EVE Search - Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Hybrid Turrets

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Sticky:Balancing Feedback: Hybrid Turrets

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 3	Posted - 2011.11.06 10:08:00 - [1] - Quote Dare Devel wrote: Mors Sanctitatis wrote: A blaster ship should be THE scariest thing on the battlefield at close range. . +7.5% tracking bonus on Antimatar ammo 20% on Iron Ammo (So scale it up from 7.5 to 20 between the ammo accordingly) This will scale properly with number of turrets. We can free up one slot for fitting a tackle mod which is much needed for a blaster boat or a sensor mod for rail boat. I think you have this backwards. You're just thinking of blasters as being like all the other weapons, but their very short range makes them different. The tracking is more of an issue at CLOSER ranges so any tracking bonus should be LARGER for SHORTER range ammo. So with your numbers it should be 20% on antimatter and 7.5% on iron, but even then i think the antimatter bonus will prove to be too small for medium and large rails. Why do you feel the need to treat the small blasters, which don't have too much problem, the same as the other sizes which have an ever increasing problem? I'd say 30-40 on large, 25-30% on mediums, 10-15% on smalls for the antimatter scaling down to the 7.5-10% level for iron (and include this level of bonus in the t2 ammo too)
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 3	Posted - 2011.11.06 14:11:00 - [2] - Quote Gecko O'Bac wrote: Moonaura wrote: Thoughts welcome. The idea isn't bad, but I'd keep it to a propulsion only module, perhaps even just a script for the mwd, which allows it to pulse up for a couple of cycles for great speed, while having to stay shut for some time after activating... Something like + 200% cycle time + x speed (50%?) + acceleration (though with the speed boost, if it keeps the same acceleration as the normal mwd it's probably enough) + y seconds cooldown period (perhaps a minute? something long enough to avoid making it a full propulsion module, but short enough to be viable to actually catch something with it). While this is a good idea and may solve some problems (and may be worth suggesting separately), I still think that hybrids and the focus of hybrid caldari/gallente ships should be revised on its own, mostly because it seems to me that we're trying to fit a square peg in a circle hole. Still won't work. Even if it helped for gal vs amarr, the minmatar get more mids than gal, so they'd fit these mods for sure and become even more unstoppable. This is why it has to be something applied to ships, not new mods which everyone will access.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 3	Posted - 2011.11.12 16:12:00 - [3] - Quote CCP Tallest wrote: Perdition64 wrote: CCP Tallest, any plans on further developing the hybrid changes before patch day so they can actually make an impact come Winter? Yes indeed. I was just about to post an update. * Hybrid turret reload time will be 5 seconds. * Hybrid ammo will be 50% smaller (and turret capacity reduced to keep same number of charges) * Blaster damage +5% (except XL turrets) * Railgun tracking +5% (except XL turrets) ..also, Hail falloff penalty will be 25%, not 0%. Still not seeing this change on SiSi - any idea when it'll be there?
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 3	Posted - 2011.11.15 13:05:00 - [4] - Quote Well SiSi is a depressing place to go if you want to check anything to do with gallente improvements, it really is like pissing in the wind so far. The changes are so minimal that in game play terms they go unnoticed except for frigates and they weren't the thing that needed improving. It does look very pretty now, and warping through planets is a huge improvement for immersion. The stargates seem to be shooting a bit to the left of the star they aim at, but that's a minor irritation. So CCP, thank you for the eye candy, and no thank you for what you've done to gallente. Unless you pull some miracle alteration to the ammo out of the bag the way you did with projectile ammo then you've completely missed the point about making gallente workable in Eve as it is today. How you could miss that point with all this feedback is beyond me, but CCP Tallest so far is not up to the task. It's a massive shame, you'd built our hopes up, but we're getting no interaction with you at all. After the way the CSM sang your praises I had expected more. Silly me.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 6	Posted - 2011.11.17 18:21:00 - [5] - Quote RankWeaponsKills 1425mm AutoCannon II17151 2Heavy Missile Launcher II15148 3200mm AutoCannon II8269 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II7542 5150mm Light AutoCannon II7447 61400mm Howitzer Artillery II7137 7Mega Pulse Laser II6446 8Heavy Pulse Laser II6307 9720mm Howitzer Artillery II6252 10125mm Gatling AutoCannon II4791 11'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher4363 12800mm Repeating Artillery II3156 13Focused Medium Pulse Laser II1831 14Light Neutron Blaster II1763 15Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I1703 161400mm Prototype I Siege Cannon1703 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II1661 18650mm Artillery Cannon II1522 191400mm 'Scout' Artillery I1497 20Dual 180mm AutoCannon II1374 Not sure why this hasn't been posted earlier, we had the ship version so we might as well have the weapon version too. So hybrids do make it into the top 20 based on this data - but it's a very poor showing and includes not a single large weapon system. Projectiles are dominant in every imaginable way making up 63% of all kills; lasers are evenly represented but for a much smaller 15% of kills; missiles are absent as the small versions (which prove ineffective despite rocket fixes previously added) but still manage to make up 18% of the kills from torpedoes - almost certainly from stealth bomber kills- and the heavy missiles from drakes; Railguns make no appearance with blasters totalling a whopping 3% from small and mediums to account for hybrids; Drones are entirely absent. Yet again, another fine example of the lacking nature of hybrids and the limited nature of missiles whilst clearly illustrating the ridiculous dominance of projectiles in every possible arena of PvP.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 6	Posted - 2011.11.17 20:36:00 - [6] - Quote It takes the data from all ships involved in a kill I believe, so that is about as comprehensive as you can get.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.11.24 11:24:00 - [7] - Quote Perhaps active tanking ships should get a joint bonus for repairer effectiveness and cap usage? Not an answer in itself to the problem, but it would allow a bit more tanking while you try to mwd into range rather than mwding into range and being cap dead before you even activate your guns? And welcome back CCP Tallest. If I might be so bold as to suggest; If someone like yourself has ownership of an issue like this, and in the cause of better communication, if you happen to be going away for a significant period of time perhaps you could post as much in the thread before you go? The frustration from an apparent lack of dev interest was bad for the health of everyone with an interest in this matter
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.01 18:11:00 - [8] - Quote Magosian wrote: Hamox wrote: I'm sure CCP knows the real issues, they just don't know how to fix it properly without making hybrids the next FOTM. I do. Any med/large ship with a hybrid turret bonus gets their base scan resolution and base sensor strength doubled. In addition to making hybrid ships more popular, this would also: -resurrect the pitiful Eos -resurrect the Gallente employment of Information Warfare (and Caldari to an extent) -take away some of that OP mojo from the Falcon -put Gallente back into the drone-domination throne as they will be able to commands drones faster and kill them quickest. Fixed. This still does nothing to address the problem with hybrids, and it does nothing for information warfare links. Speaking of which, did you notice at all that whilst ecm/painter bonus from the info link went from 2 to 2.5%, the damp/TD bonus went from 1.2 to 1.25%? I guess CCP a) Cocked it up, or b) Think damps are overpowered already whilst ecm needs a helping hand. Currently, frigates are good. No need to do anything more to either the ships, the blasters or the rails for those. Job done, congratulations CCP. Cruisers and Battleships however are no different. Having a bit more fitting to play with has been useful, but ultimately changed nothing about the dynamics of fighting in hybrid ships. Sorry CCP, the changes were completely ineffective. And I'm with those who don't want blasters to become autocannons under another name. I personally would like overwhelming dps at very close ranges AND a way to deliver it. I do not believe webs are the way to achieve this. I think the way it will have to happen is through a change in the speed/armour rig penalties (going faster and lose my tank, or tank and go even slower just doesn't work) and by changes to the affected ships.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.02 20:57:00 - [9] - Quote Magosian wrote: Nikollai Tesla wrote: Saw this on the dev blog today, wanted to cross post it since its official Data from CCP looking through their database, not from a kill board. The statistics are quite interesting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=postmessage&t=40902&f=247&q=453895 I'm not sure why CCP data is any less unbiased than a third party killboard. In fact, the conspiracy-theorist in me is tempted to say eve-kill is a better representation of the situation that anything CCP provides because we know it's all user-submitted data. This would be opposed to anything CCP might manipulate. But I digress, the data still shows overwhelming favoritism in projectiles and Minmatar, followed by a distant second place with lasers and Amarr. Nikollai Tesla wrote: CCP Diagoras wrote: Final blows, weapon type, 2011 only, PVP only: Group: Projectile Weapon1,455,484 Energy Weapon392,605 Hybrid Weapon250,858 Combat Drone221,329 Heavy Missile203,896 Type: 425mm AutoCannon II388,602 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II207,378 200mm AutoCannon II163,613 150mm Light AutoCannon II144,349 720mm Howitzer Artillery II136,879 By ship type scoring the final blow: Hurricane378,864 Drake272,204 Sabre124,472 Dramiel118,128 Vagabond117,136 Cynabal113,905 Abaddon80,659 Tengu79,493 Harbinger71,286 Rifter67,721 I'm only seeing two things which I would call "interesting data:" the Drake, which isn't much of a surprise since it's the most bang-for-your-buck and most tank-for-your-buck available. Still, it's nice to see a break from the usual 80% Minmatar 20% Amarr pattern. Hybrid weapons coming in at #3 is kind of misleading since it only makes up less than 10% of the top 5 (9.94%). I'd also bet MOST of that is from highsec frigate fights and station camping. The data is silghtly skewed as the period it covers also covers a time when hybrids were more successful. The Eve-Kill stats are more relevant as they address the ships and weapons as they are currently ingame. "The information in this blog is limited to kills that have taken place since the new kill report system was introduced in the Trinity expansion on December 5th, 2007, up until very early in the morning of November 29th, 2011."
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.04 09:04:00 - [10] - Quote m0cking bird wrote: Anyway, their has been a significant change to hybrids. Rail-gun tended to be the only other option to artillery-cannon in ship classes not heavily bonused for their use. For example; a Muninn has bonuses for using artillery, but most t1 Minmatar ships that are not specialised are able to use them. Most Amarr ships are not capable of this, because of the huge capacitor consumption of beam lasers. Rail-gun does not have that issue for the most part and now uses even less capacitor and power grid. How this translate into our current environment will be interesting. All these set-ups below are a alternative to using artillery, but for Gallente ships to be viable in fleets. Medium Rail-gun will have no issues tracking ships destroyers and above @ around 12,000 meters and above. Minus some Cpu and power-grid issues on some ships. These set-ups are very viable. Again, a alternative to artillery-canon. Not to mention the utility of a large drone bay by all ships below. So yeah! Rail-guns are now significantly easier for most hybrid platforms to fit. Caldari hybrid ships are still pretty bad for the most part and I am speaking about the ships (bonuses, drones, damage or lack there of) and not the weapon system. Brutix [shield] [Thorax [shield] [Deimos [shield] There's the problem,yet again. You're having to shield tank those ships to try to make them viable! The Brutix has a rep bonus for crying out loud Sort out the penalties associated with rigs and half of the remaining issues will go away. Either remove speed as an armour rig penalty (and why it was ever a penalty for having reps or resists I'll never understand apart from the usual laziness of giving identical problems to everything in a given rig section. Plating is big and heavy - ok, if you want to say there's a RP reason behind it then fine. But how do you justify it for reps?) or add speed as a drawback to shields. Makes more sense to me that anything that adds real hp like extenders or plates should add mass; but anything that boosts resists ? Makes more sense for armour and shield resist mods to boost sig radius; rigs that boost rep and shield performance should affect something different again- tracking perhaps? Or anything else you care to add. But please, just lose speed penalties on armour rigs and lose armour penalties on speed rigs. You have made them mutually exclusive and it really hurts the possibilities for gallente ships.

Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.04 15:29:00 - [11] - Quote Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: Nikuno wrote: Sort out the penalties associated with rigs and half of the remaining issues will go away. Either remove speed as an armour rig penalty (and why it was ever a penalty for having reps or resists I'll never understand apart from the usual laziness of giving identical problems to everything in a given rig section. Plating is big and heavy - ok, if you want to say there's a RP reason behind it then fine. But how do you justify it for reps?) or add speed as a drawback to shields. Makes more sense to me that anything that adds real hp like extenders or plates should add mass; but anything that boosts resists ? Makes more sense for armour and shield resist mods to boost sig radius; rigs that boost rep and shield performance should affect something different again- tracking perhaps? Or anything else you care to add. But please, just lose speed penalties on armour rigs and lose armour penalties on speed rigs. You have made them mutually exclusive and it really hurts the possibilities for gallente ships. sounds like a really bad idea to me, given the fact that minmatar would profit much more from that than gallente boats. imagine the might of a cane with speed rigs but no gimped armor, because the armor reduces the speed but the rigs compensate without reducing the ehp. i certainly would like that, but it will not solve our problem. No, I clearly stated that shield extenders and armour plates should BOTH increase the ship's mass, this would mean the canes sharing the same penalty if they wanted to go for ehp buffer tanking. Rather than the rig groupings being [everything armour=speed loss] [everything shield = sig bloom] it should be [everything adding hp=speed loss] [everything giving resists=sig bloom] [everything boosting shield boost or armour reps= some other penalty] This would be far more balanced and give a reason for active reps as many, including yourself, have stated. Now to see if CCP think the same way.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.05 15:00:00 - [12] - Quote Well, it's been a few days now and the latest snapshot stands like this; 1Drake27661 2Hurricane16528 3Abaddon15827 4Tengu10749 5Armageddon7621 6Tornado4664 7Tempest4215 8Scimitar4193 9Cynabal3833 10Sabre3668 11Thrasher3280 12Huginn2922 13Rifter2712 14Vagabond2606 15Rapier2539 16Loki2463 17Capsule2383 18Lachesis2329 19Proteus2033 20Falcon2016 1Heavy Missile Launcher II12499 2425mm AutoCannon II4795 3Mega Pulse Laser II4591 4200mm AutoCannon II2907 51400mm Howitzer Artillery II2634 6720mm Howitzer Artillery II2293 7220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II2150 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II2092 9800mm Repeating Artillery II1922 10150mm Light AutoCannon II1921 11Heavy Pulse Laser II1487 12Heavy Neutron Blaster II1064 13Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I937 14Light Neutron Blaster II859 15'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I795 16Neutron Blaster Cannon II693 17'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher678 18280mm Howitzer Artillery II618 19Light Ion Blaster II605 20Dual 180mm AutoCannon II594 The resurgence of hybrid use is non-existent, and this should be on the back of the wave of euphoria over the buff. Note that the Tornado tier3 BC is already as popular and successful as the entire hybrid ship range from both caldari and gallente combined ! How long does CCP intend to wait to identify how successful or otherwise the hybrid changes have been?
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.10 11:42:00 - [13] - Quote Hamox wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Tanya Powers wrote: Med railguns themselves are in need of a lot more dmg modifier, tracking now it's not bad. Ammo short range is really short (get rid of penalties!) and long range poor dmg. That's a total BS. Railguns already outdamage beams while consuming almost no cap and being extremely easy to fit. And on top of that having superior range. Heavy Beam Laser II: 3.6 dmg mode / 6.00 = 0.6 250mm Railgun II: 3.63 dmg mode / 6.38 rof = 0.569 Now add a typical pair of bonuses (cap consumption vs damage one) and you'll see that there's no point in using beams whatsoever. You rails still need ammo and you have 5s recharge timer on your ammo. With beams you also have more space left in your cargo for cap boosters. Damage multipliers only mean something when considered with the base damage they multiply. Your figures are meaningless Fon. Let's take a look as they really stand, setup with 3 damage mods and ship bonuses with long range weapons; Zealot 5 Heavy Beam II; 436 dps @ 23+10 with multi, 290 dps @ 81+10 with aurora Muninn 5 720mm II; 347 dps @ 18+23 with emp, 232 dps @ 81+22 with tremor Diemos 5 250mm rail II; 352 dps @ 18+23 with antimatter, 235dps @ 65+23 with spike Eagle 5 250mm rail II; 282 dps @ 41+15 with antimatter, 188 dps @ 146+15 with spike amarr has best for close range dps, for long range dps. amarr and minmatar both project damage further than rails (81km vs 65 for deimos, and laughable damage for eagle so we'll ignore that) minmatar gets huge alpha as well as virrtually identical dps to gallente (and massively better dps than eagle) amarr has instant ammo change minmatar is cap free minmatar has damage type selection Where's the benefit of using rails ?
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.10 15:43:00 - [14] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: How about you starting comparing apples to apples and providing valid info? It's pretty evident that a Zealot outdamages any other hac at his own optimal. All his bonuses are devoted to lasers and the ship's got no drones, no utility etc. It must outdamage everything in its class. I'm pretty sure you've omitted drones of Deimos. Also - yeah, long-range sniping is dead, but still - what's the damage output of a Zealot at the distances Eagle is intended for? Muninn is a bit weird in its design. Yet again, provide valid pairs for comparison. abso: 535 DPS @ 15 and merely 490 @ 19 astarte: 535 @ 19 (and this ship has got x2.3 falloff in comparison) apoc: 312 @163 (fleet setup dating back to 2008) mega: 343 @168 (fleet setup dating back to 2008) Figures imply 2 damage mods. I used the ships you chose to quote originally. If you now admit they disproved what you were trying to demonstrate why make the assertion in the first place? As for your latest attempts; Absolution 6 heavy beam II, 2 HS II; 465 dps @ 15+10 with multi, 310dps @ 54+10 with aurora Astarte 7 250mm Rail II, 2 MFS II; 482 dps@ 18+23 with antimatter, 321 dps @ 65+23 with spike The astarte gets 3.6% dps more for fitting an extra rail. If the guns were equivalent then it should gain an extra 16.7%. In other words, on this gallente ship, designed for doing damage, it is underperforming the equivalent laser platform by almost 13%, and to achieve equity has to use an extra slot. This could be seen as the Abso's extra low slot being used to fit a 3rd HS. Which makes the abso not only a better dps ship, but also still a superior tank. Your turn.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.10 16:00:00 - [15] - Quote Jack bubu wrote: yes please boost rails some more, so our rokh fleet gets even better B) And yes, I did notice the 48 rokhs mixed in with the 70 abaddons and 17 maelstroms you used against ccp. I also noticed the loss of 5 of those rokhs and none of the abaddons or maelstroms. While I applaud PLs use of innovative setups, I don't believe we'll see this become one of your shining successes. I live in hope that you might prove me wrong. Oh, and when will we see gallente rail bs in your fleet?
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.10 19:22:00 - [16] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: Nikuno wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: How about you starting comparing apples to apples and providing valid info? It's pretty evident that a Zealot outdamages any other hac at his own optimal. All his bonuses are devoted to lasers and the ship's got no drones, no utility etc. It must outdamage everything in its class. I'm pretty sure you've omitted drones of Deimos. Also - yeah, long-range sniping is dead, but still - what's the damage output of a Zealot at the distances Eagle is intended for? Muninn is a bit weird in its design. Yet again, provide valid pairs for comparison. abso: 535 DPS @ 15 and merely 490 @ 19 astarte: 535 @ 19 (and this ship has got x2.3 falloff in comparison) apoc: 312 @163 (fleet setup dating back to 2008) mega: 343 @168 (fleet setup dating back to 2008) Figures imply 2 damage mods. I used the ships you chose to quote originally. If you now admit they disproved what you were trying to demonstrate why make the assertion in the first place? As for your latest attempts; Absolution 6 heavy beam II, 2 HS II; 465 dps @ 15+10 with multi, 310dps @ 54+10 with aurora Astarte 7 250mm Rail II, 2 MFS II; 482 dps@ 18+23 with antimatter, 321 dps @ 65+23 with spike The astarte gets 3.6% dps more for fitting an extra rail. If the guns were equivalent then it should gain an extra 16.7%. In other words, on this gallente ship, designed for doing damage, it is underperforming the equivalent laser platform by almost 13%, and to achieve equity has to use an extra slot. This could be seen as the Abso's extra low slot being used to fit a 3rd HS. Which makes the abso not only a better dps ship, but also still a superior tank. Your turn. Stupid forums have evaporated my post. Anyway, where does this 3.6% come from? Just dividing X by Y is invalid since these figures come with different ranges. As I said, start comparing something comparable. 490 DPS for abso at 19 km 555 DPS for astarte at the same range 13.2 % increment. Dragging in extra low of Abso is invalid since it's there for a reason. Astarte has got an extra mid and extra 25m3 dronespace. By all means, boost rails even further. After they fix current volley damage of arties it will make sense to use rails and nothing else. Division is a commonly accepted mathematical function often used to derive percentages. Congratulations on getting that far. 555/490 is a 13.3% better level of dps achieved by using 7/6 guns which is a 16.7% level of additional firepower. So even at your chosen level of combat the rails are underperforming the lasers by (572-555) 18dps on a ship dedicated to damage, with a range bonus and at the range chosen by you to show how good they are. Now please also tell me why you're discussing 19km ranges for these ships? Is it because the apparent window of rail superiority (which maths proves to be otherwise) is so small ? Also at that range the abso would be pulse fitted anyway, so the whole argument is pointless. As for ignoring the extra gun required to reach this level of performance that is rather idiotic, as it still clearly demonstrates that rails outshine nothing and underperform in almost ever area.