Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 66 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Imawuss
United Atheist League
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 20:41:00 -
[31] - Quote
Performance issues aside, Why do Hybrids have no inert advantages like missiles, lasers, and projectiles have?
MIssiles: no cap, pick damage type Lasers: insta load ammo, pick ammo range and actually use it because of instant loading ammo. Projectiles: no Cap, can pick damage type, can pick ammo range (to an extent, has load time)
Hybrids: can pick range but cant take advantage because of 10 second load time. But they also use cap, stuck to therm, kin damage, and extremely short range. all this for an extra 17% damage over lasers and 27% over projectiles (but only up to 10km..)
Really Hybrids need an inert advantage, then they need all the other stuff. |
Shanlara
IDDQD Industry
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 20:45:00 -
[32] - Quote
Mariner6 wrote:So that's my piece of advice that will absolutely get ignored and probably trolled.
We better not let that happen, ccp please take a look a this guys contribution, he points out all the good points, that really need to be taken a look at, fixing hybrids will be a bigger work then just fixing afew stats here and there, they been left alone for so long that it'll take a bit of work getting them back on track now. |
Imawuss
United Atheist League
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:03:00 -
[33] - Quote
Also having an offensive weapon system using cap combined with ship bonuses that give advantages to active tanking seems odd. Perhaps change the 7.5% armor rep amount to a 5% armor hp amount per level which at level 5 would be equal to about 3 trimarks (give or take). This would allow Gallente to use DPS rigs instead of trimarks so we are not gimping our speed for tank and we can get the DPS boost we want.
Also would love to see a 50% boost to damage and 30% reduction in RoF like others have suggested giving a 10% overall boost to DPS but also would slightly lower cap use as well.
|
Holy Cheater
Monks of War DarkSide.
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:07:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Greetings
Please post your feedback about hybrid turret balancing in this thread.
Thanks. Your Tallest. No offense, but in my opinion you got it all wrong.
The proposed changes won't do much good for blaster boats. They do not have significant difference in speed or damage. But they do lack firing range. How do one supposed to get in range of blasters to make some damage before destruction?
Okay, blasters are very short range weapons, blaster boats risk themselves by getting in this range. But is it worth the risk? It takes time while you catching someone and there's a chance you won't catch anybody. And if you do - you make damage which can't be exactly described as devastating.
And now compare it to the minmatar autocannon boats. You choose the damage type, you make some distance between you and your target, you can outrun your enemies.
Also, armor tanking and blasters do not fit for each other. It takes precious slots for damage mods, it further reduces your speed making it harder to make the damage which is not worth the risk. Take an autocannon-boat, you wouldn't risk a thing and still kill your target.
So blaster boats needs something which would make them worth of flying. Whether the change would be increasing damage/shipspeed, increasing firing range, changing tanktype from armor to shield or even maybe make some unique properties which would allow them to escape their enemies from short range distances - the change is needed. |
Dare Devel
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
In test server
8x 425 mm Railgun II 4x Mag Stab Javelin L - DPS = 689 Optimal- 27 KM / Falloff-28.8 KM / Tracking-0.015
CN Animatar L - DPS = 679 Optimal- 54 KM / Falloff-28.8 KM / Tracking-0.012
Defence 111k EHP (2x Large Shield Extd, 2x Invul t2, 1x DC, 3x Core Def Shield Extend 1)
DPS wise this is fail. BCs can do better damage.
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:22:00 -
[36] - Quote
Hello Tallest,
As you canGÇÖt yet tinker with ships/bonuses a'la 'Gallente MkII' () IGÇÖll be a succinct as possible with thoughts regarding blasters:
1.Try iterating the tracking boost between values 20 % and 50% while nerfing the tracking on Null correspondingly.
2.Iterate the overload bonus from 15% to values between 30-50% (30% represents parity with an overloaded armour repairer).
3.Reduced fitting has slightly helped in opening up a couple more possible fits.
4.Cap usage GÇô cap injectors still mandatory on the larger boats, but this does help the die-most and Thorax. Has nicely balanced out the cap usage on the Moros meaning you can actually take advantage of that ROF bonus.
5.Agility/speed changes are somewhat noticeable; 2 MWD cycles to get up to -+ speed in my Megathron, albeit still far slower than back in its prime. War-Machine |
Narjack
CragCO
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:41:00 -
[37] - Quote
Well, lets see, Yes Tallest they are better. But nothing really game changing. Don't see anything here that would even come close to enticing me really focus on these guns vice the other options out there. Still just too many draw backs on the rails vice arty and torps. The blasters? Well, again, they are a bit better, but again, no way I'd stick my neck out in a fight with these. Which frankly is fine by me. I enjoy seeing Gallente ships die. I'm just fine with missiles. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 21:50:00 -
[38] - Quote
Much of what Mariner6 said earlier i do approve of.
Gallente Blaster boats commit 100% so yes they fight in scram/web/neut range. Because of this Gallente Blaster boats need to be made of sturdier stuff than they are now. Boost armor RESISTS! not HP amount as that will affect performance. The Drake is a tech1 BC yet it has 5% to all Shield resists per lvl. Apply some of the same thoughts to gallente boats.
Also im unsure of this but i believe gallente ships should have either a buff to cap capacity or a buff to cap regen to make them more resilient in neut range compared to other platforms. Making hybrids less cap intensive is a buff to all ships that want to use hybrids. Gallente ships should be built to withstand the cap intensive nature of hybrids a LOT more than other ships!
Also T2 Hybrid ammos need more love as been said previously! Hail defintiely needs a 50% to optimal and falloff. Void still needs a damage bonus more than it has so far.
in general Gallente's secondary bonuses should be considered to be web range if anything, for example 10% per lvl to range, NOT to velocity factor! even with a domination web ur not getting to max t2 point range and ur not encroaching on rapiers range territory. Yet it WILL actually bring some level of catch it kill it to gallente design. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 22:04:00 -
[39] - Quote
New hybrid changes are great - still got more to work on though...
Rigs?
Hybrid guns?
- Proposed alterations sounds good, however I would make sure the new fittings doesn't lead to extinction of smaller tier hybrids. Perhaps make sure the tracking beats the bigger tiers a lot to make them attractive. Low tier guns have been neglected for like forever..
Hybrid ammo
- Nobody will ever change ammo in pvp more than once with the current often useless hybrid ammo. Consider dropping hybrid reload time from 10 to 5 secs and people might consider it.
- Change attributes on ammo to have 1 short range, 1 mid range and 1 long range. Each having 3 variants of damage distribution (20/80, 50/50 and 80/20 therm/kinetic - maybe change 50/50 to include 3rd damage type if it doesn't break anything)
- Forget penalties for T2 ammo.
- Reduce charge size plz...
Ship stats
- Give the Gallente blaster ships a signature buff on top of the other changes. Taking longer for others to lock them up they should have a few more seconds to catch targets, a few more seconds without taking damage and they should be able to avoid more dps at least from bigger weapons. Thisalong with the changes should be more than enough to compete with Minmawinners.
Ship bonus
- The hybrid buff alone will never make ships like the Moa, Ferox and Rokh work well. Explanations are many but in short pvp today makes it very, very difficult to obtain any advantage from having an optimal bonus. Even making it a optimal+fall-off bonus won't cut it. The shield based hybrid ships need an extra medslot (for a hi/lowslot) making them able to either tank longer as compensation to their missing damage bonus or using tracking computers or webifiers to avoid getting roflstomped completely by anything solo, in groups or in fleets.
It is my sincere opinion that Hybrid ships need more medslots than a missile ship of the same class to work effeciently and it might be exactly what it takes to get Railguns back in fleets while making the Ferox and Moa work for PvP without gimping their tanks while they do less dps from the start...
Pinky |
Bhaal Chinnian
Hedion University Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 22:22:00 -
[40] - Quote
1) TY for reducing the charge size \0/ 80 large void per gun is nice. 2) maybe reduce the reload time to 5 secs(or none at all)? 3) maybe buff the damage on void & null slightly(yes, I know it has been, but blasters should do epic short range damage hello)
Off topic regarding the Talos----> maybe decrease the cpu requirement slightly.
My sisi initial Talos fit :8 large T2 neutrons, 2 T2 Webs, 1 meta 4 mwd, 1 TC2, 1 DC2, 2 T2 EANMs, 1 1600mm plate, 1 Reactive plating left me with just 1 cpu left \0/ nice and tight! :) |
|
Spartan dax
0utbreak Outbreak.
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 23:51:00 -
[41] - Quote
Regarding Rails. Atm They're just Beams light with no real GameGäó application. Beams do way more dps with short range ammo and ties or surpasses them at 100-120k which would be a range where you'd expect Rails to surpass their beam equivalents. The tracking argument is kinda moot as Beams can switch instantly to high tracking ammo. Combine this with the scripted Tracking computers and you'll end up in a situation where beams always outdps or outracks their Railgun counterparts.
The Fix. (which will work for blasters as well)
Non range related damage ammo. IE Antimatter has the same damage as Iron. We give Antimatter the 1.2 tracking modifier instead of boosting blaster tracking by 20% and work our way downwards as we go further out in range. All of a sudden we have Railships with anemic shortramge damage compared to beams but vastly improved dps at range.
Also have a look at tracking computers, they've been unneccesarily nerfed with the scripts. |
Dare Devel
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 23:56:00 -
[42] - Quote
I am flying the ROKH with blasters and rails in the test server testing on different fits and engaging different battleships (mostly MACHs and Nightmares) After losing about 15 ships (in test server) I made following observations.
1) ROKH with Rails: I tried to keep range with my MWD (1 Cycle) used Javelin L with T2 425MM) *I lost a lot of cap so I had to shut down my MWD and I got caught up. There after the opponent scrammed me with a faction scram (15km) and orbit me at 15 km with 225m/s speed. I could not break away. Opp was hitting me for 1000 - 1800HP and I was hitting for 200-800HP. My med slot had 4tank mods, 1 MWD and 1 Sebo.
Final conclusion: For PvP I will never use Rails.
2) Rokh with Blasters: I used various fits. Med slot distribution was 4 tank mods, 1 web and 1 Prop. I failed massively where my prop mod was MWD. My biggest problem was when I was chasing the Opp with MWD ON, I was getting neuted. Few occasions my gun shut down because I could not break away sooner. Blaster damage was between 1000-2000HP per volley. I tried overloading MWD but to reach full speed it would take about 20 secs+. By that time my cap would be less than half.
3) Finally I tried the following fit.
Rokh=New Brawler rig slot 0 type=Large Hybrid Ambit Extension I rig slot 1 type=Large Hybrid Ambit Extension I rig slot 2 type=Large Core Defence Field Extender I med slot 0 type=Stasis Webifier II med slot 1 type=Large Shield Extender II med slot 2 type=Large Shield Extender II med slot 3 type=Invulnerability Field II med slot 4 type=Invulnerability Field II med slot 5 type=100MN Afterburner II low slot 0 type=Magnetic Field Stabilizer II low slot 1 type=Magnetic Field Stabilizer II low slot 2 type=Magnetic Field Stabilizer II low slot 3 type=Tracking Enhancer II low slot 4 type=Damage Control II hi slot 0 type=Neutron Blaster Cannon II hi slot 1 type=Neutron Blaster Cannon II hi slot 2 type=Neutron Blaster Cannon II hi slot 3 type=Neutron Blaster Cannon II hi slot 4 type=Neutron Blaster Cannon II hi slot 5 type=Neutron Blaster Cannon II hi slot 6 type=Neutron Blaster Cannon II hi slot 7 type=Neutron Blaster Cannon II qty=4 slot=drone bay type=Warrior II qty=1 slot=drone bay type=Berserker TP-900 AMMO CN Antimatar and NULL I constantly chased the Opp with AB on. My rigs + Ship Bonus + 1x TE gave me 7.76 KM optimal and 19KM Falloff. My volley was between 1250 to 2200HP. The drone gave me an advantage by extra webbing. The Opp just MWDed to 50 KM and killed the drones with his gun and warped out. The Opp was in a Mach. In the above fit I observed that while I was unsettling Opp's orbit range I was not able to catch it. I have to lose a tank mod fit a scram and shut down Opp's MWD. Even if I would web the Opp, it could easily wriggle out of heated range of 13km.
My gun range was my biggest problem. At 17KM + the volley damage would fall drastically to 200-600HP even if we are flying in one straight line.
Final conclusion: A fitted ROKH would cost me 220Mill ISK. Losing it in a battle would be 90% probability. So I will never bring it to a battle. I have already trained Amarr Cruiser LvL 5 and Logi 5. I will happly fly a gaurdian supporting a Abbadon fleet that is at least twice better in value than the ROKH.
|
Demon Azrakel
Defiant.. Narwhals Ate My Duck
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 00:06:00 -
[43] - Quote
The Dread Blaster Changes were unnecessary. The whole balancing factor for that huge DPS buff was going to be the capacitor usage. Now, the Moros is actually somewhat OP. Dread Rails may actually need a nerf to bring them into line with other weapons. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 00:25:00 -
[44] - Quote
Just took a Deimos out for spin without plate and armour was about 1740m/s with 2450m/s overheat speed. Fitting Neutrons still seems really tight and I have max fitting skills I always thought that I would still need an ACR with a repper in the lows but still cannot T2 the microwarpdrive, just need a tiny amount more grid.
Was the full 12% reduction applied?
Cap life looks a lot better now.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 00:52:00 -
[45] - Quote
I'm telling you the shield tanking hybrid ships (Moa, Ferox, Rokh) need an extra medslot to make the optimal bonus work... |
Kietay Ayari
Monopoly Money Operations
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 00:56:00 -
[46] - Quote
D: Range bonus on a weapon system that can already not take advantage of it's range. If one thing changes please give Caldari hybrid platforms a different bonus than range :D Ferox #1 |
Bomberlocks
CTRL-Q
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 01:30:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dare Devel wrote:I am flying the ROKH with blasters and rails in the test server testing on different fits and engaging different battleships (mostly MACHs and Nightmares) After losing about 15 ships (in test server) I made following observations. ....
I see where the problem is. |
Tantabobo
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 01:42:00 -
[48] - Quote
While I agree that blasters/gallente ships could use a buff. Please don't remove the flavor of the gallente ships. The armor repair bonus on them is awesome in many situations (especially solo pvp). |
Bomberlocks
CTRL-Q
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 03:08:00 -
[49] - Quote
Tallest, may I suggest that you tweak Tracking Computers or consider the introduction of a Federation Navy Tracking Enhancer that specifically caters to Blasters? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
101
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 03:12:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tantabobo wrote:While I agree that blasters/gallente ships could use a buff. Please don't remove the flavor of the gallente ships. The armor repair bonus on them is awesome in many situations (especially solo pvp).
you dont have to get rid of it all you have to do is make it so it affects incomming RR... that way the bonus is usefull for fleet warfare... |
|
Kale Eledar
Mining and Industrial Services The Irukandji
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 03:46:00 -
[51] - Quote
I'm in favor of a more drastic boost to dps. I think that there's nothing wrong with Blasters outperforming EVERY. OTHER. TURRET. TYPE. at their range, which is extremely close. I'd say up to a 50% buff of damage would make blasters match their in game description.
That being said, I'm sure it's a dumb idea, but: How about a module that acts like a tractor beam on ships, pulling them into blaster range? It would have to be cap heavy or have a large drawback in order to not make it OP. Unfortunately, things that affect other ships like that seem to lean more towards a specialized, T2 role or module.
|
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
257
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 04:04:00 -
[52] - Quote
Some thoughts from 6 hours on the test server today...
Blasters: Increase the tracking boost from 20% to between 40% and 50%. Increase the drone bay of all blaster orientated ships by 25m3 including the Talos. Why? Surviviblity through utility drones will improve the risk vs reward ratio most pilots asses when choosing a tool for the job.
Rails: Javelin should be the only t2 ammo with a tracking increase (again, it should be 40% at current optimal, or 20% at antimatter optimal with increased cap usage) VERY IMPORTANT! - Quake needs to be changed so that it has -30-50% fall off. The current tornado has 125km fall off with Quake, combined with a 25% tracking speed is nuts! I've said this before and I'll say it again... T2 ammo should accentuate the differences between the races, instead of homogenising them. - Quake - 25% increase to Artillery alpha, 5% Less damage than RF EMP and 33% less range and fall off. - Gleam - Increases damage - 15% more damage than Navy Multifreqency and 33% less tracking and 33% less optimal range. - Javelin - Increases tracking by 50% - 5% Less damage than CN Antimatter and 50% increased capacitor usage.
For the benefit of Rails, I still recommend increasing the base damage of of spike by 25% - Why? Rails should = high dps, and high range. As it stands, tachyons out damage rails at almost all ranges when a damage bonus is applied. Not good enough.
Eos and Astarte should switch roles.
Myrmidon should lose turrets, grid , again drones, be less like the vexor, and more like the really fun ship people flew back when gallente was still cool....
Hyperion should be completely re-tasked. Even mission runners don't make use of it's tanking bonus. New slots, new bonuses (ewar boat perhaps to deal with the new BC's?) - I personally think the megathron with the current changes (mostly power grid increases) and speed, is fine, although a little extra speed via rig penalty change wouldn't go amiss)
Deimos probably either needs to be a nano boat, ehp brick or have a substancial DPS increase - the fundamental problem with it is survivability, HAC's are too expensive to be risked for so little gain in those point blank situations.
The Talos needs drones, extra CPU for most rail fits. It's also currently un-usable with blasters. (mostly due to it's the speed/ehp coefficient) and it's tenancy to be two volleyed by Tornados... Using quake.
Could you maybe decrease the powergrid usage of medium and large electron blasters and lower tier rails by another 5% please? Would make various fits (ishtar, Phobos, Proteus, Deimos, thorax, talos, domi) that currently use autocannons not need to use autocannons any more. Alternatively, could you look at a 5% PG increase on those ships?
The moros is very much OP in it's current config. Best dread at every range, due to the way the fall off mechanic works.
Tomorrow i'll be looking more at the Caldari side of things although I don't really think much has changed. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Kale Eledar
Mining and Industrial Services The Irukandji
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 04:15:00 -
[53] - Quote
Interesting ideas, but I'd love to keep the Hyperion as a dedicated blaster boat.
Only one that isn't an odd bird that everyone hates flying because it's bad at what it's supposed to be good at. |
Anikan Fernardo
CAPTAIN BLACKS ORE BRAGADE
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 05:59:00 -
[54] - Quote
I'm going to agree with the people saying " Lower ROF and then increase Damage ". It solves several problems at once, chiefly, having to carry tons of ammo wasting valuable space that could be used for cap boosters, as well as lowering the need of said cap boosters since we aren't chucking all of our cap at the enemy with our insane ROF. |
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis
287
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 06:09:00 -
[55] - Quote
As I have said before the design in itself is flawed. Unless CCP is willing to redesign hybrids and Gallente ships from the ground up or making every kind of gun similar to each other we'll never get anywhere. |
Party Lips
Blackened Skies
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 06:39:00 -
[56] - Quote
blasters need more dps.
what are rail guns for again? |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
164
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 07:06:00 -
[57] - Quote
Have you ever thought about just having a racial fitting bonus system?
Like every minmatar ship gets 25% less pg to fit Speed mods
all gallente ships get 25% less mass from armor rigs?
caladri get 25% less CPU for fitting shield resistance mods
Ammar get 25% less cpu when fitting cap mods? |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
164
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 07:20:00 -
[58] - Quote
Pinky Denmark hit this one the head.
Gallente ships should have a built in obvious advantage when it comes to lock times. Without lowering the sig radius of those ships, since that is minmatars big advantage.
If it took them 25-50% longer to lock, then they would have a much better time getting into range. |
Gilbaron
The Scope Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 07:43:00 -
[59] - Quote
after doing some rough math and a lot of reading on different eve forums:
im not sure if damage is ok now, due to the massive problems of bringing armor tanks to close range you should consider something more: (for blasterships only, im not really sure whether railguns need additional fixing !)
cruiser, battlecruiser and battleships still wont be able to get in range of a moving enemy
consider some of the following (shamelessly stolen from various boards, im not (always) the guy with the idea !)
- reduce minimum range required to enter warp, also reduce cap required to enter warp (based on C/BS/BC skill) - a massive speed bonus to MWDs + a massive gain of mass when using an MWD so only flying in a direct line is possible to intercept orbiting enemys, also reduce the time it needs to turn a ship in a specific direction (inertia modifier ?) - in combination with blasters some gallente ships are able to fit a new kind of MWD which can be activated for a specifc amount of seconds and has a cooldown after each activation, cooldown and cap use based on C/BS/BC skill, also to intercept orbiting ships - consider changing the reload time for blasters, 10 seconds is just to much, 5 might be more suitable due to the small frames in which the available ammo is usefull - a different and interresting approach would be changing the ammo feed: ammo for blasters is given out in ammo belts, the pilot can choose which belt will be emptied next -- 20 shots in blaster, automatic refill from one stack in cargo belt my english sucks so i made a picture to explain better
the promised new EWAR drones could also add some interresting tactical maneuvers, im thinking about web/scrambling drones here |
Dare Devel
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 08:27:00 -
[60] - Quote
Some more test stuff after extensive testing. Ship - ROKH From a dead stop position to turn and align full speed with AB II on reaching 90% @ 280m/s 45 secs From full aligned to turn and align full speed with AB II on reaching 90% @ 280m/s 49sec From full aligned to turn around warp out 35 secs
I think with a blaster platform, we have to forget about breaking away once we commit. We either win or lose. Chasing is out of question. But with the following fit if I tackled something then it stays tackled. MWD can be shut with a scram therefore AB II may be the choice. Tank 81K EHP. I used following fit, High
8x Neutron II
Med slot
1x Photon II 1x Invul II 2x Statis Web II 1x Scram 1x AB II
Low SLot
3x Mag Stab 1x Tracking II DC II
Rigs
2x Hybrid Metastasis ADjuster I (tracking bonus) 1x Thermal Resist I
Drone
4x Warrior II 1x Berserker (web)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 66 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |