Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 11:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
When I heard that they are fixing hybrid turrets i got very excited, I've always liked the gallente style and would really like to see them become a bigger part of the game. I started thinking about how they could fix it and started realizing that a whole bunch of stuff about turrets needs fixing, the hulls are actually pretty good balanced as they are.
First of all there is 3 different values that are the most important one to turrets and the different races have specialized in them but with many changes over the years this is not how they work today and it should be fixed through a series of iterations.
The races should specialize like this: Amarr GÇô Long range, ok dps, slow tracking Minmatar GÇô Fast tracking, medium range, low dps Gallente GÇô High DPS, ok tracking, short range
Graph of races turrets
The turrets today look a little bit like this today but the differences arenGÇÖt big enough. Amarr is pretty ok where it is atm. Minmatar needs shorter range, a bit less dps and maybe a littlebit better tracking. Gallente needs more damage, a littlebit more range on the short range turrets and maybe some tracking improvement.
When it comes to rate of fire (ROF) and alpha strike (the amount of damage you do per volley) they should also specialize a bit more. The short range turrets gain more from having a fast ROF so the lower dps of the turret the faster it should shoot. Long range turrets on the other hand benefit more from high alpha strike and should therefore be the opposite, the lower dps the higher alpha it should have. This way they will all be balanced choices between them and fleets/ships can specialize more making fitting and planning better and more fun.
As we know there are also choices within the types of turrets (IE blasters or artillery) like the medium autocannons 180mm, 220mm and 425mm. These turrets should also specialize to give more options within the races niche other then just PG/CPU use.
This is an example of how medium autocannons could differ. Graph of autocannons
But these "bonuses" should be small enough so they don't go into other races niches. |

Jaketh Ivanes
House of El
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 13:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
I like this concept. And yes, it does make Minmatarr very strong. Dictating range on Gallente, so they can't shoot. Out fly the Amarr turrets, so they can't hit and outrun Caldari missiles. Unless they make a mistake :). |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 14:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jaketh Ivanes wrote:I like this concept. And yes, it does make Minmatarr very strong. Dictating range on Gallente, so they can't shoot. Out fly the Amarr turrets, so they can't hit and outrun Caldari missiles. Unless they make a mistake :).
Yea but minny ships are even more powerful today tbh And this is why they should have lowest dps, they win the fight by other means |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
335
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 14:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Minmatar GÇô Fast tracking, medium range, low dps Gallente GÇô High DPS, ok tracking, short range No. Short range must be accompanied by fast tracking, or the damage is irrelevant. At medium range, fast tracking becomes a damage bonus. For the record, autocannons do not need better tracking GÇö they are already better than blasters.
You're also missing a huge factor here: short range/high-damage (forgetting the tracking problems) is supremely worthless if you cannot get into a position to deliver that damage. This means that you can't just look at the guns GÇö you have to look at the platforms. Since the Gallente boats are markedly slower than the Minmatar ones, that short range is crippling, and the hulls most definitely need to be a part of the fix.
What you're describing here is basically:
Minmatar GÇö medium range, medium damage, ability to dictate the fight. Gallente GÇö low range, low damage, no ability to dictate the fight.
GǪor, as you hint at, the same situation we have right now. Making the current situation Gǣmore the sameGǥ only means that blasters become more bad.
If you don't want to fiddle with the ships, you more or less have to completely reverse blasters and ACs: blasters get the range, ACs get the damage. If you don't want to fiddle with the guns, you have to completely reverse the hulls: blaster boats get speed and agility, AC boats getGǪ wellGǪ nothing. If you don't want to do any reversals at all, you have to buff blaster damage and tracking through the stratosphere. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 15:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:Minmatar GÇô Fast tracking, medium range, low dps Gallente GÇô High DPS, ok tracking, short range No. Short range must be accompanied by fast tracking, or the damage is irrelevant. At medium range, fast tracking becomes a damage bonus. For the record, autocannons do not need better tracking GÇö they are already better than blasters. You're also missing a huge factor here: short range/high-damage (forgetting the tracking problems) is supremely worthless if you cannot get into a position to deliver that damage. This means that you can't just look at the guns GÇö you have to look at the platforms. Since the Gallente boats are markedly slower than the Minmatar ones, that short range is crippling, and the hulls most definitely need to be a part of the fix. What you're describing here is basically: Minmatar GÇö medium range, medium damage, ability to dictate the fight. Gallente GÇö low range, low damage, no ability to dictate the fight. GǪor, as you hint at, the same situation we have right now. Making the current situation GÇ£more the sameGÇ¥ only means that blasters become more bad. If you don't want to fiddle with the ships, you more or less have to completely reverse blasters and ACs: blasters get the range, ACs get the damage. If you don't want to fiddle with the guns, you have to completely reverse the hulls: blaster boats get speed and agility, AC boats getGǪ wellGǪ nothing. If you don't want to do any reversals at all, you have to buff blaster damage and tracking through the stratosphere.
What i want is minny guns that do way less dps but have awesome tracking so they can even shoot ships smaller then themselves. I want gallente to have a lot more dps and maybe a bit more tracking, they shouldnt have any trouble with same sized ships (even minny) orbiting outside web range.
Yes the minny could probably always win a 1v1 but in a fleet fight those gallente hard hitters would win as long as there is a fleet fight with fast flying/long range webs. The gallente should get some more range because what they have now is a bit silly.
For short range medium turrets something like this would make sense as range with different t1 ammo Gallente: (4-12)+8km Minmatar: (2-6)+16km Amarr: (8-24)+4km
Ofc a gallente that goes with 12+8km ammo would have horrible dps but it should be possible. The minmatar range is better since they get 2+16km with high dps ammo while gallente gets 4+8 Remember that these numbers are without tracking enhancers or similar range upgrades.
Todays dps on a single turret is blaster 42 autocannon 32 pulse laser 36
These numbers should be tweaked to differ a bit more, about 10% up on blasters and down on ACs or so. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
335
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 15:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:What i want is minny guns that do way less dps but have awesome tracking so they can even shoot ships smaller then themselves. That's a bad idea for a different reason GÇö smaller ships are supposed to be hard to hit (so they're still useful when mixed with larger ships). No, the balance needs to be done within the same class, and not try to also create role differences between the guns. We already have the ability to fit different guns and/or use drones if we want to widen the range of viable targets GÇö that is sufficient.
Quote:I want gallente to have a lot more dps and maybe a bit more tracking, they shouldnt have any trouble with same sized ships (even minny) orbiting outside web range. The problem is that they have trouble with ships orbiting inside web range due to how short range magnifies angular velocity, so they need a lot more tracking to do their job.
Quote:Yes the minny could probably always win a 1v1 GǪand that's why it's not good balance. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 15:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tippia wrote:That's a bad idea for a different reason GÇö smaller ships are supposed to be hard to hit (so they're still useful when mixed with larger ships). No, the balance needs to be done within the same class, and not try to also create role differences between the guns. We already have the ability to fit different guns and/or use drones if we want to widen the range of viable targets GÇö that is sufficient.. This is something minmatar already got, vagas pop frigs, ragnaroks pop BSs, canes pop SBs and this is something they should continue doing. I don't want them to be super awesome at it but it should be the guns to use if you want to do it efficiently.
Quote:The problem is that they have trouble with ships orbiting inside web range due to how short range magnifies angular velocity, so they need a lot more tracking to do their job. Yes, lets give them enough to track webbed targets.
Quote:GǪand that's why it's not good balance Well if we are going to balance this game around 1v1 all ships got to be way too similar, if you want to beat minny ships bring a counter ship with specific bonuses for it. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
335
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 15:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is something minmatar already got I think you're overestimating how much better than blasters ACs track. It is not that much.
Quote:I don't want them to be super awesome at it but it should be the guns to use if you want to do it efficiently. No. If you want to do it effectively, you should have to fit the right size guns for the purpose, not just one particular kind of gun. If the cross-size efficiency were as large as you claimed, that would only be further argument to massively nerf the tracking of ACs. Again, it's not a good idea to add in those kind of special roles to particular types of guns unless the gun selection is completely free and open. Since different races' ships have bonuses to different guns, this is not the case, and the role selection is already handled better through other means.
Quote:Well if we are going to balance this game around 1v1 all ships got to be way too similar, if you want to beat minny ships bring a counter ship with specific bonuses for it. Just one problem: there is no counter to a gun that does the same amount of damage at longer ranges with better tracking, fitted to a ship that dictates the fight. Solving that does not entail making all ships similar GÇö it entails spreading out the advantages on different ships. Instead of one ship having it all, you might instead have one that is fast/short-range; one that is long-range/poor-tracking; one that is universally applicable, but with GÇ£mehGÇ¥ performance; etc. etc. etc. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 16:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
Quote:I think you're overestimating how much better than blasters ACs track. It is not that much. Im flying minmatar daily and popping frigates with cruiser size ACs is no big deal.
Quote:Just one problem: there is no counter to a gun that does the same amount of damage at longer ranges with better tracking, fitted to a ship that dictates the fight. Solving that does not entail making all ships similar GÇö it entails spreading out the advantages on different ships. Instead of one ship having it all, you might instead have one that is fast/short-range; one that is long-range/poor-tracking; one that is universally applicable, but with GÇ£mehGÇ¥ performance; etc. etc. etc Ever tried to fight a Curse with a Vagabond? Anyway with the changes I have said above a fight between standard minmatar cruiser and a standard gallente cruiser would look like this: Minmatar is faster with a littlebit more range but got quite a bit lower dps. Gallente is slow with massive short range dps meaning that if the enemy comes within web range hes dead. If he kites you swap to longest range ammo and hope your tank holds for long enough so you can slowly dps him down. Your tank should be way bigger then his but at this range his dps will be better. |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 22:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Todays long range turrets are horribly unbalanced and needs fixing. I made these graphs to explain its problem and a solution that I liked. Any arguments for changes are welcome, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it.
Long range turret graphs |
|