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.10 19:55:00 - [17] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: It's 'outperfomed' merely cause of ROF bonus, which inreases cap consumption by 33%. It's idiotic to ignore different bonuses Abso and Astate receive. We can discuss any range up to 80 km or w/e. The thing is, you can not ignore range superioirty, otherwise let's pull out blasters and they say they're fine cause they deal a crapload of damage. A straight comparison between rails and beams show that rails are already ahead. As I said, use a typical pair of bonuses - that is cap usage and damage ones. Wanna compare Brutix vs Prophecy? Yet another pair of ships? It doesn't matter what ships you fit them too, rails will underperform. I showed it with your chosen zealot/deimos pairing. I showed it with your chosen absolution/astarte pairing AT the range you specifically chose. Twice you've asserted something untrue. Twice you've been shown clearly where the error lies. This won't change because you pick another set of ships because the guns themselves still remain unbalanced.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.17 22:13:00 - [18] - Quote 1Drake112715 2Hurricane61620 3Abaddon40951 4Tengu29786 5Tornado22717 6Maelstrom22443 7Armageddon18986 8Scimitar16075 9Tempest15259 10Sabre13866 11Cynabal12945 12Thrasher11957 13Huginn11252 14Vagabond10721 15Rokh10221 16Loki10198 17Rapier9947 18Zealot9833 19Hound9751 20Rifter9454 1Heavy Missile Launcher II45896 2425mm AutoCannon II19316 31400mm Howitzer Artillery II12441 4Mega Pulse Laser II12010 5200mm AutoCannon II10599 6720mm Howitzer Artillery II8857 7220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II8776 8150mm Light AutoCannon II7951 9125mm Gatling AutoCannon II7303 10800mm Repeating Artillery II6860 11Heavy Pulse Laser II6736 12425mm Railgun II3338 13'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher3333 14Heavy Neutron Blaster II3297 15'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I3146 16Light Neutron Blaster II3041 17Focused Medium Pulse Laser II2490 18280mm Howitzer Artillery II2385 19Dual 180mm AutoCannon II2373 20Neutron Blaster Cannon II2345 Well apart from PL's use of the novelty rokh, still no-show for hybrid using ships, and still a complete absence of gallente hybrid ships even allowing for the use of the rokh.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.20 15:49:00 - [19] - Quote tEcHnOkRaT wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: You can not 'have it done' without addressing core issues. And if one keeps boosting hybrids mindlessly they will easily become OP after he fixes: - TE's - EHP values provided by shield extenders and plates; also base EHP values - shield extenders not imposing speed/mass penalty (which is just stupid and results in overtanked ship being as fast and agile as active tanked one - wtf) - base range of heavy missiles (80 km before any rigs - wtf) That's why I say we'd better start doing small steps in many directions rather than try achieving a mythical balance between bare weapons. - EHP values provided by shield extenders and plates; also base EHP values // what exactly is wrong with that ? - shield extenders not imposing speed/mass penalty // why should it ? its just an electromagnetic field around ur ship - base range of heavy missiles (80 km before any rigs - wtf) // flightttime, therefore alot of vasted cycles, less dps then other weaponsystems, and so on.... (have u ever even used heavy missiles ?) -EHP. I'd leave as is. It seems a lot until you fly in a fleet, and then it's not enough to prevent you being 1-volleyed. It'll never be possible to alter it to be able to suit all styles of play from solo to large fleet, so if active tanks get a bit of a tweak (where it currently makes no sense with certain ship bonuses) we have tanking for both ends of the spectrum that actually works well enough. -shield extenders shouldn't impose mass? why not? --For 'realism': Aren't they generated by massive machines you install?(Check armour repairers, armour repair rigs, etc which don't add any hp at all) Why should adding mass even slow you down in space? It just reduces acceleration, not achievable velocities. --For game play: Because it makes good sense in trying to balance the current trend for shield buffers that leave your speed unaffected and skew game play heavily away from armour being viable at the same type of game style.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.21 10:13:00 - [20] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: Adopting a fundamental rule that a heavily tanked ship (of massive EHP) is to be slow will make the game better by an order of magnitude. At the moment only overtanked armour boats are slow, while shield overtanking comes with no proper penalties (signature radius by no means is equal to the same reduction in speed). I agree with you entirely on this point. We should either have the situation where the penalty to armour rigs is changed from speed or the penalty to shield rigs is changed to speed, or they rearrange the rigs to be ehp classed for shield and armour with speed penalties / resist classed for shield and armour with sig bloom penalties / armour repairer or shield booster effectors with some other (non-speed) penalty. As for reducing ehp from current levels though - all this would do would be to broaden the effective alpha to even more weapon types than artillery. Currently artillery is the one weapon type that poses this problem for a fleet (unless numbers are so overwhelming) and as such I really don't mind it being unique. What we need are unique traits that offer advantages to the other weapon types similarly - lasers have this to a degree with instant ammo change, and also with scorch. Hybrids have no such feature and this is what rails desperately need as blasters will never ever be able to compete in large fleets from what I've seen to date.

Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2011.12.31 13:05:00 - [21] - Quote 1Drake167782 2Maelstrom146771 3Hurricane115519 4Abaddon68304 5Tengu51712 6Tornado40193 7Tempest32236 8Scimitar32090 9Armageddon31982 10Sabre26232 11Hound24679 12Cynabal22131 13Huginn21608 14Vagabond18972 15Thrasher18746 16Rapier18163 17Rifter17090 18Loki16740 19Zealot16144 20Oracle16093 1Heavy Missile Launcher II70717 21400mm Howitzer Artillery II46919 3425mm AutoCannon II36688 4Mega Pulse Laser II21519 5200mm AutoCannon II19261 6720mm Howitzer Artillery II18047 7220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II16830 8150mm Light AutoCannon II15065 91400mm Gallium Cannon14855 101400mm Prototype Siege Cannon13304 11125mm Gatling AutoCannon II12552 12800mm Repeating Artillery II11783 13Heavy Pulse Laser II11507 14'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher7557 15'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I5950 16Heavy Neutron Blaster II5754 17425mm Railgun II5397 18Light Neutron Blaster II5394 191400mm 'Scout' Artillery I5128 20'Arbalest' Cruise Launcher I4691 Latest figures. The novelty rokh has disappeared as expected and not a single hybrid using ship appears on the top 20. If anything, the hybrid using ships are going backwards in terms of representation. On the weapons list the total combined presence of rails and blasters amounts to a pathetic 4.7%.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.03 15:14:00 - [22] - Quote Bouh Revetoile wrote: Making blasterboat able to kill kiting boat would just mess up everything ; the "problem" here is that kiting boat are the hardcounter (in some way) to blaster boat. The only way to fix that is to make kiting boat very bad at what they can do which is obviously idiot. I think many people should stop thinking that blaster boat should kill vagabond or cynabal at every encounter without any sacrifice. A working blaster ship is not necessarily a vagabond or cynabal killer. Taking these extreme particular case to say that blasters dont work is idiot. The problem is that currently there is no place in large fleets for rail ships (which are out-damaged and out-alpha'd by the laser and artillery ships of the same class), no place in small gangs for fast, mobile fights for either rails (which are out damaged by the pulse/autocannon ships of the same class and out paced by the same) or blasters (which just never get into range to start with), no place in any engagement where you start a fight at over 15km with blasters(when the fight is over before you become vaguely useful). This is not an extreme case, it's every case except camping station undocks (where the gallente blasters really shine but that still leaves rails as unwanted in their entirety).
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.06 14:18:00 - [23] - Quote Well with the null change I make the ranges for the medium and large blasters to be as follows (appropriate skills at lv5 for range modifiers) without and with a single TE (to the nearest whole km); Heavy electron 9 12 Heavy ion 12 15 Heavy neutron 15 19 Electron cannon 19 23 Ion cannon 25 30 Neutron cannon 30 37 So close to removing the biggest bug bear - namely being kited at scram range without any reasonable chance to do much to escape. It'd be a shame if TE's became the new mwd and were a compulsory fit for every ship - pretty soon we might as well have it all hardwired into the ship if that becomes a trend :) .I have no issues at all with large blasters set at this level personally, but think the mediums could do with an extra 1.5km as their base, just to get everything into the scram range limit for being able to respond in some way. I guess the guns themselves would require that tweak, rather than the ammo. Alternatively the 50% boost would work, but then that might be too much for the large guns.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.07 16:45:00 - [24] - Quote Well with the null change I make the ranges for the medium and large blasters to be as follows (appropriate skills at lv5 for range modifiers) without and with a single TE (to the nearest whole km); Heavy electron 9 12 Heavy ion 12 15 Heavy neutron 15 19 Electron cannon 19 23 Ion cannon 25 30 Neutron cannon 30 37 So close to removing the biggest bug bear - namely being kited at scram range without any reasonable chance to do much to escape. It'd be a shame if TE's became the new mwd and were a compulsory fit for every ship - pretty soon we might as well have it all hardwired into the ship if that becomes a trend :) .I have no issues at all with large blasters set at this level personally, but think the mediums could do with an extra 1.5km as their base, just to get everything into the scram range limit for being able to respond in some way. I guess the guns themselves would require that tweak, rather than the ammo. Alternatively the 50% boost would work, but then that might be too much for the large guns. Of course, this only applies to t2 guns if it's adjustment by ammo, so every T1 and faction blaster will still be the current flavour of crap.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.08 00:40:00 - [25] - Quote thoth rothschild wrote: above numbers are still not correct! recalculate plz. optimal from 1.25 => 1.40 falloff from 1.25 => 1.40 For Example base of heavy neutron blaster with 0 % bonus ammo 9 km optimal 13 km falloff with the NEW null ammo it gets to 12.6 km optimal 18.2 km falloff with 1 TE 14 km optimal 22.4 km falloff Not sure where your figures are coming from, but mine are from in game and correct as far as I can tell.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.08 10:51:00 - [26] - Quote Archare wrote: Nikuno wrote: thoth rothschild wrote: above numbers are still not correct! recalculate plz. optimal from 1.25 => 1.40 falloff from 1.25 => 1.40 For Example base of heavy neutron blaster with 0 % bonus ammo 9 km optimal 13 km falloff with the NEW null ammo it gets to 12.6 km optimal 18.2 km falloff with 1 TE 14 km optimal 22.4 km falloff Not sure where your figures are coming from, but mine are from in game and correct as far as I can tell. Figures Good, your figures and mine match. Not sure what figures Thoth was looking at. So the point remains, this makes large blasters workable, medium T2s almost there if there's a slight tweak, and every other blaster other than T2 (including faction) still pretty crappy. I suggest that T1 ammo also requires adjustment if this isn't what you're aiming to achieve. Perhaps alter T1 ammo bonuses to affect both optimal and falloff and alter the numbers to make it work. Null will still enjoy the advantage of damage superior to everything longer range than lead.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.08 17:29:00 - [27] - Quote tEcHnOkRaT wrote: Hamox wrote: tEcHnOkRaT wrote: projektiles where crap before 2007 now they are overpowered what does it tell u ?? That Hybrids will be overpowered 2017? i was hoping to say that huge changes can be made any time in mmos. and i dont wont hybrids to be overpowered just equal with less then 5% diference in performance compared to other guns. thats balance what we have now are huge jumps between them I prefer balance to be that all weapon systems have something unique but equally desirable according to circumstances AND every ship in a given class should have an option to be able to defend itself. Being able to pin someone at a range (outside of specialist ships for the purpose) whilst able to shoot them and not be shot in return is the major imbalance for blasters. Rails have no unique desirable feature.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.09 20:00:00 - [28] - Quote Another week or so gone, new figures; 1Maelstrom57868 2Drake42169 3Hurricane34209 4Tengu25683 5Abaddon23004 6Tornado14330 7Tempest11939 8Scimitar10217 9Sabre8760 10Armageddon7463 11Zealot6618 12Huginn6565 13Cynabal6272 14Manticore6188 15Scorpion6167 16Hound6041 17Rapier5998 18Vagabond5694 19Nyx5659 20Oracle5401 1Heavy Missile Launcher II23039 21400mm Howitzer Artillery II15437 3425mm AutoCannon II11905 4Mega Pulse Laser II9333 5200mm AutoCannon II6178 6220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II5194 7150mm Light AutoCannon II5142 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II4900 9720mm Howitzer Artillery II4604 10800mm Repeating Artillery II4417 11Heavy Pulse Laser II3508 121400mm Gallium Cannon3371 13'Arbalest' Siege Missile Launcher3283 141400mm Prototype Siege Cannon3101 15425mm Railgun II1866 16Light Neutron Blaster II1799 17Citadel Torpedo Launcher I1653 18Ion Siege Blaster Cannon I1563 19Neutron Blaster Cannon II1552 20Mega Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I1527 No hybrid using ships, 5.9% of weapons are hybrids. Still dreadful.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.10 11:26:00 - [29] - Quote Jaigar wrote: Nikuno wrote: No hybrid using ships, 5.9% of weapons are hybrids. Still dreadful. Just going to state, you can't determine if something is balanced based on popularity. People are already trained for Maelstroms, Baddons, and Drakes, and the blobfests aren't going to change fleet doctrine unless its to something more powerful. So, following your logic, people trained for Maelstroms, Abaddons and Drakes for some random reason that had nothing to do with their being more useful/powerful/successful and it was pure coincidence that they just turned out to be so wonderfully good? People train for them because they're the best, because if they train gallente/hybrid equivalents then they don't get into fleets. Your logic isn't even circular, it just springs from nowhere on a passing lack of thought ! As for recons, the gallente recons are fine if you want to use warp disruptors/scramblers, but the sensor dampeners continue to linger in the realm of almost pointless compared to their ecm counterparts. And while we're at it I might as well get the full set and also point out, yet again, that information warfare links are utterly abysmal and should be replaced with something people could actually make use of, or at the very least the bonuses should be reviewed. Even the sensor integrity link on an Eos with a mindlink gives a bonus that scrapes a pathetic percentage of the effectiveness of the eccm mods, whilst a passive armour/shield resist link will give bonuses close to or exceeding their BEST faction mods. And don't even get me started on skirmish mods and their bonuses ! Come on CCP, it's another thing that has been broken for years, in the light of your current aim of fixing broken content - when will this be looked at !
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.20 11:23:00 - [30] - Quote You know, after all these pages the I believe the biggest problem with rails and blasters stems from CCP's initial decision to give the same weapon systems to 2 different races with different bonus regimes. If you increase range to make gal work, for example, then the Cal ships become too powerful; Change the tracking and the reverse happens with Gal becoming too powerful. Doesn't matter what you change, one side or the other will be too strong or too weak accordingly. I think that CCP would have to fundamentally break this link between the weapons and the 2 races bonus structure or make both the same to allow balancing to be truly effective, but I honestly can't see that happen. I'm becoming resigned to treating rails as useless and blasters as niche.

Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.21 09:44:00 - [31] - Quote Hamox wrote: Magosian wrote: BAD THINGS: There has been no recent communication from CCP in this thread. The aforementioned Null changes have made it to SiSi, and while these changes look promising, there was no dev-to-player discussion about it at all. In fact, there has been NO discussion between devs and players about the proposed evolution of hybrid buffs since mid-December. The "NeXGate" Scandal and its subsequent and apologetic letter from CCP CEO clearly mentioned lack of communication was the core issue which caused a fissure to expand between the playerbase and CCP. I don't understand how something which happened so recently seems to have already been forgotten...[/b][/u][/list] The GOOD thing is: We now know definitely that mentioned letter just was *marketing blablah*! Not entirely true. Take CCP Ytterbium for example - he manages to take the time to respond in those threads where he has oversight of the task in hand. This seems to be a problem with CCP Tallest - he is ridiculously bad at communicating. At the very least, if he can't bear to talk with us he should have someone else do it for him. His behaviour in this regard is appalling.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.22 19:29:00 - [32] - Quote http://killboard.the-godfathers.com/index.php/kill_detail/180828/ Nice to see someone decided to try a thorax fleet. We engaged at zero on a gate, we were all arty/beam fit. Sad thing isn't the outcome, which was a bit lopsided, but that only half of these guys even considered it worth fitting hybrids to their ships. The rest felt that projectiles would obviously be better - and if that doesn't say something about the state of hybrids then nothing does
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.22 21:55:00 - [33] - Quote thoth rothschild wrote: thorax , thorax thorax.... mcum.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&adjacent&kll_id=12209821 lol, so you met some of these delusional fools too? I have no idea why anyone suddenly thought a thorax was a viable fleet ship - must have been reading and believing CCP's propaganda
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.23 10:23:00 - [34] - Quote MeBiatch wrote: Nikuno wrote: thoth rothschild wrote: thorax , thorax thorax.... mcum.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&adjacent&kll_id=12209821 lol, so you met some of these delusional fools too? I have no idea why anyone suddenly thought a thorax was a viable fleet ship - must have been reading and believing CCP's propaganda i would have liked to see those thorax with 250's with jav in with te's and shield extender with shield rigs... with a nano on for ***** with vespa ecm drones... might have been a diff fight... But this is where you miss the point - the vast majority of the players in Eve know that hybrids don't work and so they look for every other possibility and that inevitably brings them back to how ridiculously good projectiles are. So we get projrctiles on Myrmidons, projectiles on Feroxes, projectiles on Abaddons, projectiles in every damned place they shouldn't be !! Make projectiles use cap. One small change. Then things would change; but as it stands right now any weapon system that has every advantage possible in-game will always be chosen over it's rivals, and this is what you see in practice. Best weapons on the best ships, and everything else becomes redundant. If it wasn't for scorch, and scorch alone, even lasers wouldn't be used.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.01.31 11:14:00 - [35] - Quote Galphii wrote: Tallest said a while back that the devs have been, and continue to read the forum, but as we don't work at CCP I'm sure they take all this under advisement. Less communications means they're probably working hard on implementing fixes, so I counsel patience. Here's another way of looking at the hybrid problem, comparing them to turrets from other races: Projectiles: * No cap use * Variable damage type, * Good falloff range for AC's * Excellent alpha for arty. * Reload time of 10 seconds Lasers: * Substantial cap use * Locked into EM/therm damage * Excellent optimal for pulse * Good range for beam lasers, as well as ROF. * No reloading time Hybrids should fit into the middle of this equation: * Low cap use (check!) * Optimal sub-laser, falloff sub-projectile; combined sub-both (unless Caldari boat, then damage sub-both) * Railguns should be in between beam lasers and artillery in terms of ROF and alpha. Where does it state that rails should again be mediocre? * Reduce the granularity of range options for hybrid ammo, and give the option for 80/20, 50/50 and 20/80 on kinetic/thermal damage as was mentioned previous in this thread, thus providing some damage variation. * Reloading time is 5 seconds, a good middle-ground. (check!) * Null ammo would be range-nerfed to keep its current range based on the new baseline range for hybrid ammo. I don't think armour plates or rigs should be touched, as 'fixing' them for Gallente also benefits Amarr, and they're working pretty well at the moment. Just my 2 cents. Peace. Tweaked your post. Given the massive predominance of Minmatar ships, I have no objection to Amarr ships getting a little love as part of a rig change. Ideally all 4 races should have something to offer a fleet. If that meant Gallente excelled at frigate level action, while Minmatar dominated battlecruiser levels, Amarr dominated medium range BS levels and Caldari dominated long range BS levels, then at least we'd have variety. All races should have valid T2 variations at all levels. Close range BS are unlikely to make much of a return in force any time soon simply because of the overwhelming advantage of going for the mid ranged option with BS being so slow.
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.02.03 14:39:00 - [36] - Quote http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=3407 Interesting stats there from CCP. Highest production for frigate? Minmatar > Caldari Highest production for destroyer? Minmatar > Gallente Highest production for cruiser? Minmatar > Caldari Highest production for battlecruiser? Caldari > Minmatar Highest production for battleship? Minmatar > Amarr If production figures combined with killboard stats of - RankShipsKills 1Drake12681 2Hurricane7160 3Oracle5858 4Maelstrom5741 5Tengu5374 6Tornado5336 7Sabre2322 8Naga1952 9Cynabal1825 10Abaddon1824 11Scimitar1788 12Rokh1652 13Rifter1636 14Hound1626 15Thrasher1578 16Manticore1444 17Sleipnir1376 18Rapier1335 19Capsule1308 20Vagabond1269 - don't point convincingly to an overpowered Minmatar problem then I really have no idea what people require to comprehend this. If you combine the production ratios with the destroyed ratios from the stat devblog then you'll also notice that not only are Minmatar ships outproducing Gallente, but they're out-surviving them too by a hefty margin, close to 50% better survivability on those stats. So, tl;dr - Gallente kill less than Minmatar, die more often than Minmatar, and consequently are produced less presumably due to lack of popularity through their many and continuing failings. If the players see this, why doesn't CCP? Or if CCP does see this why hasn't Tallest communicated how he sees this being resolved?
Nikuno Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers 45	Posted - 2012.02.03 17:20:00 - [37] - Quote Right now I'd say give medium blasters a base 1.5km optimal boost and blasters are sorted. The ships are still an issue for time-to-target and I still think that a combination of tweaking ship speed/agility a little more and/or changing the penalty to armour rigs is the way to address this. I still think rails, large and medium, are languishing - I also believe that the mistake of giving these to caldari and gallente with contrasting bonuses will continue to render them ineffective.

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.