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) |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 22:46:00 -
[1321] - Quote
fking forum eated my post
atm blaster weapon era fine on TQ the main problem is the ships that use them, they are slow and they struggle to get in range especially when fitted with plates and trimark, many of you suggested to remove the speed penalty from armor rigs but that would also boost amarr and some minmatar ships and they dont need a boost. so my idea is to boost reiforced bulkheads, give the a +45% to ship hull hp remove all the speed/agi penalty from them and just give them a locking RANGE penalty like 7,5% per module because the engeneer have to remove some electronics for extra hull hp (this also prevents megabaits with 7 bulkheads) drop the cpu requirements to 25/30 cpu per module.
what we get in this way? all the hull tanking ships keep their original speed agility with a decent buffer tank a mega fitted with 1DC+4 bulkheads would have a speed of 1000ms (1500ms in OH) with a 130k EHP tank, 2 slot left for MFS and all the rigs slot free for hybrid rigs 1dmg rig +2 tracking rigs are easy to fit now with reduced fittings for hybrid weapons, of course repairs will be harder and costy but you will save about 40mils on rigs so its a fair tradeoff i think. in this way you can also keep gal ship fully capable to fit a armor tank if the situation need it like RR fleets but you will have a solid buffer tank for solo/small gang situations.
and if we wanna complete the job it wouldnt be a bad idea to change the 7,5% to armor rep in a + 5% hull hp |
Hamox
The Scope Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 23:22:00 -
[1322] - Quote
To mare wrote:fking forum eated my post
atm blaster weapon era fine on TQ the main problem is the ships that use them, they are slow and they struggle to get in range especially when fitted with plates and trimark, many of you suggested to remove the speed penalty from armor rigs but that would also boost amarr and some minmatar ships and they dont need a boost. so my idea is to boost reiforced bulkheads, give the a +45% to ship hull hp remove all the speed/agi penalty from them and just give them a locking RANGE penalty like 7,5% per module because the engeneer have to remove some electronics for extra hull hp (this also prevents megabaits with 7 bulkheads) drop the cpu requirements to 25/30 cpu per module.
what we get in this way? all the hull tanking ships keep their original speed agility with a decent buffer tank a mega fitted with 1DC+4 bulkheads would have a speed of 1000ms (1500ms in OH) with a 130k EHP tank, 2 slot left for MFS and all the rigs slot free for hybrid rigs 1dmg rig +2 tracking rigs are easy to fit now with reduced fittings for hybrid weapons, of course repairs will be harder and costy but you will save about 40mils on rigs so its a fair tradeoff i think. in this way you can also keep gal ship fully capable to fit a armor tank if the situation need it like RR fleets but you will have a solid buffer tank for solo/small gang situations.
and if we wanna complete the job it wouldnt be a bad idea to change the 7,5% to armor rep in a + 5% hull hp
And how do you want to bring active tankers back to live? Equip Armor and have the same old problems again or equip Hull repairs? But then you need to change the mods or some bonuses becouse at the moment Hull Repairers work very slowly. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 23:32:00 -
[1323] - Quote
active armor tanker will still be able still to tank the way they do now
active tanking is no more viable not because the modules/ships are bad but because everyone prefer to blob than give a fair fight when they might lose the ships.
if you want to bring back active tanking you have to change something in the gameplay to give more reward to solo (or very small gang) before changing modules/ships |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
856
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 02:22:00 -
[1324] - Quote
To mare wrote:if you want to bring back active tanking you have to change something in the gameplay to give more reward to solo (or very small gang) before changing modules/ships
Impossible for other purpose than gate camping, station games, PVE and the very occasional fight vs a turd or sleepy guy engaging you with a pve fit or just because it's a noob.
Has far has the game evolves, has far has the number of players evolve, the numbers game will be worst than it is right now.