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 22:36:00 -
[11] - Quote
I think that longer range guns need to be more reliant on the ammo they shoot and have lower base damage overall.
and that short range weapons are more reliant on the module itself.
Then have newer attributes to the ammo that effect rate of fire or tracking, so a multifrequency would require a longer cool between fires or that a antimatter makes the gun heavier to turn. that sort of idea.
It would make ammo a sensible and logical thing to look over again. |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 22:43:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:I think that longer range guns need to be more reliant on the ammo they shoot and have lower base damage overall.
and that short range weapons are more reliant on the module itself.
Then have newer attributes to the ammo that effect rate of fire or tracking, so a multifrequency would require a longer cool between fires or that a antimatter makes the gun heavier to turn. that sort of idea.
It would make ammo a sensible and logical thing to look over again.
You know minmatar ammo already got tracking bonuses? short range +0% mid range +20% long range +5%
But I agree, something like this should be implemented to the other 2 races as well. |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 22:54:00 -
[13] - Quote
well yes but I want it to be more meaningful play value as imo there are too many ammo types and most people either go one way or another and nothing in between. |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 23:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tho they do have the cap bonus atm instead of tracking, guess thats why they added the tracking mod to minmatar ammo. |

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
118
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 23:31:00 -
[15] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Todays long range turrets are horribly unbalanced and needs fixing. I made these graphs to explain its problem and a solution that I liked. Any arguments for changes are welcome, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. Long range turret graphs Why do artilery all of a sudden have the best tracking? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.07 23:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:Todays long range turrets are horribly unbalanced and needs fixing. I made these graphs to explain its problem and a solution that I liked. Any arguments for changes are welcome, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. Long range turret graphs Why do artilery all of a sudden have the best tracking?
Because it doesn't make sense that the longest range weapon would have the best tracking so its either artillery or rails.
EDIT: When I think about it more it makes more sense that rails would have better tracking, would make it more balanced. |

Cpt Fina
The Tuskers
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 05:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
Why should gallente be slow? Slow ship with short optimal wont do well in your fleetbattles m8.
I really hope that the 0,0-fleet blobbers don't get their way with gallente blasters and makes them ACs mk.II. Blasters used to excell in small gang / solo warfare GÇô and just because some people never joins a gang that doesn't require a wingcommander doesn't mean that they should alter the role of the weaponsystemto cater to their reality.
Blasters should be as unviable for fleetfights as cruisemissiles are for sniping. |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 05:39:00 -
[18] - Quote
Ultimately I think hybrid weapons would have the largest refire rates becuase they require magnetic fields to be generated before they are proper launched. then the damage to compensate |

Cpt Fina
The Tuskers
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 05:46:00 -
[19] - Quote
The last thing we need is some roleplay logic behind the hybrid change. |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 06:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cpt Fina wrote:The last thing we need is some roleplay logic behind the hybrid change.
Its called flavoring, make the weapons all to homegenous and you might as well call them all autocannons. |
|

Cpt Fina
The Tuskers
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 06:57:00 -
[21] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Cpt Fina wrote:The last thing we need is some roleplay logic behind the hybrid change. Its called flavoring, make the weapons all to homegenous and you might as well call them all autocannons.
Diversified weaponsystems are independant of a backstory.
I never said anything about making every weaponsystem the same GÇô I said that roleplay reasoning shouldn't be a factor in the hybrid patch. |

Rhinanna
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 09:50:00 -
[22] - Quote
Ok, the amount of ignorance in this thread is simply outstanding! Time for corrections!
1> Blasters already have around equal tracking to ACs
800mm Repeating Artillery || (yes its a AC) 0.0432 rad/sec NEUTRON BLASTER CANNON II 0.0433 rad/sec
425MM AUTOCANNON II 0.1056 rad/sec HEAVY NEUTRON BLASTER II 0.1 rad/sec
There is no way you can claim blasters have worse tracking really, the difference is so minimal. Sometimes the comparable AC is better, sometimes the blaster is better. Either way its not going to make a difference.
2> Tracking is needed on SHORT range weapons not long range. The further away you are designed to shoot the less tracking you need.
3> Minmatar can't fight at long range effectively
No, ACs are NOT long ranged. Lasers are long ranged, hitting for full damage with cruiser sized weapons at 20km. Let compare Neutron Blasters with 425mms again.
425mm - 2.4km Optimal, 9.6km Falloff vs Blaster - 3.6km Optimal, 5km Falloff
So, under about 5-6km the blaster is going to be more damaging than the ACs, beyond that, the AC is already at 75% of it's full damage due to it been in fall-off, beyond 12km its under 50%. When you get down to this level of dps, basically you are only useful at this range when kiting a buffer tanked enemy. Any decent passive or active tank is going to mock this damage. A common tactic on myrms is to fit full blasters + active tank. Almost any enemy will need to come into blaster range to do enough damage to break the tank, been in fall-off isn't sufficient.
The ONLY thing that needs changing on blasters is their PG cost reducing.
4> The problem with blasters is NOT blasters
The problem is that the hulls they sit on were designed to work in the nano-age with 90% webs. So now you have the shortest ranged weapons, on the slowest hulls without a useful way to trap the enemy ships.
Simply put, the Gal blaster ships need to be nearly as fast as minmatar ships, ideally by switching them to shield tanks and reworking their slots. This would give them the 'pounce' ability they are lacking, they can get onto the enemy ships fairly quickly and use their own agility to reduce the tracking, much like minimatar have to. Currently the bonuses on Gal boats are generally fairly sucky which contributes far more to their weakness than blasters do.
5> If ACs are overpowered, Lasers are as well.
Insta-ammo switch, to always keep max damage applied, Very large optimal to always keep max damage applied. They may have the lowest raw DPS but they have the other stats to keep it applied at both long and short ranges. Basically they have a huge damage envelope at which they can outdamage everyone else. Gal have a small short range envelope, minmatar sit in the middle, always 2nd best, but 2nd best at both.
ACs are just FOTM because they most recently recieved a buff, so more people are playing with them for a change. Takes a while for this to filter through as a lot of people who are now flying with them had to train them from scratch.
|

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
347
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 10:22:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Minmatar is faster with a littlebit more range but got quite a bit lower dps. GǪand that's the problem right there: more range needs to be combined with less speed, otherwise the shorter range never comes into play and might as well have infinite damage.
Quote:Gallente is slow with massive short range dps meaning that if the enemy comes within web range hes dead. That would be true if it weren't for how decreasing range also screws over tracking, and that is currently not compensated forGǪ
And, as the above shows, you can't balance the guns without taking into account the gun platforms (and vice versa). GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 10:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:Minmatar is faster with a littlebit more range but got quite a bit lower dps. GǪand that's the problem right there: more range needs to be combined with less speed, otherwise the shorter range never comes into play and might as well have infinite damage. Quote:Gallente is slow with massive short range dps meaning that if the enemy comes within web range hes dead. That would be true if it weren't for how decreasing range also screws over tracking, and that is currently not compensated forGǪ And, as the above shows, you can't balance the guns without taking into account the gun platforms (and vice versa).
Yes you can, remember minmatar sacrificed tank and sig radius to get that speed. If you can track him when webbed and you can hit out to same range as minmatar but you do more damage within web range and he does more damage outside web range then its balanced because of the difference in tank.
Rhinanna wrote:*A wall of text*
The problem with this is that I don't want gallente to be fast, i want them to be heavy armor tankers and their turrets should be balanced around that. If you increase their range a bit they will be fine because if you manage to warp in on a enemy fleet you probably won already but its just not possible with todays ridiculously short range.
They should be different in what range they dominate and it should be like this imo: Short range: Gallente + Torps, HAMs, Rockets, Mid range: Minmatar (very possible today with the falloff, especially with t2 ammo) Long range: Amarr + Cruise, HMs, Standard missiles |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
348
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 11:28:00 -
[25] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Yes you can, remember minmatar sacrificed tank and sig radius to get that speed. Not really, noGǪ A little less tank, maybe, depending on the ship (but it's not universally true), and they did not sacrifice sig radius GÇö quite the opposite.
Quote:If you can track him when webbed GǪwhich you can't. That's the whole problem: the nano nerf changed the dynamics of that situation without altering the guns to match. Moreover, even if it were true, you still have to keep him in web range, which you won't since he's faster.
Also, "yes you can" what? The only thing I said that this could be in response to is the claim that you can't balance the guns without taking the platforms into account, but you then provide further examples of why you have to do exactly that, contrary to your contradictionGǪ 
Quote:The problem with this is that I don't want gallente to be fast, i want them to be heavy armor tankers and their turrets should be balanced around that. That means giving them the range the MInmatar currently enjoy and make the Minnys the short-range race to balance out their speed.
Slow GåÆ long range. Fast GåÆ short range. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 12:22:00 -
[26] - Quote
Quote:Not really, noGǪ A little less tank, maybe, depending on the ship (but it's not universally true), and they did not sacrifice sig radius GÇö quite the opposite.
When I said they sacrifice sig radius i mean they get a bigger one by fitting shield extenders and shield rigs which is bad for them, it makes them easier to track. Also armor tanks are better, they have higher EHP and smaller sig which makes them excellent afterburner tanks.
Quote:GǪwhich you can't. That's the whole problem: the nano nerf changed the dynamics of that situation without altering the guns to match. Moreover, even if it were true, you still have to keep him in web range, which you won't since he's faster.
Well we are talking about how to fix turrets, not how they work today. With the changes I proposed the blasters they should have a really good alpha strike which makes even a short time within web range really dangerous and can turn the fight if their range is increased to deal small amounts of damage to a kiting minmatar ship.
Quote:That means giving them the range the MInmatar currently enjoy and make the Minnys the short-range race to balance out their speed.
Slow GåÆ long range. Fast GåÆ short range.
Minmatar is supposed to be the fast moving skirmish style race, they need both tracking and some range to do this task. Amarr is the slow long range race, minmatar fast short range and gallente needs to have something of its own and what they always had is high tank, short range, a little more speed then amarr and awesome dps. To preform this task they need better optimal and worse falloff then minny which makes them the best campers, structure hitters and will obliterate any fleet they warp in on close range to. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
348
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 12:43:00 -
[27] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:When I said they sacrifice sig radius i mean they get a bigger one by fitting shield extenders and shield rigs which is bad for them, it makes them easier to track. GǪand all that does is make them end up the same size as the Gallente ships are to begin with, except they now have a full tank and full speed, whereas bulking up the Gallente ships to the same degree slows them down considerably. And making them even slower (comparatively) by using ABs makes that even worse.
Quote:Well we are talking about how to fix turrets, not how they work today. I know. That's why I find it so confusing that you're suggesting something that is basically the current situation. 
Quote:Minmatar is supposed to be the fast moving skirmish style race, they need both tracking and some range to do this task. No, they don't. They need either speed and tracking, or range. Not all three.
They most certainly do not need the massively larger range than blasters they have now. Quite the oposite: their speed means that they are the perfect case for being the short-range race to begin with.
Quote:Amarr is the slow long range race, minmatar fast short range and gallente needs to have something of its own and what they always had is high tank, short range, a little more speed then amarr and awesome dps. GǪexcept that their slow speed and short range (and lacklustre tracking) means that they have appalling DPS. So at least one, possibly two, of those need to change. Oh, and if you want to mix in Amarr, you need to mix in the Caldari as well GÇö they're long-range and slow as well, meaning the Gallente can be their fast/short(er)-range opponentGǪ
GǪso that just further demonstrates that there is reason to speed them up. If you don't want to do that, then the range is what needs to come up, or, again, their damage will not be applicable. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á |

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 15:24:00 -
[28] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote: Minmatar is supposed to be the fast moving skirmish style race, they need both tracking and some range to do this task. Amarr is the slow long range race, minmatar fast short range and gallente needs to have something of its own and what they always had is high tank, short range, a little more speed then amarr and awesome dps. To preform this task they need better optimal and worse falloff then minny which makes them the best campers, structure hitters and will obliterate any fleet they warp in on close range to.
Minmatar don't need range or tracking to be a fast skirmish race. They only need speed, to tackle their target, get to their optimal and to apply DPS.
Or have I just described blasters and Gallente? Eve is so confusing sometimes...  |

Luthair StoneDog
Diabolus Ex Machina
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 17:27:00 -
[29] - Quote
If you have a faster ship and longer range guns, you'll win your 1v1 fights. The only way to avoid such a fate is by starting the fight close enough to make the (presumably higher damage) short range guns count.
As has been stressed again and again in this thread, short range guns on slow ships DOES NOT WORK. It is not even really an issue with tracking. Yes blaster tracking was nerfed by the web nerf, and yes, the situation has become more acute since then, but we have always had to deal with the basic problem that our ships are too slow to mount short range guns.
So, my solution for the hybrid rebalance is pretty simple. Give them a bit more tracking and make our hulls faster. The end. |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 18:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Its called flavoring, make the weapons all to homegenous and you might as well call them all autocannons.
Well you can agree about the cynic idea of autos/blasters when autos are far better in blasters range engagements than blasters themselves.
So who really lost his racial flavour? -hybrids? Sure, since auto canons do the same much better in faster/agile hulls.
Auto canons have way better tracking than blasters, better dmg application from far distances and since dmg selection IS one factor you can't deny, at very close range I can shoot harder with my autos than I will ever be able to with my blasters.
It's really not for fun I've cross trained Minmatar, but I'm having way more fun now than all the time I spent flying Gallente/hybrids, just fly them like blaster boats and you'll see how better they are, shield tank and you'll say to yourself "WTF???" |
|

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
23
|
Posted - 2011.10.08 18:37:00 -
[31] - Quote
I am just saying flavor the guns all differntly and then balance is completely afterthoughtable after you establish the characteristics of the different weapons. All out youll have something that fits alot of differnt play styles, dakka dakka dakka is really more of an adernaline rush where the single whamo is more like a football player slamming into you. While lasers go OMG IT BURNS pe pe pew!
What I am also trying to say is that the rate of fire smothered out by damage rate would be much more siginificantly noticable verses tracking with same 'ranged' weapons though we all know not all the short ranged (or long ranged) are exactly the same in reach either. |

Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
25
|
Posted - 2011.10.09 04:06:00 -
[32] - Quote
Another thing that would make eve interesting is how shot grouping would be treated like a cone and that the grouping stat is what it is at optimal and further from optimal it is the larger the grouping is which means crits are less likely furhter out. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |