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

Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 06:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Personally, I can see them moving them to have only very slightly shorter range than AC's, but with a much larger percentage of their range being optimal. Since more of their damage is optimal, they'd project damage better than AC's, but are still technically shorter on range, and still maybe not track as well, or at most on par. From there, adjust fitting requirements, or the cpu/PG of hybrid ships, and see how it plays out. More balance changes to come afterwards of course, after the impact of the initial changes is seen.
What would your initial toe-in-the-water balance changes be? |

Herman Klaus
Touched By Klaus
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 08:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Someone suggested making Minny less agile but keeping their high speed and making blaster boats more agile (quicker) and buffing blaster tracking. I liked this.
TBH though this topic has been done to death a few posts below. |

Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 08:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
Changing minmatar that much just to balance blasters would throw quite a few other things out of whack, wouldn't it? I doubt we'll see such a large change, or at least not at first.
Also I seem to have missed the other thread.... |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 10:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Things blaster needs to be changed so it works properly and without ship changes?
Massive tracking bonus on weapons: the shortest range weapon can't simply track properly in it's op range while having less issues in the fall off, you must admit this is kinda "stupid"
The shortest weapon system at BS size with 4km optimal range can't track an elephant under 1500M and the slightest lateral movement makes you loose a lot of the "EFT dps", another ridiculous point.
Imho the best thing to do about blasters is increase their optimal up to 13km at large size and 0km fall off, increase dmg modifier to make it spit nuclear warheads and that ******* weapon system should never have a single issue tracking in his full optimal from 0 to the 13km.
Ammo changes are needed, the single change about % kin or thermal for the same range/dmg type isn't enough, a third dmg type would be the most welcome even at a very small %. T2 ammo needs serious revamp and get rid of the tracking penalty, hell you need a lot of training to use the worst ammo out there when faction one will overall be more effective, this is completely silly.
Fitting PG requirements lowered and cap use but maybe increase it significantly when overloaded if dmg modifier increased to nuclear warheads level.
Before touching the ships this would be a nice start, then go for the ships themselves and after that see if weapons still need something + or removal so they don't become tomorrow the omgfckingpowmobiles |

steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 11:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP boosting something and it ending up balanced? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL |

Solomar Espersei
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
84
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 12:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
I think the "can't choose your damage type" argument is overblown, just as it is with lazers. Both could be viewed as damage type=loads of DPS. One type of gun (blasters) pummels armor, the other pummels shields. I think that works fine and doesn't need to be tweaked in any way.
Range is the problem and it gets worse as you scale up. An argument could be made that blasters are working just fine on the frigates which are bonused for them. It's the cruiser hull and above where the train runs off the track. Simply change the range on blasters to be slightly less than the effective range of ACs and that should do it.
Rails OTOH simply need to do more DPS. I don't think it would be that big of a deal if they were nearly identical to Beams tbh. Recruiting is ON HOLD Please join our public channel The Ninja Dojo for more info |

Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
81
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 13:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Things blaster needs to be changed so it works properly and without ship changes?
Massive tracking bonus on weapons: the shortest range weapon can't simply track properly in it's op range while having less issues in the fall off, you must admit this is kinda "stupid"
The shortest weapon system at BS size with 4km optimal range can't track an elephant under 1500M and the slightest lateral movement makes you loose a lot of the "EFT dps", another ridiculous point.
Imho the best thing to do about blasters is increase their optimal up to 13km at large size and 0km fall off, increase dmg modifier to make it spit nuclear warheads and that ******* weapon system should never have a single issue tracking in his full optimal from 0 to the 13km.
Ammo changes are needed, the single change about % kin or thermal for the same range/dmg type isn't enough, a third dmg type would be the most welcome even at a very small %. T2 ammo needs serious revamp and get rid of the tracking penalty, hell you need a lot of training to use the worst ammo out there when faction one will overall be more effective, this is completely silly.
Fitting PG requirements lowered and cap use but maybe increase it significantly when overloaded if dmg modifier increased to nuclear warheads level.
Before touching the ships this would be a nice start, then go for the ships themselves and after that see if weapons still need something + or removal so they don't become tomorrow the omgfckingpowmobiles I like your ideas. wouldn't mind cutting the range further if damage boosted tho. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |

Skarned
Inroads
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 13:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'd like to see Blaster range remain unchanged - it would be a mistake to change the attribute that makes blasters unique. They should, however, be compensated for it with much greater effective damage. A little bit less mass or more agility on their ships wouldn't hurt either, but they don't need much. |

Alec Freeman
The Dark Space Initiative Revival Of The Talocan Empire
25
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 13:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Its CCP. They know nothing of a gentle touch.
Blasters will be given 100km range, do 500 dps per large gun and will be able to track frigates at under 1km. and then everyone will cry until other guns are brought in line with them. |

TriadSte
3rd Division
14
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 15:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Blasters need better tracking with a boost to range also. I believe that the Gallente race is a race which can be kited easily [ship depending] so I also believe that the Gallente ships needs some form of speed/agility buff too.
Gallente have always been the 4th best race in applying DPS effectively, Im very happy this is about to change. |
|

mama guru
Thundercats
6
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 16:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
The most needed gallente changes have always been something along these lines:
1) Ship agility improvement and mass reduction (applies to cruiser and above)
2) Improved blaster tracking
3) Lower fitting requirements on hybrids was implemented before and might be needed again.
I also think that Gallente blaster boats should have one or two of theirutility highslots removed in favour of more midslots. That would kind of fit their niche a bit more and make them more appealing to active tanking and ECCM which is what Gallente has always been best at. Utility highs and overall slot flexability is a minmatar thing imo, it fits the Hurricane perfectly for example. But not the Deimos or Megathron. ______
EVE online is the fishermans friend of MMO's. If it's to hard you are to weak. |

MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
35
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 16:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
ok this is ghey i cant link a thread cuss its html...
please see a thread called gallente love in features and ideas discussion for hybrid boost discussion |

JackStraw56
Bayesian Motion Knights of Tomorrow
12
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 16:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
I'd like to see blasters stay the shortest range weapon, but the range should be given some increase.
The tracking also needs to be the highest of all guns since they are meant to operate at the closest range. It doesn't make sense for autocannons to have longer range and similar tracking.
The damage is already good on blasters, a very slight boost may be ok, but I'd rather see the range and tracking bumped up first. |

Neo Rainhart
Guerilla Republik Excuses.
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 17:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
No I don't think super soakers should be boosted. Just start selling them with different nozzles oh wai... |

Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 19:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
Solomar Espersei wrote:I think the "can't choose your damage type" argument is overblown, just as it is with lazers. Both could be viewed as damage type=loads of DPS. One type of gun (blasters) pummels armor, the other pummels shields. I think that works fine and doesn't need to be tweaked in any way..
Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.
PvE is easy enough that even if you're blitzing with a max skilled dedicated ship, you really aren't gaining much time.
PvP everyone buffer tanks anyway, and you will rarely encounter a resist hole big enough to actually exploit. And even if they do, how would you know? |

Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 19:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
Dorian Wylde wrote:Solomar Espersei wrote:I think the "can't choose your damage type" argument is overblown, just as it is with lazers. Both could be viewed as damage type=loads of DPS. One type of gun (blasters) pummels armor, the other pummels shields. I think that works fine and doesn't need to be tweaked in any way.. Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way. PvE is easy enough that even if you're blitzing with a max skilled dedicated ship, you really aren't gaining much time. PvP everyone buffer tanks anyway, and you will rarely encounter a resist hole big enough to actually exploit. And even if they do, how would you know?
True this, and if you do find a significant hole it's going to be either EM or EXP...both of which can also easily be the highest. I'd take Kin/Therm over most of the other types any day. It does kind a suck when firing that at a t2 ship with kin/therm resist bonuses though.... |

