EVE Search - Hybrid Balance Petition

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Hybrid Balance Petition

» 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 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
AlleyKat Gallente The Unwanted.	Posted - 2011.07.09 12:53:00 - [61] Originally by: White Tree Both the CSM and CCP are thoroughly informed on how Gallente and Hybrid weapons are performing extremely poorly in the game these days. I am confident that CCP Tallest will eventually get around to looking at this problem. As far as I and a number of CSM members are concerned: CCP Tallest is a saint who walks on water and can do no wrong. I am hopeful that Gallente and Hybrids will get looked at soonÖ Please do not change Hybrid weapons, just the attributes and bonuses of the ships that use them please. If you want to look at the cause of the problem, please look at the patch notes and dev blogs. "need for speed?" By Tuxford 2007.02.15 This was the lynchpin. They had an issue with speed and wanted to change it. "speed rebalanced" by CCP Nozh 2008.07.25 This was the resulting change suggestions, which effectively killed off Gallente close range PvP - specifically the MWD and Web changes, but also the mass and agility. I hate to sound like a stuck record, but there is nothing wrong with hybrid weapons - just the ships that use them. give them web bonuses to (max) 90% give them mwd bonuses give them (minuscule) tracking increases A Gallente close range PvP setup should be able to charge into its optimal range and keep someone there, whilst delivering it's DPS at point blank range. It should NOT be able to be perpetually held at arms length, not being able to ever have a chance at getting into range, and when it does - it cannot reduce the transversal velocity of the other ship to affect blaster damage. If anyone from CCP wants to jump on the test server, they would see what the problem is within five minutes flat and yet, here we are three years after the Gallente Nerf and nothing has been done. I am firmly against changing entire weapon systems as this requires too much balancing and is unnecessary - just change the ship bonuses that matter. Anything else is a waste of oxygen. AK
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers B O R G	Posted - 2011.07.09 13:18:00 - [62] Im seconding for the sake of principle, but I dont expect CCP to actually do anything about hybrids. Balance be damned.
Dorian Wylde	Posted - 2011.07.09 13:23:00 - [63] If blasters are actually going to be as advertised, they need to actually do the most damage, and have better tracking to be able to apply that damage. I have no issue with railguns, they seem to be intended as the middle group turret, which is exactly what they are.
Digital Messiah Oregami Ultd	Posted - 2011.07.09 14:30:00 - [64] Originally by: White Tree Both the CSM and CCP are thoroughly informed on how Gallente and Hybrid weapons are performing extremely poorly in the game these days. I am confident that CCP Tallest will eventually get around to looking at this problem. As far as I and a number of CSM members are concerned: CCP Tallest is a saint who walks on water and can do no wrong. I am hopeful that Gallente and Hybrids will get looked at soonÖ Although this information is very relieving. It does not mean we are not looking at a time frame of imaginable lengths. I to share your faith that the issue will be addressed. I only hope it is within this next calendar year. I have yet to research the time it takes for CCP to change game data. Though it cannot be to unreasonable a task. What is stopping them from releasing small patches to test on SiSi? And why does every game balance change have to be so drastic it literally moves empires worth of skill points? Lastly, thank you for making an appearance in our little thread. It is reassuring to see feedback from any and every source with a knowledgeable background.
Pitt Gallente Dashavatara	Posted - 2011.07.09 14:34:00 - [65] The problem with hybrids and Gallente are two fold. The ships that use the shortest range weapons are the slowest ships in game. The shortest ranged weapons aren't the most damaging in game. Add fitting requirements of both and you'll soon realize that the entire race (except the frigs) aren't worth buying or flying. Pure neutron set-ups used to be glass cannons, dangerous to fly for both parties involved. In fact, almost all blaster set-ups were that way. Was a do or die philosophy if you will. Now it's just die. First blasters need more damage and/or tracking... by a good bit. By a good bit I mean that if you can get in range the other ship dies, period. There are numerous posts all over the place filled with very good ideas on how to fix the hybrid/gallente problem. The fact that it is going on 3 years since this fiasco started and nothing has been done to resolve it is becoming the real problem...
Demon Azrakel Gallente Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck	Posted - 2011.07.09 15:10:00 - [66] Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 15:16:12 Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 15:13:24 Not only are Gallente ships slow as hell with the shortest range weapons that use capacitor and get poor tracking for their range, but they get active repair bonuses on many ships that make it difficult to both active rep and fit a rack of ions, for most cases, you are relegated to an ion-electron mix. Did I mention active tanking pretty much sucks and that these ships lack the mids to do it properly while still webbing and disrupting their targets. On the subject of webbing, in a blasterboat, with your lack of mids, you cannot dual web, so in most cases your opponent will return the webbing favor and be, gasp, faster than you. Al in all, if you do manage to keep those guys in range, webbed, and pointed, your blasters should be good sized and actively ripping your opponent a new one. Suggestion: Blasters (Medium + Large): 30% damage increase, 50% Tracking increase Rails (Dont know about small or XL, but for Medium + Large): 50% range bonus, 20% Tracking buff -15% to PG for all hybrid gun fitting requirements EDIT: Active rep bonuses on ships with the bonus upped to 10% per level , so people use them. EDIT 2: Kronos to 15% per level, it is a pretty ****ty ship anyway, give it some love.
Ehranavaar Gallente	Posted - 2011.07.09 15:51:00 - [67] Originally by: Ein Phantom All of you fools don't know how to calculate DPS and compare turrets. Look, a Vindicator won the last Alliance Tournament, are you STUPIT1?!@?#@#4/%??#!?@#!?@#?!!!!!!!?!?!?! you seem to be. if you actually watch that vid of the laughable final match the only reason the winners survived was the prior agreement to throw the match. the first two vindicators went down hard and quickly. no reason to think the match would not have gone to the losing side without that agreement. all in all rather a contemptible performance rather than the match anticipated.
Majuan Shuo Gallente Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension	Posted - 2011.07.09 15:57:00 - [68] Originally by: Demon Azrakel Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 15:16:12 Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 15:13:24 Not only are Gallente ships slow as hell with the shortest range weapons that use capacitor and get poor tracking for their range, but they get active repair bonuses on many ships that make it difficult to both active rep and fit a rack of ions, for most cases, you are relegated to an ion-electron mix. Did I mention active tanking pretty much sucks and that these ships lack the mids to do it properly while still webbing and disrupting their targets. On the subject of webbing, in a blasterboat, with your lack of mids, you cannot dual web, so in most cases your opponent will return the webbing favor and be, gasp, faster than you. Al in all, if you do manage to keep those guys in range, webbed, and pointed, your blasters should be good sized and actively ripping your opponent a new one. Suggestion: Blasters (Medium + Large): 30% damage increase, 50% Tracking increase Rails (Dont know about small or XL, but for Medium + Large): 50% range bonus, 20% Tracking buff -15% to PG for all hybrid gun fitting requirements EDIT: Active rep bonuses on ships with the bonus upped to 10% per level , so people use them. EDIT 2: Kronos to 15% per level, it is a pretty ****ty ship anyway, give it some love. those numbers were pulled out someones ass...way to much (gallente pilot)
BiggestT Caldari Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:11:00 - [69] Edited by: BiggestT on 09/07/2011 16:22:00 Originally by: White Tree I am hopeful that Gallente and Hybrids will get looked at soonÖ Don't forget Caldari hybrid platforms, even though their performance indeed makes them easily forgettable The problem is their THAT close to being passable. The cal rail frigates can work in particular circumstances. The Rokh is almost a decent ship with a blaster fit and it has SO much potential to be a good rail platform. The cruisers/BC's are the worst. Already average ships made worse by poor weapons. While suggestions to change individual ships may work, I think it more prudent just to improve rails and blasters themselves.
Wangston Hughes	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:20:00 - [70] Rails could use a DPS or volley damage increase. Other than that the issue is with hulls, not the guns.

Speaker4 theDead Caldari	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:30:00 - [71] Originally by: Digital Messiah Originally by: Kumq uat Originally by: Speaker4 theDead If they fix gallente guns, it will just be another shiptype to train for fleet FOTM fits.. Still waiting for you to make a point about something. I have to agree with Kumq uat here, you haven't given a reason to why you like or dislike these proposed changes. Or for that matter given an opinion in relevance to this thread. I am sorry you are leaving eve, and you have decided to un-subscribe. But please join one of the many, many, I quit threads, instead of polluting this one. The point was, in 0.0 Fleet it's always an FOTM ship. Right now no one has to train Gallente unless they like to waste their time. if Gallente gets buffed, then everyone will have to train it for a new FOTM. As for my Sig, those are the facts, sorry you don't like to see it, but it is a sandbox.... I have voiced my complaints about the changes in other threads, do you really want me to spam this one?
Demon Azrakel Gallente Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:31:00 - [72] Originally by: Majuan Shuo Originally by: Demon Azrakel Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 15:16:12 Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 15:13:24 Not only are Gallente ships slow as hell with the shortest range weapons that use capacitor and get poor tracking for their range, but they get active repair bonuses on many ships that make it difficult to both active rep and fit a rack of ions, for most cases, you are relegated to an ion-electron mix. Did I mention active tanking pretty much sucks and that these ships lack the mids to do it properly while still webbing and disrupting their targets. On the subject of webbing, in a blasterboat, with your lack of mids, you cannot dual web, so in most cases your opponent will return the webbing favor and be, gasp, faster than you. Al in all, if you do manage to keep those guys in range, webbed, and pointed, your blasters should be good sized and actively ripping your opponent a new one. Suggestion: Blasters (Medium + Large): 30% damage increase, 50% Tracking increase Rails (Dont know about small or XL, but for Medium + Large): 50% range bonus, 20% Tracking buff -15% to PG for all hybrid gun fitting requirements EDIT: Active rep bonuses on ships with the bonus upped to 10% per level , so people use them. EDIT 2: Kronos to 15% per level, it is a pretty ****ty ship anyway, give it some love. those numbers were pulled out someones ass...way to much (gallente pilot) Confirming origin, though I think the blaster changes may be good. (Gallente pilot who would love to see blasters/hybrids overpowered for once)
Onyx Blackman	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:32:00 - [73] Replace the garbage 7.5% repair bonuses on Gallente blasterboats with falloff bonuses.
AlleyKat Gallente The Unwanted.	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:34:00 - [74] Originally by: BiggestT While suggestions to change individual ships may work, I think it more prudent just to improve rails and blasters themselves. Hybrids worked just fine before the Gallente Nerf, even more so, they were one of the only balanced weapon systems in EVE. The Gallente Nerf ended that. Balance the ships, not the guns. Anyone from CCP want to join me on the test server? Yes, I am laying the Gauntlet, show me a setup on any close range Gallente PvP setup that works as intended on Tranquillity and I'll give you a years worth of subscriptions...for all of my accounts, any takers? Money in my pocket burning a hole, please, take my money. AK PS: no backslash commands allowed.
Demon Azrakel Gallente Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:41:00 - [75] Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 16:41:53 Originally by: Onyx Blackman Replace the garbage 7.5% repair bonuses on Gallente blasterboats with falloff bonuses. So blasters become poor autocannons that use cap on some ships...awesome.
Onyx Blackman	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:48:00 - [76] Originally by: Demon Azrakel Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 16:41:53 Originally by: Onyx Blackman Replace the garbage 7.5% repair bonuses on Gallente blasterboats with falloff bonuses. So blasters become poor autocannons that use cap on some ships...awesome. No. You're an idiot. Blasters easily out DPS autocannons and have comparable if not better tracking than any autocannon except smalls, the issue is their range. Falloff as opposed to optimal gives them a far bigger working distance and allows a larger variety of ship setups.
AMatay	Posted - 2011.07.09 16:59:00 - [77] what id liek to see is the trackign penalty on the t2 ammo removed and have blaster boats get a bonus to there web range and velocity reduction. having longer and more powerful webs then other races would help close the gap between ships and let the blasters go to work. maybe a little more base speed to the galalnent ships as well since the armor tanks then generally rely on slow them down. right now flyign a gallente blaster boat is like having two broken legs and a knife tryign to chase down runners with guns
Demon Azrakel Gallente Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck	Posted - 2011.07.09 17:16:00 - [78] Originally by: Onyx Blackman Edited by: Onyx Blackman on 09/07/2011 16:55:54 Originally by: Demon Azrakel Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 16:41:53 Originally by: Onyx Blackman Replace the garbage 7.5% repair bonuses on Gallente blasterboats with falloff bonuses. So blasters become poor autocannons that use cap on some ships...awesome. No. You're an idiot. Blasters easily out DPS autocannons and have comparable if not better tracking than any autocannon except smalls, the issue is their range and fitting requirements. Falloff as opposed to optimal gives them a far bigger working distance and allows a larger variety of ship setups. Nevertheless, the whole point of blasters is that they have poor range and optimal, but make up for it in damage. Balancing it to give it a more similar engagement range and damage profile over that range is merely working to remove the differences between the weapons. By adding damage and tracking, we would be working to enhance those differences and not change the point of using blasters, but make them worth their drawbacks.
Onyx Blackman	Posted - 2011.07.09 17:44:00 - [79] Edited by: Onyx Blackman on 09/07/2011 17:45:00 Originally by: Demon Azrakel Originally by: Onyx Blackman Edited by: Onyx Blackman on 09/07/2011 16:55:54 Originally by: Demon Azrakel Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 16:41:53 Originally by: Onyx Blackman Replace the garbage 7.5% repair bonuses on Gallente blasterboats with falloff bonuses. So blasters become poor autocannons that use cap on some ships...awesome. No. You're an idiot. Blasters easily out DPS autocannons and have comparable if not better tracking than any autocannon except smalls, the issue is their range and fitting requirements. Falloff as opposed to optimal gives them a far bigger working distance and allows a larger variety of ship setups. Nevertheless, the whole point of blasters is that they have poor range and optimal, but make up for it in damage. Balancing it to give it a more similar engagement range and damage profile over that range is merely working to remove the differences between the weapons. By adding damage and tracking, we would be working to enhance those differences and not change the point of using blasters, but make them worth their drawbacks. It wouldn't change the 'point of using blasters', it would just make them viable. They would still provide the absolute face-raping DPS they're capable of now, but at engagement ranges that are in line with the current state of combat mechanics. Pulses give great DPS at long ranges with bad tracking, ACs give low DPS at flexible ranges with a variety of damage types with no cap usage, blasters would still give huge DPS at short ranges with amazing tracking and fairly high cap usage. Giving them higher DPS is just redundant and ignoring the source of the problem.
baltec1	Posted - 2011.07.09 17:49:00 - [80] Just to point out, I dont have too much of an issue getting the current blasters into range. Carry on

Solomon XI Hidden Souls	Posted - 2011.07.09 17:52:00 - [81] Fixing Hybrids? /Signed, Supported, And Encouraged.
Kumq uat Gallente Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2011.07.09 18:00:00 - [82] Originally by: Demon Azrakel Originally by: Onyx Blackman Edited by: Onyx Blackman on 09/07/2011 16:55:54 Originally by: Demon Azrakel Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 16:41:53 Originally by: Onyx Blackman Replace the garbage 7.5% repair bonuses on Gallente blasterboats with falloff bonuses. So blasters become poor autocannons that use cap on some ships...awesome. I agree with the nice lady No. You're an idiot. Blasters easily out DPS autocannons and have comparable if not better tracking than any autocannon except smalls, the issue is their range and fitting requirements. Falloff as opposed to optimal gives them a far bigger working distance and allows a larger variety of ship setups. Nevertheless, the whole point of blasters is that they have poor range and optimal, but make up for it in damage. Balancing it to give it a more similar engagement range and damage profile over that range is merely working to remove the differences between the weapons. By adding damage and tracking, we would be working to enhance those differences and not change the point of using blasters, but make them worth their drawbacks.
Mr Kidd	Posted - 2011.07.09 18:03:00 - [83] Originally by: Takakura Hirohito Edited by: Takakura Hirohito on 08/07/2011 19:22:51 VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT: to keep EVE interesting, weapons (and ships) need to be balanced by enhancing their differences. It would be terrible if things were balanced by making them more similar to each other. Blasters uselessly short range CHECK Blasters useless tracking CHECK Blasters requiring ridiculous cap CHECK Blasters only 2 types of damage, can't choose which CHECK Rails same damage as above CHECK Rails almost no DPS CHECK Rails requiring ridiculous cap CHECK Yep, differences are enhanced in hybrids. So, interesting you better hope your target either has 5 webs on him or isn't tanking.
Kumq uat Gallente Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2011.07.09 18:19:00 - [84] Originally by: Demon Azrakel Edited by: Demon Azrakel on 09/07/2011 16:41:53 Originally by: Onyx Blackman Replace the garbage 7.5% repair bonuses on Gallente blasterboats with falloff bonuses. So blasters become poor autocannons that use cap on some ships...awesome. No. You're an idiot. Blasters easily out DPS autocannons and have comparable if not better tracking than any autocannon except smalls, the issue is their range and fitting requirements. Falloff as opposed to optimal gives them a far bigger working distance and allows a larger variety of ship setups. Nevertheless, the whole point of blasters is that they have poor range and optimal, but make up for it in damage. Balancing it to give it a more similar engagement range and damage profile over that range is merely working to remove the differences between the weapons. By adding damage and tracking, we would be working to enhance those differences and not change the point of using blasters, but make them worth their drawbacks. It wouldn't change the 'point of using blasters', it would just make them viable. They would still provide the absolute face-raping DPS they're capable of now, but at engagement ranges that are in line with the current state of combat mechanics. Pulses give great DPS at long ranges with bad tracking, ACs give low DPS at flexible ranges with a variety of damage types with no cap usage, blasters would still give huge DPS at short ranges with amazing tracking and fairly high cap usage. Giving them higher DPS is just redundant and ignoring the source of the problem. Pulses absolutely do not have bad tracking. Dunno where you got that. I have used Pulses myself to great effect on taking down speeding interceptors.
Onyx Blackman	Posted - 2011.07.09 19:30:00 - [85] Edited by: Onyx Blackman on 09/07/2011 19:37:22 Originally by: Kumq uat Pulses absolutely do not have bad tracking. Dunno where you got that. I have used Pulses myself to great effect on taking down speeding interceptors. Compare baseline tracking speeds. It's the lowest among the short range turret classes. Medium Heavy Pulses sit at about .08, medium neutrons and 425mm ACs at about .1.
Wangston Hughes	Posted - 2011.07.09 20:22:00 - [86] Quote: Pulses absolutely do not have bad tracking. Dunno where you got that. I have used Pulses myself to great effect on taking down speeding interceptors. They do have bad tracking when you compare them to autocannons and blasters, just like autocannons and blasters have bad optimals when compared to pulses. It's quite a bit lower.
Bllizzard	Posted - 2011.07.09 20:28:00 - [87] Signed Change is needed!
Hentes Zsemle	Posted - 2011.07.09 20:28:00 - [88] You could just end this thread, the sooner the better. CCP proved numerous times that they don't care about hybrids, nor balancing gallente in general. Theese threads are just giving people false hope.
Selinate Amarr	Posted - 2011.07.09 20:31:00 - [89] Originally by: SilentSkills Edited by: SilentSkills on 08/07/2011 22:10:44 I have all tons of skills in Gallente and Hybrids. By all rights I should kick ass. I did a one on one against a friends Retribution in my Ishkur. He ripped me apart. Tracking on lasers is sick to go with the damage. My blasters on the other hand were borked. Blasters, for how close you have to get and everything, should be absolute face melters. No real fall off or range but they should kick out incredible damage. Instead they are out classed by projectiles and lasers who have numerous advantages over them. I mean seriously, fix this. erm.... We're talking about a Retribution here. Let me put it into context for you: A retribution can't tackle you. So basically, a retribution SHOULD wipe the floor with you, otherwise, us amarr need a god damn second mid slot.
Keen Fallsword	Posted - 2011.07.10 02:12:00 - [90] Yes yes !! Fix gallente. I dont know how they could won any war !! Anyone knows ? ;) And what unplayable race is doing in ccp trailers ?? Ccp lies ? Cant be !!!



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: 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.