| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dabljuh
   |
Posted - 2010.01.11 19:07:00 -
[331]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 11/01/2010 19:16:30
 Originally by: Jack Icegaard
No, its not necessary that short range turrets track much better than long range turrets at short ranges to have good working game balance.
Yes it is. That's at least how EVE does it. Changing that part means fundamentally changing the game Quote:
The trade off for short range turrets is superior raw damage potential.
Right. Short range weapons do 0% damage at the long range, so long range weapons should do...50% damage at the short range. Makes sense? No? Yeah, that's why there's tracking.
No, the different turrets doing different levels of DPS is actually almost entirely unnecessary in terms of balance. Tracking means that long range weapons can do 0 damage at the short range, and range means that short range weapons can do 0 damage at the long range. That's how it works in terms of balance.
Blasters and other short range weapons actually do more DPS because they have to. Their envelopes are much smaller. Let me make some more ascii art:
Short range weapon
| |
| /\ |
|/ \______|
0 100
Long range weapon
| ___ |
| / \ |
|__/ \_|
0 100
As you can see, short range weapons have a much smaller envelope. That means, the range, the "band" in which they do their damage is much smaller. In fact, because tracking and range issues are both so high in short range weapons, they may hardly ever do their full DPS. That again means that their base DPS needs to be higher just to do the same DPS as long range weapons do.
Or to put it differently: If you reduce a weapon systems range by half and double its tracking, the number of kilometers in which the weapon system can do full damage has been halfed. You might argue that it is twice as hard for this weapon system to do full dps, simply because the range of ranges at which it does so is halved.
It's not a tradeoff for range. The added DPS of blasters is a tradeoff for the tightness of the envelope.
I don't entirely understand your formula, I think.
X = Range * e^(-Range/Optimal)
Correct? But how would frigs change the probability they get hit by battleships? Are mwding interceptors getting hit the same as immobile dreadnaughts, depending on range?
Also: You're talking about fundamentally changing the mechanics here. That's not going to work.
|
Grut
The Protei
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 19:15:00 -
[332]
Originally by: Dabljuh
It's a simple assumption really. A unnamed, tech 1 425mm rail with an optimal of 48000m and falloff of 24000 (thus a DefinedRange of 60000m) needs to be able to track a battleship at that DefinedRange.
Your assumption is completely flawed. It ignores applications ingame and ship fittings in particular.
An rr mega using rails and a sniper fit Rokh for example are completely different beasts, your method completely gimps the rr mega at close range. Tracking controls short range only, if you set values to account for sniper fit (and tracking boosted) bs everything else is broken horribly.
If you want a mechanic to reduce the ability of bs to instapop frigs at range tracking isn't it, you'd need to add an additional absolute mechanic to reduce accuracy based on range/target siggy/gun siggy.
Anyway what you've posted has 0 to do with rail balance so its pretty pointless in this thread.
Kinsy > deadman you
there?
Kinsy > are either of us in
pods, becase we dont know...
Mostly harmless
[ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought |
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 19:20:00 -
[333]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 11/01/2010 19:23:42
Edited by: Dabljuh on 11/01/2010 19:21:09
Originally by: Grut
Your assumption is completely flawed. It ignores applications ingame and ship fittings in particular.
An rr mega using rails and a sniper fit Rokh for example are completely different beasts, your method completely gimps the rr mega at close range. Tracking controls short range only, if you set values to account for sniper fit (and tracking boosted) bs everything else is broken horribly.
If you want a mechanic to reduce the ability of bs to instapop frigs at range tracking isn't it, you'd need to add an additional absolute mechanic to reduce accuracy based on range/target siggy/gun siggy.
Anyway what you've posted has 0 to do with rail balance so its pretty pointless in this thread.
All I could hear was BAWW MY ROKH NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO TRACK FRIGATES WITHIN 10KMS USING RAILS
I regret to inform you that you're extremely stupid. You may not have noticed that until now, but that's just part of being stupid.
Originally by: Grut
Anyway what you've posted has 0 to do with rail balance so its pretty pointless in this thread.
Oh wait, that. Ok, you noticed. What I'm saying is that you do not need so to buff rails as much as you need to completely nerf the long range fights. Which by design, favor amarr. Thus nerfing long range fights buffs hybrid platforms. Also, fix blasters.
|
Hiroshima Jita
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 19:31:00 -
[334]
Damn I wish Dabljuh would stop posting. There was a decent conversation going on before he decided that the time had come to hijack the thread with a demand that turrets start to suck more. Battleships hitting frigates because the frigate was far away and didn't have enough angular velocity is fine. Nerfing tracking so that all turret based dps is goes down is crap.
Asking CCP to boost X by 10% is fine and might even be listened to. Asking CCP to boost X by 33%, nerf Y by 33% and completely rewrite Z is not.
Asking CCP to make things that are farther away have lower signature radius is not reasonable. It would solve alot of the wierder tracking issues but rewriting the code is probably not easy.
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 19:34:00 -
[335]
Originally by: Hiroshima Jita
Damn I wish Dabljuh would stop posting. There was a decent conversation going on before he decided that the time had come to hijack the thread with a demand that turrets start to suck more.
God forbid someone actually tries to figure out why hybrids suck, rather than just asking for 10% more damage.
|
Watson Desecond
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 19:55:00 -
[336]
Signed
Less CPU/PG usage and i'd be happy
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 20:05:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Watson Desecond
Signed
Less CPU/PG usage and i'd be happy
So why don't you just fit a tier smaller? 350mms instead of 425, 200mms instead of 250mms, etc?
|
Hiroshima Jita
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 20:31:00 -
[338]
All I'm seeing is that you want to reduce tracking so that sniper BS won't be as good. I don't see how nerfing tracking particularly helps hybrids.
But lets assume CCP nerfs tracking so that sniper BS suck against anything other than slowboating battleships. And lets go further and assume that flying these new sniper BS smells so much of ass that people stop flying sniper BS. That they are forced to fit for medium to short range.
Huzzah! You have fixed rails by making them irrelevant. Ok what did that do for blasters? Nothing much. If people were reduced to choosing between blasters autocannon and pulse lasors you'd see alot of the later two in mid range fleet combat.
I'm not sure what your problem with long range weapon systems is. The basic trade off of sniping is that you have a massively reduced tank, low dps, and no ability to tackle in exchange for the relative safety of range and the ability to actually get that dps on a target if you are at range.
And in a 1v1 situation its not like a long range ship will ever beat a short range ship. The thing being a short range ship can always warp away from a fight that starts at sniping range. Only a ******ed person would try to close in on a sniper mega with a blaster mega by microwarpdriving across 100km + whatever run away speed the sniper mega was doing.
If your problem is that sniper BS fleets make a sphere of death that interceptors have a hard time closing in on I have another secret for you. An interceptor can fly all the way around the sniper fleet so that it is 100km on the other side and then people can warp to it at 100km and land on top of the sniper fleet. Or you can use a covops as a warp in for a heavy dictor and then drop all kinds of pain on the snipers.
I fly short range BS. Autocannons. Personally I would be pretty happy if snipers got a metal rod shoved up their anus. It would be a buff to my playstyle. Do they deserve it? Not particularly.
|
Vherr Arkhar
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 20:36:00 -
[339]
Thanks for the very detailed information. I honestly think I read most of it.
What I do not understand how:
400m resolution on 40m radius target could EVER be 100% chance to hit. Totally not considering tracking. To my understanding the resulting would be: PI*40*40/PI*400*400=1/100 chance. So there is no way that any of those "a frigate moving straight towards you will get hit by a large railgun at 100%." is there? (I got this from the graphical tutorial that was on this site somewhere WHILE back - the explaination)
Those 1% hits however would get influenced by tracking? So the actual effect tracking has in regard of 'chance to hit something smaller' is pretty low while the chance to hit something of the same resolution in influenced fully by tracking.
Now this is definately not true. How do I know? I basically always kill frigs using my artillery/AC at 70+km without shooting 100 shots at them to get a statistical chance of hitting them.
So... WHY am I hitting something that small? How comes? Honestly thats something I never understood ever since doing the tutorial. And I've been playing for a loooong time now. I'm no theory guru... but I think Im capable of putting 1 and 1 together: the description was definately WRONG. Because I hit stuff.
So where does the exess 'felt' 50% chance to hit from? I have to understand this fundamental part of the 'shooting at stuff' formula before daring to argue about anyone being right or wrong.
On a side note: Railgun performance do something the same way my 'long range frig popping' goes: If I use them, they SUCK. So... uhm... while not being all that professional about it, and not yet knowing all the facts to propose a deep-thought-through solution, I have to agree on the common tenor of this thread.
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 20:42:00 -
[340]
Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 11/01/2010 20:45:01
Originally by: Dabljuh
Edited by: Dabljuh on 11/01/2010 19:31:59
I don't entirely understand your formula, I think.
X = Range * e^(-Range/Optimal)
Correct? But how would frigs change the probability they get hit by battleships? Are mwding interceptors getting hit the same as immobile dreadnaughts, depending on range?
Also: You're talking about fundamentally changing the mechanics here. That's not going to work.
What I'm suggesting is the same hit chance formula as usual with a minor tweak.
I cut this formula from earlier in the thread with the omission of the falloff part to make it easier to read.
The current formula:
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ (((Transversal speed/(Range * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2)
Lets say you are in a interceptor and you just entered the optimal range of a rail-battleship. The formula states that you need twice the transversal speed to be as evasive at Optimal as at the range Optimal/2.
This can easily be changed with a formula where the Range variable is changed the way i suggested:
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ (((Transversal speed/((Range*e^(-Range/Optimal))* Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2)
So at ranges << Optimal the BS will track as usual but at Optimal you just need 1/e of the transversal speed to be as evasive as with the old formula. Its just an example it can be tweaked in many ways.
The main thing is that the Rails can have decent base tracking and the interceptor will still be sufficiently evasive at ranges. There is no need to change signature radius or stuff that are attributes of ships or turrets. This will do the samething
|
|
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 20:45:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Vherr Arkhar
Thanks for the very detailed information. I honestly think I read most of it.
What I do not understand how:
400m resolution on 40m radius target could EVER be 100% chance to hit.
You probably missed that part when I posted it. Last post, previous page. 40m SRad vs 400m SRes has the effect of multiplying the transversal by 10. At 0 transversal and within optimal range, hit chance is always 100%.
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 20:57:00 -
[342]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 11/01/2010 21:05:31
Originally by: Jack Icegaard
The current formula:
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ (((Transversal speed/(Range * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2)
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ (((Transversal speed/((Range*e^(-Range/Optimal))* Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2)
%% = 0.5 ^ ((AngularMomentum/Tracking)*(SignatureResolution/SignatureRadius))^2
%% = 0.5 ^ ((Transversal/Range)/Tracking)*(SignatureResolution/SignatureRadius))^2
What you want to do is this:
%%new = 0.5 ^
( (Tracking/ (Transversal/ (Range*e^ (-Range/Optimal))))*(SignatureResolution/SignatureRadius))^2
Ok, I get it now. What this basically does is reduce tracking with range. To about 1/3 at optimal With the goal that you can now have huge tracking values while still not popping frigates at the long range.
That breaks the game. You missed all that I said about envelopes. What you want is to abandon the envelope concept.
|
Liang Nuren
The Lollypop Factory
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 20:59:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Hiroshima Jita
Personally I would be pretty happy if snipers got a metal rod shoved up their anus. It would be a buff to my playstyle. Do they deserve it? Not particularly.
An amusing addendum: think about what will happen to Caldari rail and Gallente PVE? Yeah, blasters aren't viable in PVE (one of the Kronos kinda sucks) - so everyone would be forced to crosstrain to make ISK. Vargur, Golem, or GTFO tbh. :)
Doesn't bother me - I can fly all sub-caps with fairly maxed skills so... /shrug
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Vherr Arkhar
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 21:05:00 -
[344]
I read it. I admit I was just totally misinformed by doing this ancient 'guide to turrets' thing.
If this is all within a single formula - that messes up a lot, doesnt it? So tracking improvement effectively counteracts ****ty resolution. Thus making tracking absurdly effective for long range weapons and reducing the benefit of small ships at long ranges. While honestly... hitting something small from further away should probably be more difficult than hitting the same small target getting closer.
So... to fall back to the fact that hybrids suck and a way to fix this - and here I have to grab some liang expression - one has to look at entire fittings and situations in wich these are applied. Something easily forgotten when dealing with raw numbers I think. Well at least thats the way it is for me. :P
So: What roles are there, what ranges do they imply? How much traveling? How much support is needed and doable? Solo? Gang? Fleet?
* Running level 4 missions will get you to want optimal dps at 25-55km. And still good DPS at up to 75. Anything else is just... getting aggro and wait for them to get into better ranges.
Right now that is a cold nono for Blasters (no range, way too much boating around wich is a very bad idea in any BS hull)
And Rails are just lacking in DPS as they aren't really performing even with antimatter. The range is ok... even a little too much... but the plain raw damage is crap.
* Going sniper BS at a gatecamp will be 151+ range and after that its volley damage.
* Going Gank-BS its damage. Damage. Damage. And EHP.
Now wich parts are the ones that hybrids need to get 'fixed'? How are they competing in these and all those other scenarios? One thing I learned by doing so far: If something just utterly fails, mostly you're doing something the wrong way. But I see no way... absolutely none... to make Caldari or Gallente Hybrid boats work in the PvE sceme. Leaving sentrie ships and missile-spammers as the only 'proper' variants.
So is this uselessness in PvE offset by some proper performance in PvP?
|
Liang Nuren
The Lollypop Factory
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 21:14:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Vherr Arkhar
I read it. I admit I was just totally misinformed by doing this ancient 'guide to turrets' thing.
If this is all within a single formula - that messes up a lot, doesnt it? So tracking improvement effectively counteracts ****ty resolution.
Yes, that's essentially correct. Last time this came up (in a thread in what was then Game-Dev), there was a very reasonable suggestion put forward to change the tracking formula to account for the "visibility" of the target. Effectively a target at range has a smaller sig radius than one in your face. This is effectively the goal that Dabljuh is seeking - and is a much better solution than nerfing all long range turret tracking.
Quote:
So is this uselessness in PvE offset by some proper performance in PvP?
I'm not sure this is a valid question. The game is primarily balanced around PVP (though you cannot forget or neglect the PVE aspects of it) - so the real question should be if the weapons are worth using with today's PVP metagame. The answer is.... not really IMO.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Ogogov
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 21:31:00 -
[346]
I like the idea of exploring a different tracking/sig formula that takes into account range and target visibility - After all, altering CPU/powergrid requirements just give you what... one more gun that won't hit anything anyway?
How about someone (who can code, so not me) throw together a simple simulator for this kind of theorycraft?
|
Tray LiSans
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 21:33:00 -
[347]
Dabljuh seems entirely determined to hijack the thread instead of making his own, and trying to pound down anyone that argues with against with bad math and terribly wrong facts about the game. He is arguing that any frigate should be able to approach head on through a battleship's optimal range without any mind for tactics or alternatives such as warping in from a prober. Essentially saying that a frigate should be immune to ships dozens of times more expensive with skill investments months longer, and he's distorting actual game mechanics to do it.
Saying that an Apoc with three tracking enhancers and megabeams can track a slow moving frigate at it's optimal is stupid. People don't custom build actual fleet setups simply to track frigates, and no one would bring a harpy to a fleet fight, and if they did, they wouldn't sit there with a 0% em resistance and charge face first.
He is ignoring common sense and any sort of forum courtesy for the sake of annoying other posters is what it seems like. The fact that no one is supporting his arguments should be hint enough that they have very little substance.
Originally by: Rastigan
There lies the problem of hybrids, it always almost matches up to some other weapon system, but at the same time, it has all of the disadvantages of all the turret weapon systems (cap usage,reloading,ammo usage,poor base tracking,poor alpha).
Someone mentioned higher optimal with worse tracking, Well I hope thats implemented as an ammo type and not a weapon change, as railguns have a damned time hitting anything in close now, and hybrid guns generally lack in the mid range engagement distance, this would only make the gap larger.
The hybrid weapons do suffer from the combined drawbacks yes. I wouldn't mind seeing a slight reduction in the cap usage of ammo types other than lead as well, but the primary goal would be putting railguns and rail-platforms on par with the laser snipers, which seem to be top of the heap currently.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar
Pixie Cats
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 21:34:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Last time this came up (in a thread in what was then Game-Dev), there was a very reasonable suggestion put forward to change the tracking formula to account for the "visibility" of the target. Effectively a target at range has a smaller sig radius than one in your face. This is effectively the goal that Dabljuh is seeking - and is a much better solution than nerfing all long range turret tracking.
Thank god someone else sees this too, my head was beginning to bleed.
Dabljuh, I fully understand your argument but think you've let yourself down by trying to reduce the tracking end of the engagement envelope to resolve a problem at the falloff end. Why not deal it at the falloff end of the envelope graph?
To put this another way:
Originally by: Dabljuh
A 40m signature radius ship getting shot at by a 400m signature resolution weapon simply means that tracking is 10x worse. Or conversely, the 40m SR ship gets a 10x bonus on its lateral velocity. However you prefer to look at it.
The 10x multiplier in this example is a constant so the curve looks identical for 400m sig BS and a 40m sig frigate except the curve vs the frig has a lower amplitude.
What i think we'd both agree is that a mwd frigate should have some opportunity to burn 150km to tackle the BS and what i'm suggesting is a relationship between turret sig res and distance. This would alter the curve at longer distances for smaller ships without making them invulnerable at medium range.
It would also accomplish your stated aims while avoiding the super nerf to sniping that no one wants.
_________________________________________________
Lifeboat ----> + Human |
Vherr Arkhar
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 21:36:00 -
[349]
Edited by: Vherr Arkhar on 11/01/2010 21:35:56
Originally by: Ogogov
How about someone (who can code, so not me) throw together a simple simulator for this kind of theorycraft?
you are talking about openoffice/gnumeric/excel/koffice? :)
And just assuming that there is no ambition at CCP to do a total overhaul of all turret balancing. Just might be, no?
How to fix the guns, easy, dirty, effectively and whilst maintaining their 'charisma'?
Blasters? More Damage, Less Falloff?
- seperate Rail and Blaster Ammo -
Rails? More emphasis on what the heck we superaccelerate? (ammo?)
|
Liang Nuren
The Lollypop Factory
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 21:42:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Ogogov
I like the idea of exploring a different tracking/sig formula that takes into account range and target visibility - After all, altering CPU/powergrid requirements just give you what... one more gun that won't hit anything anyway?
How about someone (who can code, so not me) throw together a simple simulator for this kind of theorycraft?
I already have one. I made my conditions forum warrioring for this abundantly clear in the thread: 250M/wk, 4 week minimum.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
|
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 22:19:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I already have one. I made my conditions forum warrioring for this abundantly clear in the thread: 250M/wk, 4 week minimum.
Oh get a job and pay for your game subscription with real money.
They will never ever ever ever change the tracking formula. Maybe in EVE2. |
Liang Nuren
The Lollypop Factory
|
Posted - 2010.01.11 22:55:00 -
[352]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 11/01/2010 22:57:21
Originally by: Dabljuh
Oh get a job and pay for your game subscription with real money.
They will never ever ever ever change the tracking formula. Maybe in EVE2.
I already have a job to pay for my game mortgage, food, eve subscriptions, etc. I even can afford to pay for PLEX and a Hawaiian vacation if I so desired. The payment would be to help alleviate the (non-trivial) opportunity cost for not missioning/ratting/wormholing/whatever while I forum *****.
-Liang
Ed: And your assertion that they will never change the tracking formula is wrong. They changed the missile formula when it was shown that it caused a drastic game balance issue. It is definitely the preferable solution to proposing a huge tracking nerf to all longer ranged turrets.
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Ogogov
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 03:07:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Ogogov
I like the idea of exploring a different tracking/sig formula that takes into account range and target visibility - After all, altering CPU/powergrid requirements just give you what... one more gun that won't hit anything anyway?
How about someone (who can code, so not me) throw together a simple simulator for this kind of theorycraft?
I already have one. I made my conditions forum warrioring for this abundantly clear in the thread: 250M/wk, 4 week minimum.
-Liang
Sorry, I can't afford that. I use railguns for missioning, you see..... 
|
ForumAltPost
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 04:23:00 -
[354]
/signed
" Railguns use magnetic rails to fire solid chunks of matter at hypersonic speed."
In space, railguns can go faster then the speed of sound, because of course sound has a speed in nothingness! And lasers, projectiles, and missiles do not apparently.
Even their description needs to be revamped.
|
Asuka Smith
Gallente
Noir.
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 04:52:00 -
[355]
Edited by: Asuka Smith on 12/01/2010 04:53:26
(DISCLAIMER, the following numbers have almost no basis in fact and are just my knee-jerk yearnings, it might make them really OP or it might not fix them at all, I am sure I will find out which way the wind blows pretty quick though)
RAILGUNS
-Reduce capacitor usage by 25-50%
-Boost tracking by 10-15%
-Reduce fitting requirements by 5-10%
-Boost DPS by 10%
BLASTERS
-Boost DPS by 5-15%
-Boost optimal and/or falloff by 10%
-Reduce capacitor usage by 75%
HYBRIDS IN GENERAL
I say we should alter the ammo a little bit, say for example having the ammos be divided into four tiers of range; very short, short, medium, and long. Have there be two types of ammo for each range, one Kinetic/Explosive, the other Kinetic/Thermal.
The main problem I see with hybrids is that they have all the disadvantages of lasers/projectiles, and no upside whatsoever besides range. However due to the fact that hyrbids are so much inferior to the other weapon systems the fleets organize around the other guns, negating any advantage.
On an RRBS gang railguns do too poor of DPS, and blasters have too poor of range. On a sniper gang railguns do much less DPS but because the lasers optimal is 110 the fleet is going to be at 110, negating any advantage that the hyrbids have in range.
This basically makes hybrids only worthwhile if you already have them trained, and if you could choose any other weapon system it is certainly better in nearly every practical situation. How often do you see a BS gang of ALL railgun rokhs hitting at 250? Never? And how often are blasters better than pulse lasers or projectiles? Only when you have a 3:1 advantage and a warp-in at 0, AKA not a "real" fight.
|
Liang Nuren
The Lollypop Factory
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 05:28:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Asuka Smith
it might make them really OP
Yeah, it probably would at that. It also wouldn't help Caldari hybrid ships (and I mean Rokh and Beagle here) be more worthwhile.
Quote:
The main problem I see with hybrids is that they have all the disadvantages of lasers/projectiles, and no upside whatsoever besides range.
Range is quite the up side, however. Range (and damage at range) is what carried the projectile boost through.
Quote:
However due to the fact that hyrbids are so much inferior to the other weapon systems the fleets organize around the other guns, negating any advantage.
Actually, even when Hybrids/Rails were considered "really awesome" (lasers still "afflicted" by resists, and artillery being kinda meh after the HP boost), people organized their fleets around the lowest common denominator. Only recently have I really started to hear things like "Train Lasers/Amarr BS5 or gtfo".
Quote:
And how often are blasters better than pulse lasers or projectiles? Only when you have a 3:1 advantage and a warp-in at 0, AKA not a "real" fight.
Um, actually quite the opposite, right? The larger your gang the less useful blasters become. They're strictly small gang stuff - anything beyond 3v3 and you were definitely better off bringing Pulse or ACs.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 08:01:00 -
[357]
Boost is not viable , a complet redesign should be done.
Lower tier railguns loose too much optimal for too little easier fitting-> redesign needed.
Most ammo dont worth bringing with you especially with blasters--> redesign needed.
Blaster ships are the slowest ones, they cant get in close fast enough or their tank is a joke-->redesign needed.
Caldari gunships fitted by blasters are the most useless ones in eve---> redesign needed.
Resist bonus+ long range combat makes no sense--> redesign needed.
I could bring up some more :)
Oh and tiers/ammos should be more diverse just like projectiles.
Still we dont need to come up with solutions as ccp will do that , we only need to point out the flaws ,what many ppl already done here, it is CCPs turn to do something now.
|
Liang Nuren
The Lollypop Factory
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 08:03:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Still we dont need to come up with solutions as ccp will do that , we only need to point out the flaws ,what many ppl already done here, it is CCPs turn to do something now.
Aye, lets just hope they come up with something as cool as they did for projectiles. I think it turned out quite nicely - I as afraid they'd overbuff it something fierce for a while there.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 08:18:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Still we dont need to come up with solutions as ccp will do that , we only need to point out the flaws ,what many ppl already done here, it is CCPs turn to do something now.
Aye, lets just hope they come up with something as cool as they did for projectiles. I think it turned out quite nicely - I as afraid they'd overbuff it something fierce for a while there.
-Liang
Yeah this is what Im hoping for too. Arties are a little bit op in laggy situations ,but that is not how eve should work so it is fine.
|
Liang Nuren
The Lollypop Factory
|
Posted - 2010.01.12 08:25:00 -
[360]
Originally by: Naomi Knight
Yeah this is what Im hoping for too. Arties are a little bit op in laggy situations ,but that is not how eve should work so it is fine.
I'm agreeing with you. Creepy.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 25 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |