Range Bonus
- Tracking Computer scripts Falloff Bonus Equal to Optimal Range Bonus
It's the thought that counts, I suppose.
Quote:
About the optimal range and tracking increases people are asking about. With a greatly increased alpha tracking becomes even more important, since a single shot counts more. With an increased optimal, tracking becomes less of a problem. We don't want too many "one volleys" on our hands, with feedback and testing gathered from Singularity we'll revisit this for a closer look. If weÆre not happy with the tracking bonus on the ammunition we might take a look at some other solutions, someone here suggested an ôalphaö bonus, which could be interesting.
So how do you explain things like Tachyons which have long had the highest alpha *AND* highest DPS *AND* highest tracking?
Quote:
These are as said before the first iteration of these changes, with playtesting and feedback from Singularity, we'll iterate further and hopefully find projectiles turrets right
Yeah, I'll be there, but these changes are totally underwhelming.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:50:00 -
[346]
Originally by: Mioelnir
Emp S currently has EM 5, Explosive 4, Kinetic 2, Total 11.
New Emp S gets +1 EM for EM 6, Explosive 4, Kinetic 2, Total 12 (+9.1%)
yes for small makes sense.. just want to be sure that escalates PROPORTINAL not DISCRETE up to large ones...
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 18:52:00 -
[347]
Holy crap. Remind me not to be hit by large artillery any more, those things are going to hurt 
Good deal on the ammo sizes as well, a healthy clip increase for most types from what I can tell.
Are you still planning on swapping the various types around to give the high damage ones more of an explosive focus instead of the EM focus?
|
Mioelnir
Minmatar
Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:00:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Originally by: Mioelnir
Emp S currently has EM 5, Explosive 4, Kinetic 2, Total 11.
New Emp S gets +1 EM for EM 6, Explosive 4, Kinetic 2, Total 12 (+9.1%)
yes for small makes sense.. just want to be sure that escalates PROPORTINAL not DISCRETE up to large ones...
Heh, ok, fair point. But since his OP was with small as example, I assumed he'd take them as example again, since Medium = 2x Small and Large = 4x Small.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:02:00 -
[349]
Edited by: Seishi Maru on 28/09/2009 19:05:27
Ok.. then I am placing a buy order of a few tempests right now on jita....
|
Roland Thorne
Dark Sun Collective
Kahora Catori
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:02:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Verone
You've really bloody done it now guys... honestly.
All was lovely and quiet on our corporation's internal forums... now there's a damn riot. Hundreds of Minmatar pilots, all screaming "Khumaaaaaaaaaaaaaak!" and "BROADSIDDDEEEE!", and posting images of the following nature :
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
You will not be able to wipe the smile off my face :)
Now, if if there was spent powder really flying around that would be even cooler 
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:10:00 -
[351]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
After more testing and feedback we're happy with our first iteration to go out on Singularity.
Ammo Damage Base:
- EMP - EM +1
- Phased Plasma - Thermal +1
- Carbonized Lead - Explosive -1
- Nuclear - Explosive -1
Ammo Volume:
- Small: 0.0025
- Medium: 0.0125
- Large: 0.025
- XL: 0.12
Ammo mid-range compensation:
- Tracking Bonus Modifier, 1-1.2
Damage / Duration Increase – Artillery:
- Small: 0%
- Medium: 25%
- Large: 75%
Tracking Enhancer / Tracking Computer:
- Falloff Bonus equal to Optimal Range Bonus
- Tracking Computer scripts Falloff Bonus Equal to Optimal Range Bonus
About the optimal range and tracking increases people are asking about. With a greatly increased alpha tracking becomes even more important, since a single shot counts more. With an increased optimal, tracking becomes less of a problem. We don't want too many "one volleys" on our hands, with feedback and testing gathered from Singularity we'll revisit this for a closer look. If we’re not happy with the tracking bonus on the ammunition we might take a look at some other solutions, someone here suggested an “alpha” bonus, which could be interesting.
These are as said before the first iteration of these changes, with playtesting and feedback from Singularity, we'll iterate further and hopefully find projectiles turrets right
Look, Nozh: what is exactly the point of a weapon systems whose sole advantage is high alpha if you don't want too many one-volleys?
I see this as Doublethink. Please check this link and maybe you will be understand what you are trying to do here...
Either you scrap artillery as it is now and start with another concept, or you start accepting that for it to be useful at all it MUST ONE-SHOT things...
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Rayokashi
Order of Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:17:00 -
[352]
Nozh,
- EMP as ammo needs more than +1.
- Medium artillery needs more than 25% (50% would be balanced)
- Falloff increase should be considerable, dps in falloff does not equal dps in optimal
|
Elaron
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:27:00 -
[353]
Edited by: Elaron on 28/09/2009 19:28:03
Originally by: Liang Nuren
So what I'm seeing here is that you're leaving EMP 4.5 points behind the other racial ammos? /facepalm
Until we see it on SiSi, I assume that this is for small ammo and the amount will scale through the size classes.
I find the 75% boost in volley size for large artillery to be hilarious, as it directly contradicts one of the design goals for the hit point boosts.
|
RedSplat
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:37:00 -
[354]
Good.
The HP buff was badly botched- simply put it was too much of a buff.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:38:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Elaron
I find the 75% boost in volley size for large artillery to be hilarious, as it directly contradicts one of the design goals for the hit point boosts.
Read my post above and check the "Doublethink" link...
The design goal itself directly contradicts the idea of alpha davantage. So either the design goal was badly thought and need to be abandoned OR alpha-strike as an advantage must be abandoned and something else must be given to artillery (as the same dps potential of lasers for example at the same ranges).
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:41:00 -
[356]
Originally by: isdisco3
Also, now taking bets on the next time Nozh will post. 4 months again? longer?
Wednesday. Like he said. But I'm pretty sure the next post will be in the Test Server Feedback forum. 
Let's not spit in the face of the people helping us out...
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Banzai Boyz
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:50:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
So either the design goal was badly thought and need to be abandoned OR alpha-strike as an advantage must be abandoned and something else must be given to artillery (as the same dps potential of lasers for example at the same ranges).
What's the point of lasers then? Their only advantage is big raw dps and that's it.
---[center]
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Rek Esket
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:51:00 -
[358]
Edited by: Rek Esket on 28/09/2009 19:54:23
Originally by: CCP Nozh
About the optimal range and tracking increases people are asking about. With a greatly increased alpha tracking becomes even more important, since a single shot counts more. With an increased optimal, tracking becomes less of a problem. We don't want too many "one volleys" on our hands, with feedback and testing gathered from Singularity we'll revisit this for a closer look. If weÆre not happy with the tracking bonus on the ammunition we might take a look at some other solutions, someone here suggested an ôalphaö bonus, which could be interesting.
Falloff is effectively a Minmatar gameplay mechanic, their guns are the only ones that have to deal with it in any appreciative manner. Therefore, to balance Minmatar you'll really have to reconsider the mechanics behind falloff.
As it currently stands in Tranquility, the damage scaling of falloff is far too steep for the 'extra range' afforded by it. Two optimal scripted tracking computers will extend the base falloff of 1400mm artillery from 35 to about 45.5 after the change. Using these numbers, a Minmatar would still be losing about 1.1% of their dps for every KM they fight outside optimal. That's a hard pill to swallow.
I would suggest one of the following:
A) Stretch out the falloff range in the first portion of falloff, such that it scales very shallow in falloff one, then has a large dropoff in falloff two.
B) Add a new module, or adjust an existing module like the target painter, that makes fighting in falloff much more efficient. Ideally, the painter would convert a portion of falloff range into optimal range, stretching out the pilot's ability to hit at full damage.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries
Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:54:00 -
[359]
The changes posted on this page help artillery a lot and make them be most viable. But autocannons are still going to be bad, they need more attention.
|
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 19:54:00 -
[360]
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
So either the design goal was badly thought and need to be abandoned OR alpha-strike as an advantage must be abandoned and something else must be given to artillery (as the same dps potential of lasers for example at the same ranges).
What's the point of lasers then? Their only advantage is big raw dps and that's it.
Lasers will still have higher base damage at longer ranges. The point is the characteristic of the weapon is set by it's base stats, but then by adding modules ( tracking computers), the base balance becomes skewed because optimal is 100% effective at extending range, where as effectively, falloff only extends the range by 50%.
|
| |
|
| 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 |