Before you try to do something for active tanking you need to consider this:
-benefits of using it vs buffer: actually none unless PVE
-drawbacks: extreme cap hungry, repair amount/cycle ridiculous in an environment where the numbers game IS the way to go
You have the heaviest cap hungry repair system making your ship cap stability extremely worst than buffer -unless pve- knowing at any moment, from one second to another there where you were 1vs1 you're now 1vs at least 3 but you can expect at least double but it's too late, you're already neuted you can't repair any more, your guns can't shoot and an enormous part of your tank EHP is just gone with your empty cap.
Shield buffer is the better way to go now, because self regen, because you keep the agility and the speed, because you keep a ton crap of cap for better guns, because you can now eventually fit neuts and now you can full load your low slots of dmg mods and because shield logistics are way better than armor logistics.
I've stopped trying armor stuff once I've realised there's nothing I can do to make it better and a valid choice vs shield stuff, just like use hybrids vs projectiles, some day you need to stop trying the impossible and start having fun.
|
To mare
Advanced Technology
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 02:45:00 -
[1325] - Quote
i agree with most of the things you say but my point was still to revam hull tanking to give a alternative form of buffer tank that use low slot and add no agility/speed penality to gallente blaster ships wich is what they actually need more. if you want to revamp active tanking you have my full support but thats not the place |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 15:00:00 -
[1326] - 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? |
thoth rothschild
First Aid Emergency Service
67
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 15:22:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:Well, it's been a few days now and the latest snapshot stands like this;
How long does CCP intend to wait to identify how successful or otherwise the hybrid changes have been?
We are no longer sticky :) That should answer this question |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
7385
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 15:39:00 -
[1328] - Quote
The changes to blasters were not enough, there is still little point using them over lasers or projectiles. It's as simple as that.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis
435
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 19:30:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Typical really. We'll see in the coming weeks if all of this was just an old case of CCP fitting a damage control. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 23:47:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Mekhana wrote:Typical really. We'll see in the coming weeks if all of this was just an old case of CCP fitting a damage control.
|
|
Spugg Galdon
Callidus Temple Forsaken.Empire
117
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 11:05:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Oh well.
Never mind.
Back to using Winmatar, Drakes, and Pulse frikkin' lazors
|
Keen Fallsword
Billionaires Club BLACK-MARK
36
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 12:11:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Uhh. Is this all for Gallente Ships, Rails and Blasters ? Must be joking !!! |
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis
435
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 12:12:00 -
[1333] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:As you may have noticed, I have been afk for the last week or so. What we have now is a start. After Crucible come out, I will definitely be doing further balancing. Here are some of the things relating to hybrid ships that we will be looking further into in the coming weeks/months: .
So Tallest, have you made any progress so far? |
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
177
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 15:59:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Solinuas wrote:It seems the most preferred and said methods after reading all 66 pages are as follows
1) Gal needs to be the fastest race 2) blasters need enough DPS to make up for the net 0 of burning into range 3) blasters need an inherent advantage over other turrets that is not just superior DPS
Exactly.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who understands the demands of this thread.
More importantly, it's Crucible's lack of any of these three which explains why this thread continues to grow.
And no, I don't think hybrids need ALL of this stuff, but depending on the changes made, it might need to pull from some of it (multiple). |
Zachis
TBC
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 18:19:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Let's ask ourselves why they removed the web bonus on the Talos? Did it make the ship too effective as a blaster platform? What's the problem with Gallente having an effective blaster platform?
Bonused webs are one way to achieve effective control over combat range. Bonused webs also amount to the same thing as a straight speed boost; namely get in range and stay there. So, why not give web bonuses to blaster boats? Blaster boats should be the pinnacle of tacklers, they need the ability to effectively do what they were designed to do.
The issue with the old 90% webs wasn't that they were effective on a few ships, the issue was EVERY ship could fit them. |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
40
|
Posted - 2011.12.06 22:43:00 -
[1336] - Quote
I agree with you on that one Zachis about the 90webs were too much for every ship in game.
Thats why i'm averse to the idea of the rigs changing. I think either style of bonus for gals would be a great change. 90% webs or a armor rig bonus that removes the penalty from said rig. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
88
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 07:37:00 -
[1337] - Quote
The problem wasnt that 90% webs made the talos effective, but that the 90% web made the talos effective against small ships; small ships are supposed to be the counter to the new battlecruisers due to their use of large (poor tracking) guns, but with a 90% web, the talos could engage ships of all sizes
That being said, im not so sure that 90% webs are the answer because, when your slower than your opponents, you could have a 100% web and it still wouldnt matter because you would never get in range to use it. |
thoth rothschild
First Aid Emergency Service
67
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 10:36:00 -
[1338] - Quote
I think web strength won't help me with the range issue :p |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
199
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 10:49:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The problem wasnt that 90% webs made the talos effective, but that the 90% web made the talos effective against small ships; small ships are supposed to be the counter to the new battlecruisers due to their use of large (poor tracking) guns, but with a 90% web, the talos could engage ships of all sizes
That being said, im not so sure that 90% webs are the answer because, when your slower than your opponents, you could have a 100% web and it still wouldnt matter because you would never get in range to use it. then why the tornado is faster than the cruisers ?? |
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
29
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 12:21:00 -
[1340] - Quote
A sensible fix would be a massive increase to the agility of gallente ships. Not 5% for every hull, closer to 35%. Angel Cartel-tier.
Making blasterboats extremely maneuverable would allow them to more easily get tackle on faster ships within short range, as well as apply their dps earlier. |
|
Autonomous Monster
Paradox Interstellar
43
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 13:52:00 -
[1341] - Quote
Viribus wrote:A sensible fix would be a massive increase to the agility of gallente ships. Not 5% for every hull, closer to 35%. Angel Cartel-tier.
Making blasterboats extremely maneuverable would allow them to more easily get tackle on faster ships within short range, as well as apply their dps earlier.
We need speed more than agility, to charge into range. Both would be best, granted, but we need to give the Minnies something
Messing about with battleships in a spreadsheet. What do people think of:
GÇó Dominix - 109 m/s, 97.1 kT x0.1254 (16.88s) -> 110 m/s, 96 kT x0.1265 (16.84s) GÇó Megathron* - 115 m/s, 98.4 kT x0.1216 (16.59s) -> 120 m/s, 98 kT x0.1205 (16.37s) GÇó Hyperion* - 115 m/s, 100.2 kT x0.1178 (16.36s) -> 130 m/s, 94 kT x0.127 (16.55s) GÇó Typhoon - 130 m/s, 103.6 kT x0.116 (16.66s) -> 115 m/s, 105 kT x0.11 (16.01s) GÇó Tempest - 120 m/s, 103.3 kT x0.12 (17.18s) -> 110 m/s, 104.5 kT x0.1115 (16.15s) GÇó Maelstrom - 94 m/s (), 103.6 kT x136 (19.53s) -> 94 m/s, 104.5 kT x0.113 (16.37s)
?
*Trying differentiate these two. Mega has tracking bonus and Hyp tank, so I thought Mega = nimble, Hyp = bullrush.
EDIT: On second thought, this doesn't give the Mins enough of an agility advantage.
GÇó Dominix -> 110 m/s, 96 kT x0.128 (17.03s) GÇó Megathron -> 120 m/s, 98 kT x0.1215 (16.51s) GÇó Hyperion -> 130 m/s, 94 kT x0.13 (16.94s) GÇó Typhoon -> 115 m/s, 105 kT x0.109 (15.87s) GÇó Tempest -> 110 m/s, 104.5 kT x0.11 (15.94s) GÇó Maelstrom -> 94 m/s, 104.5 kT x0.112 (16.23s) |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
371
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 18:48:00 -
[1342] - Quote
Clearly, this gallente boost was a roaring sucess, not sure what your all whin....
1Drake52592 2Hurricane24497 3Abaddon19255 4Tengu12979 5Armageddon8718 6Scimitar7012 7Tornado6982 8Maelstrom6169 9Tempest5572 10Sabre5237 11Cynabal5144 12Thrasher4384 13Huginn4355 14Loki4175 15Vagabond3817 16Lachesis3730 17Rapier3719 18Rifter3298 19Capsule3156 20Hound2982
...oh. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Zachis
TBC
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 19:39:00 -
[1343] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The problem wasnt that 90% webs made the talos effective, but that the 90% web made the talos effective against small ships; small ships are supposed to be the counter to the new battlecruisers due to their use of large (poor tracking) guns, but with a 90% web, the talos could engage ships of all sizes.
Excellent point.
And I think one which also has a simple fix, namely to add signature radius to turret ammo. Currently if you can track it, you can hit it for full damage. If you added in a sig radius component to turret ammo, then BS sized guns would be less effective/non-effective against small targets. Wouldn't matter how slow they were. |
Autonomous Monster
Paradox Interstellar
43
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 20:00:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Zachis wrote:And I think one which also has a simple fix, namely to add signature radius to turret ammo. Currently if you can track it, you can hit it for full damage. If you added in a sig radius component to turret ammo, then BS sized guns would be less effective/non-effective against small targets. Wouldn't matter how slow they were.
a) Ammo doesn't say anything about sig radius (...and most of it doesn't say anything about tracking either), but guns do b) Because of the way the turret formulae work ( http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ), signature resolution and tracking are two sides of the same coin. Doubling signature resolution has the exact same effect as halving tracking.
In order to make this work you'd have to rewrite the turret formulae, which is very much a non-trivial thing.
Though I do think it's something that needs looking at. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
199
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 20:31:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:Clearly, this gallente boost was a roaring sucess, not sure what your all whin....
1Drake52592 2Hurricane24497 3Abaddon19255 4Tengu12979 5Armageddon8718 6Scimitar7012 7Tornado6982 8Maelstrom6169 9Tempest5572 10Sabre5237 11Cynabal5144 12Thrasher4384 13Huginn4355 14Loki4175 15Vagabond3817 16Lachesis3730 17Rapier3719 18Rifter3298 19Capsule3156 20Hound2982
...oh. at least tier 3 bc is a success , even if it is only winmatard who would have thought ?:O |
Hamox
The Scope Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 21:30:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:Clearly, this gallente boost was a roaring sucess, not sure what your all whin....
1Drake52592 2Hurricane24497 3Abaddon19255 4Tengu12979 5Armageddon8718 6Scimitar7012 7Tornado6982 8Maelstrom6169 9Tempest5572 10Sabre5237 11Cynabal5144 12Thrasher4384 13Huginn4355 14Loki4175 15Vagabond3817 16Lachesis3730 17Rapier3719 18Rifter3298 19Capsule3156 20Hound2982
...oh. at least tier 3 bc is a success , even if it is only winmatard who would have thought ?:O
This whole topic is becomming rediculous... |
Zachis
TBC
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 21:33:00 -
[1347] - Quote
Autonomous Monster wrote:Zachis wrote:And I think one which also has a simple fix, namely to add signature radius to turret ammo. Currently if you can track it, you can hit it for full damage. If you added in a sig radius component to turret ammo, then BS sized guns would be less effective/non-effective against small targets. Wouldn't matter how slow they were. a) Ammo doesn't say anything about sig radius (...and most of it doesn't say anything about tracking either), but guns do b) Because of the way the turret formulae work ( http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ), signature resolution and tracking are two sides of the same coin. Doubling signature resolution has the exact same effect as halving tracking. In order to make this work you'd have to rewrite the turret formulae, which is very much a non-trivial thing. Though I do think it's something that needs looking at.
Thank you for the link.
What I would propose is to make the turret damage equation more akin to the damage equation for missiles, where signature radius and explosion radius factor into the mix. Add a signature radius of the charge compared to the signature radius of the target into the damage side of the equation. Without messing with the current tracking formula for turrets.
My concern is, that without some modification to the turret damage equation any effective change to blaster boats is going to make them either too effective against smaller targets and imbalanced (worst case) or still ineffective (worst case #2, current status quo).
Regardless of any changes CCP makes or doesn't make, this thread and the discussion of hybrid weapons has been very fruitful for me personally, and hopefully demonstrated to CCP just how intertwined a true hybrid rebalance is with all of the combat mechanics in EVE. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
97
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 11:28:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:then why the tornado is faster than the cruisers ??
Because CCP either didn't listen to the concerns of myself and many others or they started public testing too late in the process to actually react to criticism and suggestions while they spend all their time giving the Talos a 25m3 drone bay... . The new battlecruisers are supposed to be faster than battleships, however making them faster than T1 and T2 cruisers is a bad thing as they instead should have made them the SIZE of cruisers but speed close to the other battlecruisers. The new concept of tier 3 BC's have given sniping a slight come back, but in the process neglected many old traits that kind of kept Eve together and I hope a few things will get polished soon...
- Making them smaller is fine by me (less damage from large weapons)
- Making them slower is definately required (plz dont take a **** on cruisers/hacs)
- Talos and other gallente blasterships need more agility and/or less mass (the missing link of hybrid balancing)
Also T2 long range ammo on short range weapon system in my opinion makes an unbalanced difference in why most people don't need long range weapon systems anymore, but this is mostly another issue.
Tornado works nice because
- They can pull range on anything but fast frigs making them pretty safe to fly
- They can snipe out of sentry gun range with enough artillery alpha to nuke small targets in 1 go
- Autocannons can hit at extreme range with good damage without getting too close to be in trouble
Oracle can do the same, however not fast enough to be worth it. Talos with blasters are still forced to be in range where it will get in trouble and railguns still don't have enough punch kill stuff on gates. Naga might be able to pull off the range with blasters and null, however none of them can compete with the Tornado for being ******** fast and able of escaping most tackling attempts except an unexpected killerfleet on a gate.
Pinky |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
856
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 15:40:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Hey Mr CCP Talles I've got a nice joke 4 U
I got in to the intaki station on SISI and I got one fresh shiny awesome overpowered Diemost.
I got 5 T2 neutrons 1 T2 MWD 1 meta 4 web (awesome) and since my fitting window was telling me my ship was already caped out with this I got a T2 med cap injector.
This is the point where it becomes really funny.
When I looked in to my ship stas I thought I was with my forum alt and his 900Sp, so I checked an no I was not dreaming !! My Diemost had 50 w (-/+) left to fit some tank and put some dps mods on it.
Now this is very funny, I couldn't find the civilian mods to fit it !!
Did you guys forgot to put those on SISI?? |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
856
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 15:48:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Hamox wrote:Naomi Knight wrote:Pattern Clarc wrote:Clearly, this gallente boost was a roaring sucess, not sure what your all whin....
1Drake52592 2Hurricane24497 3Abaddon19255 4Tengu12979 5Armageddon8718 6Scimitar7012 7Tornado6982 8Maelstrom6169 9Tempest5572 10Sabre5237 11Cynabal5144 12Thrasher4384 13Huginn4355 14Loki4175 15Vagabond3817 16Lachesis3730 17Rapier3719 18Rifter3298 19Capsule3156 20Hound2982
...oh. at least tier 3 bc is a success , even if it is only winmatard who would have thought ?:O This whole topic is becomming rediculous...
You may find the topic ridiculous, what I find ridiculous is how many people around are totally incapable to read some numbers. It's not rocket science.
EDIT: Wait I see an hybrid ship at 6th position, it's a scimitar |
|
|
|
|
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 |