Goose99
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
54
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 21:00:00 -
[17] - Quote
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:Dorian Wylde wrote:Solomar Espersei wrote:I think the "can't choose your damage type" argument is overblown, just as it is with lazers. Both could be viewed as damage type=loads of DPS. One type of gun (blasters) pummels armor, the other pummels shields. I think that works fine and doesn't need to be tweaked in any way.. Glad to know I'm not the only one who feels this way. PvE is easy enough that even if you're blitzing with a max skilled dedicated ship, you really aren't gaining much time. PvP everyone buffer tanks anyway, and you will rarely encounter a resist hole big enough to actually exploit. And even if they do, how would you know? True this, and if you do find a significant hole it's going to be either EM or EXP...both of which can also easily be the highest. I'd take Kin/Therm over most of the other types any day. It does kind a suck when firing that at a t2 ship with kin/therm resist bonuses though.... As far as the tracking goes, I'm not sure AC's should be below blasters, really. They've always seemed like a quick and nimble weapon, whereas blasters are more like a shotgun or something. Though, it'd be nice to see them upgraded to a tactical shotgun over an old SxS, if you get me. Giving some extra agility to hybrid ships would be nice, though we'll have to bear in mind what that will change when you fit them with rails, yeah? You can't look at a ship and go "oh, that's for blasters" or "oh, that's for railguns", because people will want to use both. Try to force it and you end up with the Hyperion...
Minimatar t2/3 has high EM shields resist. That said, EM/exp is definitely better than Kin/thermal. Every single ship, t1-t3, shield or armor, has decent kin/thermal resists. Add in enam/invulnerability, and it gets high. With EM/exp, it finds a resist hole at least some of the times, with kin/thermal, there won't be a hole in any competent fit. |

Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.10.14 22:38:00 -
[18] - Quote
Goose99 wrote:
Minimatar t2/3 has high EM shields resist. That said, EM/exp is definitely better than Kin/thermal. Every single ship, t1-t3, shield or armor, has decent kin/thermal resists. Add in enam/invulnerability, and it gets high. With EM/exp, it finds a resist hole at least some of the times, with kin/thermal, there won't be a hole in any competent fit.
EM/Exp would be nice if you could get both of them at once...though it's true that minmatar and caldari can just change ammo. But while Kin/Therm never sees the huge em holes in shields or exp holes in armor, it never sees the huge em resists in armor or exp resists in shields, either. Perhaps it comes down to preference but I like that level of consistency. |

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 01:09:00 -
[19] - Quote
I have no idea how blasters are going to be balanced.
Less falloff, more optimal perhaps? That would help a little as would reducing their cap use and power grid requirements. |

Tallianna Avenkarde
Beasts of Burden
67
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 05:08:00 -
[20] - Quote
Herman Klaus wrote:Someone suggested making Minny less agile but keeping their high speed and making blaster boats more agile (quicker) and buffing blaster tracking. I liked this.
TBH though this topic has been done to death a few posts below.
I actually believe exactly the opposite.
To me Minnie are like rally cars, fast agile little killers that flitter around at kiting range. Gallente should be top fuel dragsters. Fast in a straight line, but easily danced around. And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell. Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell. |
|

Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 09:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
For mediums it's mostly the fitting. It'd be nice to fit neutrons and and mwd onto some of the gallente and caldari cruisers. Damage could use a slight buff.
Range is a bit different. If they buff blasters too much you'd end up seeing 1000dps neutron/tracking enhancer gank boats with 25-30km range.
Tracking would help a little bit too, although sometimes I think people just orbit 500 by default instead of using keep at range to maximise damage, then wonder why their guns can't track.
The large hybrids obviously need a damage buff if nothing else.
So I guess I'm saying that they should boost one or two aspects of blasters and see how it plays out. Here's hoping ccp doesn't go overboard and make blasters the only weapon in solo/small gang pvp.
|

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 11:47:00 -
[22] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Range is a bit different. If they buff blasters too much you'd end up seeing 1000dps neutron/tracking enhancer gank boats with 25-30km range.
You mean the same mods making Scorch Pulse shoot over 60km at full dmg and Auto canons over 90?
Well 25/30km would still be the closest range of all close range weapons wouldn't??
|

Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
4
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 13:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
I mean for medium guns.
For instance a neutron diemos with 2 TE does 3+15 with cnam or 7.3+19 with null, and does ~770 or so dps. Of course the ship is kinda rubbish right now but you can see how a big boost to range, damage and fitting would start making gallente blaster boats too strong. |

Jerick Ludhowe
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 13:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
I believe that with the addition of 25m3 more drone bay (not bandwidth) on top of a modest increases to fitting potential, ship speed/agility and turret dps (no more than 5%) many of the dedicated blaster platforms would become more than competitive. A reduction to the sig radius of some of the dedicated sub bs blaster platforms would be very welcome too. Now as to what they will actually do? No idea.
As for rail guns... I believe that fitting requirements again should and probably will be looked at. I'd hope that overall dps is increased marginally and their dmg/rof ratio is moved closer to that of artillery. |

Wacktopia
Sicarius. Legion of The Damned.
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 15:08:00 -
[25] - Quote
Remover 50% range penalty on anti matter and adjust the rest accordingly. |

Sebastian N Cain
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 18:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Well, i guess hybrids will become even more useless, because the "balancing" will completely miss the point. Such as giving rails even more range at the expense of damage and tracking. And blasters... i-Śm confident there is a way to make them even more crappy than now and ccp will find it.
"You either need less science fiction or more medication."
"Or less medication and more ammo!" |

raukhur
NorthMount
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 19:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
If one of the blasters problems is not being able to apply the high dps they have, maylbe the new fast webber drones may provide a solution for rebalancing gallente, e.g. Giving deimos, thorax, brutix and the likes more drone cargo so they have a set of webber drones to catkch their prey, and athen switch to dps/ecm drones
|

quigibow
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 21:36:00 -
[28] - Quote
they should be fixed like this |

Wylee Coyote
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 22:51:00 -
[29] - Quote
I would lower the cpu requirements for all hybrids a bit, otherwise I would not change them.
What I would change is hybrid ammo. Get rid of the capacitor need reduction and replace it with tracking bonus of at least equal (opposite) value. For example; Anti-matter charge would now be -50% range as it's always been, but it now also has +30% tracking (equal opposite of iron charges). Next would be Plutonium with it's -37.5% range but now with +27% tracking. Etc. |

Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
82
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 23:43:00 -
[30] - Quote
quigibow wrote:they should be fixed like this while those are good ideas, I'm still partial to the face-melting nuclear loaded shotgun concept, and they should have much, much more damage, bit more tracking and less range.
face-melting dps. that's what blasters should be.
and no, atm they don't do said visage deconstruction damage. they just do a bit more than the next best thing. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
|

Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 23:56:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tallianna Avenkarde wrote:Herman Klaus wrote:Someone suggested making Minny less agile but keeping their high speed and making blaster boats more agile (quicker) and buffing blaster tracking. I liked this.
TBH though this topic has been done to death a few posts below. I actually believe exactly the opposite. To me Minnie are like rally cars, fast agile little killers that flitter around at kiting range. Gallente should be top fuel dragsters. Fast in a straight line, but easily danced around. This...
That way the gallente pilot has the speed to close range if the enemy is dumb enough to fly away in a straight line, but is able to be kited easily because theyd lack the agility to keep pace with an opponent who was turning and weaving. It would be a George Foreman vs ali fight
Change armor rigs to be an agility nerf too |

Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
22
|
Posted - 2011.10.15 23:57:00 -
[32] - Quote
One of my friends and I came up with what I think is an interesting solution based on the RP of what a blaster and rail gun are supposed to be
Right now we have projectiles which have versatile ammo uses and lasers and hybrids which trade damage for range.
Our idea is to change hybrid ammo so that it trades range for cap usage but keeps the damage the same.
So the damage on all large ammo caldari navy L ammo (for instance) would be 23 thermal 32.2 kinetic, but antimatter would have -50% optimal and no cap cost increase, and Iron would have +70% optimal and +120% cap usage
This would mean that gallente ships are still the close range choice and Amarr are still the kings of damage projection, but gallente ships can get out to the range of conflag lasers, they just cost around 2x as much cap to do it.
The RP reason for this is that blasters are basically a ball of plasma generated by the round being fired, and it costs more cap to heat the ammo and keep the plasma hot over that long a distance.
For Rails, the extra cap is used to fire the projectile faster off the rail achieving a better time on target and thus more range but the shell is lighter resulting in the same damage.
Thoughts? |

Bienator II
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
191
|
Posted - 2011.10.16 02:42:00 -
[33] - Quote
i believe they get updated sounds so that they sound more dangerous. You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |

Londor Rogers
MunsterMunch Hydroponic Zone
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.16 03:16:00 -
[34] - Quote
Hmm agility would be nice if they also added say a hull based bonus on the blaster boats that gave a bonus to afterburners. Same speeds as the ships fly now just with afterburner instead of microwarpdrive.
This would reduce capacitor need of the ships. It would make it easier to get into range and increase the GTFO chances. They would need to increase tracking as well because the ships would be orbiting at a higher speed. |

Jacob Stov
1
|
Posted - 2011.10.16 17:47:00 -
[35] - Quote
I have no idea what CCP will do, but I know what I would like to see.
No change to the guns itself.
Instead an ammo overhaul. Divide hybrid ammo in two groups. One with 10% blaster damage bonus and 80% thermal, 20% kin damage split.
The other group grants 10% damage bonus to rails, and deals 80%kin + 20% therm damage.
Now remove all range modifiers, and add tracking bonus instead.
Antimatter: 10% bonus to blaster damage 39 therm damage, 9 kin damage Plutonium: 10% bonus to railgun damage 39 kin damage. 9 therm damage
Uranium: 10% bonus to blaster damage, 10% tracking bonus 33 therm damage, 7 kin damage Thorium: 10% bonus to railgun damage, 10% tracking bonus 33 kin damage, 7 therm damage
and so on. Numbers of course open for discussion. Removes the optimal penalty from the higher damage ammo as well as the activition costs modifier.
Range with antimatter for large blasters:
Electron: 6 + 7,5 Ion: 7,5 + 10 Neutron: 9 + 13
So everything within web range, where blasters should rock. Rails will benefit, too. The slight damage bonus as well as the option do deal at least a bit damage at close range helps them a bit.
Damage type selection (at the cost of losing the 10% bonus) is a little bonus for PvE.
To round things up the fitting of every Gallente and Caldari ship should be looked at.
For Gallente ships I'd like to see larger cargobays to hold more cap boosters and an agility boost.
Caldari ships should get better cap recharge, by reducing the recharge time. |

Diomidis
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.17 19:32:00 -
[36] - Quote
I tend to think that part of what makes hybrids not working well, are not only ship bonuses (or the lack of those) and ammo types, but also TEs and TCs.
As an answer to the over-whining about lasers before the Dominion patch, the fall-off lovers received an insane boost...esp minmatar, where boosted in every possible way...
Ammo types where boosted for proj...nice
Falloff was tiered so that D180s would not do as much as 425s, but everything was rebalanced so that again ACs would be insanely easy to fit and make-work.
TEs and scripts for TCs got chanded to favor fall-off way more than optimal (counter intuitive, i know).
Though the latter would favor hybrids in comparison to lasers for some long-range fits, the range diff between the performance gains by fitting TEs to AC boats is simply a joke in comparison to using them for short range laser or hybrid weapon platforms.
TEs act as a huge falloff range booster, and tracking booster. For ACs that means being both an effective dmg mod as well as a range and tracking mod, greatly negating the "ACs are penalized by fighting in falloff" arguments.
Pulses can cope with that, having similar total Dps (tho most of the times laser-boats need to add fatter drones to come up with similar dps, even on paper) sucky dmg selectivity but at least great optimal.
Blasters that are short ranged in both optimal and falloff, cannot receive those benefits (aka TEs effectively boosting the applied DPS), as range benefits are small(er) even with Null, and the dmg reduction formula for falloff follows a way steeper curve.
IMHO, there is no way to boost blasters with range etc increases without producing an AC clone with worse dmg selectivity, requirement for cap use etc. As much as I hate getting my beloved canes nerfed, in order to preserve diversity in this game, ACs need to be nerfed SOMEHOW, before attempting to boost anything else to their level. As it is now, ships like the nano-cane can both browl and out-dps as well as kite their counterpants, with the same fitting. Reliably and repeatedly. Changing how TEs bonus ACs or how they stuck would at least remove a portion of that versatility: high dps @ close ranges, amplified by dmg selectivity for ACs, or kiting with okz dps - not both.
Having 1500 dps Brutixes or frig like tracking Megas (with 2500 dps) shooting at laser ranges is not an answer. "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -- Bertrand Russell |

Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2011.10.17 19:37:00 -
[37] - Quote
There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |