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) |
Cunane Jeran
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:41:00 -
[211] - Quote
After more playing (and comparing) Hybrids really need something else, I believe ammo changes would be the way forwards, less range variations (hell what difference does -30% and -10% range make to 1k?) and maybe allowing some damage options instead, such as Kin/Exp Therm/Exp and the standard Therm/Kin, leaving EM out of it for Amarr's sake. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:51:00 -
[212] - Quote
Btw Nothing is wrong with the active tank bonuses - what is wrong is the modules benefitting from them in teh light of the many hitpoint buffs... Boost all LOCAL ONLY shield boosters and armor repairs with at least 50% hitpoints pr cycle while changing the crystal implant set into shield hitpoint implants as a counterpart to slaves...
But yes ineed with the current combat mechanics the active rep bonus might seem obscene even if the brutix handles itself very fine indeed hehe
Pinky
|
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:25:00 -
[213] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Btw Nothing is wrong with the active tank bonuses - what is wrong is the modules benefitting from them in teh light of the many hitpoint buffs... Boost all LOCAL ONLY shield boosters and armor repairs with at least 50% hitpoints pr cycle while changing the crystal implant set into shield hitpoint implants as a counterpart to slaves...
But yes ineed with the current combat mechanics the active rep bonus might seem obscene even if the brutix handles itself very fine indeed hehe
Pinky
Active tank bonuses aren't useful because they don't allow you to survive high bursts of damage, they don't give logistics enough time to lock you, they suck local cap on ships which should focus on mobility and damage projection and they don't even give any advantage to received reps.
They are kinda good in very small gangs, or in 1v1, where the probability of getting alphaed is very low and active tanking may give you enough of an edge to survive against multiple attackers. Right now active tanking in pvp only makes sense in the form of spider gangs, or logistics supported gangs. In both cases, a local buffer tank is much better.
Since resist bonuses give advantages both to active and to buffer/passive tanks, they make much more sense than straight active bonuses. Especially if such bonuses are on the module cycle timer instead of rep amount, which makes them, yes, more powerful, but at the same time more cap-intensive. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:35:00 -
[214] - Quote
In big fleets with logistics buffer tanking has huge advantages, but that doesn't mean active tanks cannot shine in many other situations? Before the huge hitpoint buffs active tanks was prefered in most pvp situations... What I was saying don't blaim poor performance on roles, when the problem in reality is in the game mechanics or the module that gets the bonus... |
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:41:00 -
[215] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:In big fleets with logistics buffer tanking has huge advantages, but that doesn't mean active tanks cannot shine in many other situations? Before the huge hitpoint buffs active tanks was prefered in most pvp situations... What I was saying don't blaim poor performance on roles, when the problem in reality is in the game mechanics or the module that gets the bonus...
Yeah but what you're saying is kinda like saying "Why an infantryman should whine about being given a Sarissa as a service weapon? Alexander owned much of the old world with them!". We have to balance with the current state in mind. Yes, you can change the system... Or you can change the bonus. Changing the system is almost always the most complicated way to approach the problem, and has far reaching consequences (Like the HP buff... Worked great but at the same time it made active tanking almost useless). Tweaking a bonus on a couple of ships is much easier to do, much easier to test and has much more limited consequences. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Shadow Legion Industries Dark Phoenix Rising.
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:12:00 -
[216] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:In regards to tracking enhancers benefitting AC falloff more than blasters I propose a minor change to tracking enhancers and tracking computers:
Tracking enhancers seems to favor shield setups more and the minmatar and caldari setups doesn't need much more range. I suggest on a T2 Tracking Enhancer: Optimal bonus 15% -> 15% (or less as it isn't too important for anyone) Falloff bonus 30% -> 15% (less AC pwnage but still a decent bonus) Tracking bonus 9,5% -> 9,5% (All the ships really need this bonus the most)
Pinky Denmark wrote: I suggest on a T2 Tracking Enhancer: Optimal bonus 15% -> 15% (or less as it isn't too important for anyone) Falloff bonus 30% -> 15% (less AC pwnage but still a decent bonus) Tracking bonus 9,5% -> 9,5% (All the ships really need this bonus the most)
Pinky
Add to this a range nerf to scorch and you have a winning Hybrid buff for sure :)
As far as my experience with Blaster/Gallente ships on the test server.
Ares: I understand that this ship can be fast and all ceptors will see a "relative buff" post dram nerf but I think it's still a bit sub par. Give it another 10m/s and add +5m3 bandwidth and +5m3 drone bay.
Enyo: This ship needs more cpu, wtf is the point of it compared to an ishkur if it can't even use it's 4th low properly... It trades a mid slot and 4 light drones for 1 low slot and 1 more turret... Un-gimp this ship and give her +25 CPU please.
Thorax: Looking much better after the reduction to fitting requirements however I still feel that it needs another 5 to 10m/s speed buff as well as another 15-20 grid.
Myrmidon: Nothing has really changed for this ship. I'd suggest removing 2 of the turret slots and giving the ship another 25m3 bandwidth.
Brutix: Spent a bit of time in this ship on test and it is FAR more "fitable" than before. The lack of lows is still a huge issue and the small speed increase only ends up netting you another 50ish m/s with MWD. I'd suggest increasing the ships base speed by another 5 MS as well as giving it another 25ish Power grid. I'd also like to see this ship get another low slot however I feel that the addition of a slot is dependent on if CCP decides to buff the other tier1s as well.
Astarte: I also spent a good amount of time testing out this ship on the new test build and have to say that like the Brutix, it has been improved by a small margin specifically in regards to fitting it. The increased speed is really not very noticeable especially considering that the new tier 3 BC are at least 500ms faster with mwd... This ship should receive more or less the same additions that I just proposed for the Brutix. Another 5-10 ms speed, 25ish grid, and another low slot. I believe that this new low slot should be granted as well as an additional slot for the Absolution, and Nighthawk(+grid too). Seleip is already way better than these 3 Field commands so no additional slot is needed there.
Megathron: Perfect CCP!!, finally can get a decent pvp fit w/o the use of faction gear or co-procs. The new tracking buff to blasters ontop of the Mega's Tracking Bonus is allowing for more dps at all ranges. Ship seems to be filling it's niche nicely.
Hyperion: This ship is still a mess... The problem with this ship is that you cannot tank and dps at the same time... and if a Blaster ship cannot dps then wtf is the point of it considering it MUST commit to engage, something that many other ships with comparable DPS and Tank do not have to do.
The ship needs another 2-3% grid, another low slot, and probably another 25cpu (to be able to utilize that low slot). I'd also go as far as increasing it's drone bay (not bandwidth) by another 25m3 giving it at least a small amount of innate anti tackle flexibility when compared to the other tier 3s.
Talos: Honestly? The tier3s are a broken mess right now so I don't have any "useful" suggestions other than CCP needs to rethink these ships from concept. Highest tier large weapons costing under 100 pg just seems silly when highest tier mediums are close to 200.... I'd suggest decreasing their speed and upping the sig a little so they do not step on the role of far more expensive ships such as HACs.
Blasters as a whole: The changes to fitting and tracking are a very nice step in the right direction and I must applaud CCP on not going overboard however I still feel that some minor tweaking is needed.
Changes I'd like to see would first and foremost be some unique flavor shared between all Hybrid weapons. The idea that sparked my interest the most was a small boost to the chance of wrecking hits for ALL Hybrid weapons. This change combined with a rework of current ammo's (think projectile ammo) would most certainly improve the overall effectiveness of Blasters w/o creating a new FoTM, something that needs to be avoided at all costs.
Railsgunz!! The fitting reductions and 10% dps increase is certainly a step in the right direction. I do however think that another small DPS increase is needed of about 5%. The other major issue is the dedicated Caldari ships "designed" to field these weapons. More grid is generally needed as well as maybe another Turret slot on the Ferox and Eagle as both these ships will be superseded by the naga as a cruiser/BC sized sniper.
Thank you CCP for the updates and the mild amount of recent transparency Keep up the good work and make sure to pay attention to your community.
Jerick
|
Selar Nox
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:24:00 -
[217] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Btw Nothing is wrong with the active tank bonuses - what is wrong is the modules benefitting from them in teh light of the many hitpoint buffs... Boost all LOCAL ONLY shield boosters and armor repairs with at least 50% hitpoints pr cycle [...] + half cycle time & cap need per cylce of local armor repairs. So while overall cap cost stays the same we don't have to wait till our armor is gone until the first repair amount comes in. Or even better distribute the armor gain over the whole cycle length (but thats probably not very nice for the hamsters...) Never made sense for me where that by nanobots repaired armor was stored during cycle and how it got magically applied in split seconds at the end of a cycle. (Shield boosters I interpreted like a "shield-capacitor" which gets unloaded to the shields at cycle start and needs to recharge during its cycle) |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:50:00 -
[218] - Quote
I always imagined those bots blowing a chunk of metal into the holes like you patch roads and replace a broken brick in a wall... That said indeed the wait for armor reppers to cycle can be fatal |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:14:00 -
[219] - Quote
Ok with only 7.5% per level bonus you end up being 2% more efficiant then the 5% to armor resists per lev... Which sucks when you see that the resist bonus makes you have 20% more hp and more efficiant for rr...
But change that bonus to 10% per lev and make it so incomming rr is also affected by the bonus and then you end up with a bonus that makes up for having 1/5th less hp |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 16:56:00 -
[220] - Quote
lol RR is already super usefull and how do you calculate those numbers? You nust be forgetting how resistance is calculated... The resistance wont be stacking penalized but you will still get less from adding more resist modules. |
|
Perdition64
The Xenodus Initiative. ORPHANS OF EVE
23
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:23:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Tallest, any plans on further developing the hybrid changes before patch day so they can actually make an impact come Winter? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:43:00 -
[222] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:lol RR is already super usefull and how do you calculate those numbers? You nust be forgetting how resistance is calculated... The resistance wont be stacking penalized but you will still get less from adding more resist modules.
ok i am at work so i cant pull up eve or eft to support the numbers but here is a post i pulled supporting the same thing but with shields:
IMO making it so the 37.5% increase to internal reps work on incomming remote repair mods... this would greatly make up for gallente/minnie shortcommings when it comes to fleet setups... let me explain i know projectiles are FOTM and make up for this but when hybrids are boosted minnie will fall back in line... Look at what a 25% increase does to effectivness of internal reps, EHP and incomming RR....
But gal/minnie only get a 37.5% increase to internal reps...
look at a nighthawk with one logi ship with 4 large reps it gets 1955 tank but a sleipnir(sp?) with one logi ship with 4 large reps it gets 1649 tank
but if you increased the effectiveness of incomming shield rr for minnie you would see that jump up from 384 every 4.5 sec which is 85.33 hp/sec to 384*1.375=528 every 4.5 sec which means 117 hp/s
so on the same setup one logi ship will now make the seipnirs tank be 2099 tank
this also carries over with armor....
making the 37.5% bonus to internal reps also boost incomming remote repair mods would greatly help offset the dissadvantage minnie and galente have against ammar and caldari...
compare the average minnie/gal setup against the average ammar/caldari setup that gives a resistance bonus you will see much higher ehp on the caldari/ammar over thier gal/minnie counter parts...
now if you took that 37.5% and added another 12.5% to make it 50% then you are looking at the 1649 tank turining into 576 every 4.5 sec which is 128 hp/s so that would 2366 which is about 18% more effective then having a resistance bonus...
so what you end up with is gallente/minnie being better for internal/incomming rr and ammar/caldari being better for ehp...
i think its a good trade off if you ask me... |
Angeliena
Eye of God Controlled Chaos
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:54:00 -
[223] - Quote
Please:
1) increase base web strength to 75%
2) Change speed penalty for armor rigs to a penalty to warp speed only
3) Increase sensor damps by 20%
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:56:00 -
[224] - Quote
The Sleipnir isn't designed as a buffer ship The Sleipnir does way more dps The sleipnir is much faster The sleipnir has more even resists making hardener choice easier The sleipnir is way more popular for pvp than nighthawk The sleipnir seems to be better than Nighthawk even if not using a bonus
Also sorry fo derailing the hybrid thread even if I didn't start... |
|
CCP Tallest
C C P C C P Alliance
162
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:59:00 -
[225] - Quote
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%. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:00:00 -
[226] - Quote
pinky you are a ding bat...
as i said they were comparrisons i had made a while ago... you can compare any ship that gets the resist bonus vrs a rep bonus... this was just an example...
the point in making rr better for gal is so they can get close (one of the things that hurts gal ships is thier lack of ehp and short range weapons... if you made gal ships more efficiant for rr against the other races this would help galente get close... and just to prove my point 1400 abbadons anyone???? but alas this is more about hybrid boosting then gal ship boosting...
so back to blasters and rails... |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:03:00 -
[227] - 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%.
feels like an inch worm but slow and steady we are getting to where we need to be...
any idea when this will be put in sisi? |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
183
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:17:00 -
[228] - Quote
So blaster fits are better than passive since armor plates kill speed.
But active tanks take up cap.
blasters use cap like crazy.
CCP why aren't you interested and a complete reworking of the the way blasters work instead of just changing numbers?
edit: that said barvo on reload changes... Actually reload changes might change dps a lot.... |
thoth rothschild
First Aid Emergency Service
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:20:00 -
[229] - Quote
don't mind |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:23:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote: ..also, Hail falloff penalty will be 25%, not 0%.
awwww why 4 u change?!! |
|
Moonaura
Swedish Aerospace Inc The Kadeshi
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:28:00 -
[231] - 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%.
CCP Tallest, can we still get a tank increase for Hybrid Caldari ships to at least bring them in-line with Amarr tanks, given they are the lowest DPS, slowest ships, largest signature ships in the game? It is all they need to balance them.
Pweety please :) |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
103
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:30:00 -
[232] - Quote
if you don't want to change how the defense of gallente ships works, you can always change how the specificity of gallente, the drones, can help them ; some bonus on ecm / weber drones on gallente ships, so that they can get a few more seconds to be able to do their job well. |
Bhaal Chinnian
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:33:00 -
[233] - Quote
I was hit my head this morning so bear with me here.....
The community has stated clearly that Blasters should not be homogenized into the arena of Acs & pulses regarding range and that they should remain up close (only) weaponry so perhaps instead of buffing the overall stats for all blasters on a flat-rate basis maybe this idea would be viable on Gallente Hulls only:
Regarding Damage: For each blaster fitted:
- +3% damage--8 turret slot ships potentially receive a 24% damage bonus and so on....
- +2% tracking---the more turrets you have allows the internal Gallente targetting systems to work more effectively blah blah...
- -1% cap usage--same as above reasoning basically....
Regarding speed: For each blaster fitted:
- +1% base speed
- +3% acceleration when mwd or AB fitted--effectively 24% accell for 8 blaster fit ship to be able to get within blaster range fast.
- +2% cap usage when MWD or AB is on-- effectively prevents perma mwd/ab the more blasters fitted
Regarding a Web bonus( I know, this may embark into the minnie realm a bit but....) For each blaster fitted:
- +2% web range--an 8 blaster ship effectively has +16% web range...not much but would help enough.
- ----this amounts to a Megathron/w 8 blasters and a faction 15k web having a 17k web range after bonus applied. Not a lot...but may be the difference in a fight.... and sets Gallente apart from Minnie web bonuses
Regarding Drones: Since Drones are Gallentes' forte maybe give them specific drone bonuses instead of just saying 'MAOR DRONES PLZ!!'
Only in a Gallente hull,I suggest a: +2% drone range per BC/BS level +5% effectiveness for combat utility & logistics drones per Gallente BC/BS level
I realize these changes may be overly specific or too abundant, but they DO address the problems Gallente have with: Damage, tracking, and speed ,and in a slightly different way than just 'OMG buffing/nerfing' across the board.
ty for your time. |
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
111
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:35:00 -
[234] - Quote
Hrm, I may have put my posts in the wrong forum section.
Fair warning: they're long, VERY long. Still, it's hard not to be considering all of the things which contribute to hybrid shortcomings.
I'll do my best to summarize:
- Hybrids do not provide the pilot with fundamental benefits. Proposed changes on test do not address this!!!!
Projectiles are cap free and allow the user to change damage types. Lasers are virtually ammo-free and have dominant range. These are PASSIVE benefits. Hybrids have no such bonus. They absolutely need one if they are to compete in a popularity contest, let alone in combat. Bear in mind, if you add a passive benefit, depending on the impact of that benefit, you may not have to change anything else! THIS IS KEY!!!
- Hybrids natively have the most drawbacks in addition to not having any passive benefit. Proposed changes on test do not address this!!!!
Hybrids:
- require cap (less cap is still cap)
- require ammo
- have fixed damage type
- have absolutely horrid range
- do not focus solely on optimal or falloff, making significant boosts to range impossible
- fit on ships which are not fast enough to execute the philosophy of "in-your-face-dps"
- suffer speed penalties for buffing armor tanks (which most Gallente ships are), further exacerbating this failed philosophy
- Proposed changes to hybrids on test show a lack in understanding hybrid shortcomings.
- If hybrids are to retain their ineffective range, they need to be on the fastest ships. There is NO substitute for this condition!
- If hybrids get substantial range boosts, there is no reason to change Gallente/Caldari ship speeds in the first place!
- Hybrid ammunition needs a similar overhaul which projectiles received. No idea how this was overlooked.
- Blasterboats usually need webs to be effective. Assuming the target is webbed, TRACKING INCREASES ARE MOOT!
- Providing speed bonuses to Gallente ships shows an attempt to address some problems, but failure to make them the fastest means blasters will remain ineffective and thus unpopular. Why bother changing anything if it will result in the same outcome?
Two things which absolutely PARAMOUNT in being successful, regarding the whole "back to basics" effort this winter:
- shortest range weapons need to be on the fastest ships, either increase blaster range to something slightly above autocannons or make Gallente ships the fastest
- hybrids need a fundamental "something" which not only makes them unique, but something that HIGHLY appeals to a pilot/gang/fleet. Consider this "something" could eliminate the need to modify anything else, if it is THAT good
If CCP fails to address the above two points, the entire effort is wasted. Mark my words.
That's it really. I break it down much further in the original post. Please take the time to read it. Thanks. |
Cal Menahr
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:37:00 -
[235] - Quote
There seems to be a general agreement between most pilots on what a blaster boat should do and what the main problems are.
Concerning the first iteration of hybrid changes, I think at least the following should be done:
- Blasters need more damage at point blank. This could be tied into AM and Void instead of the guns.
- Blasters might need more tracking, especially at point blank. Void for example should not have a tracking penalty, give it a bonus.
This is directly tied to the role and usage of blaster boats. A fast incoming blaster boat needs tracking to compensate for the movement. I know I know, you don't need it if you go in a straight line, but that's not the fastest way to get next to a target because of the deceleration phase; at least that's my understanding of the approach problem. Also if you'd go in a line and bump (by accident) you might get a range and tracking problem again. Then again you might say that more tracking is unfair against small ships, but think about the role of blaster boats: There is a very limited death zone around those ships and if small (fast) ships go there it's their choice. I'm not sure about the best balance here; Scram and web always mean that an afterburner ship has the mobility advantage inside the death zone and a faster ship with it's own scram and web could leave this zone.
- Blasters range:
A lot of people want more range on blasters. The role of a Gallente blaster boat is / should be a close range damage dealer (with sprint approach, see below). The advantage of more range is also the problem: It works against kiters. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a Minmatar pilot wanting to keep his "I win ship". (I don't want to be forced to fly certain ships just because they are so obviously overpowered, also I like the Gallente way.). By changing blasters range, damage, tracking and ship bonuses the wrong way (depending on the numbers ofc) blasters could make kiting ships useless. But the role of a blaster boat is NOT to deal omg damage in close range AND make kiters useless. -> If you really absolutely want to give a better range option do it with Null (and Iron) and make it weak; damage must be lower than what a good kiting ship would do.
Large Railguns (all hulls): It's kind of pointless to balance railguns without being sure about their exact role. It seems that railguns, especially large ones, were defined to have an advantage in long range fights. Unfortunately the new scanning mechanics (since the introduction of wormholes) make it not worth bringing a sniper fleet at all. Afaik it's possible (with good players) to land tacklers on a sniper fleet within some seconds (let's say 10 seconds, depending on alignment and the lucky timing of the scanner); now compare this to the align time of battleships and their lock time ... Has CCP said anything at all since Dominion about the nature of very fast combat scanning? I think their intention was to make scanning less painfull for new players, wormholes and exploration. But COMBAT scanning should need a lot more time to make a whole group of specialized ships useful again - this affects all sizes of fleets. Making combat scanning harder is also better than only increasing the minimup warp to distance. Eg. a warp distance of 200+ only makes setups up to 200k more useful. But make scanning harder and suddenly all sniper ships, including ultra long range snipers get a chance. Oh yeah, the lock limit of 250k should really be increased. IF (and only if) CCP keeps the current scan and warp to mechanics Gallente Railgun battleships should be balanced to have an dps advantage up to 150k; above Amarr optimal would be nice if possible and / or just balance it with cap, rof, tracking etc. But in that case (scan and warp mechanics) those real sniper battleships would still be useless; sure they could be changed to fit in the up to 150k window, but wouldn't it be boring to have all battleships of Eve used in a window of 4 - 150k? After all we're looking at battleships here, they have large guns and are the natural tech 1 choice for long range fights.
Everyone knows that hybrid buffs / fixes, while nice, are pretty useless without fixing the ships in their respective roles. Therefore I suggest the following changes for Gallente blaster ships (hull bonus):
- 10 - 20 % increase to MWD overload bonus per level of the ship
- 7.5 - 15 % reduction of damage taken on overloaded MWD modules per level of the ship
This is the best change for blaster ships that I can think of so far. If you think about it you'll see that this approach has several advantages:
- solves the main problem of getting in range (again depending on numbers ofc)
- uses in game mechanics and should be easy to implement.
- an obscure ewar bonus would be more likely to be misused. (however there should probably be some kind of penalty so that it would not be used with a shield setup. not sure if that would be a problem on special shield fits, since the overload mechanic limits the use anyway)
- does not invalidate the speed advantage of Minmatar ships
- even if the base agility of Gallente blaster ships is tweaked to be better than that of Minmatar ships, resulting agility with plates would still be worse
- works without changing capacitors or using cap boosters. (however since blasters and mwds in general use much cap, the capacitor of these blaster ships should be balanced with their medium slots and their drones when ccp finally gets to the point of balancing each ship)
There might be more advantages of this mwd concept that I can't think of atm, however I can't see a real disadvantage. Please give me your opinions on this 'cause I think this would be a very important change to make the blaster concept work as intended and I do not think that it can be done without using some kind of hull bonus.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:39:00 -
[236] - Quote
Sorry MeBiatch but let that rest...
Mr Tall those changes are on top of the other changes I suppose? Have you any thoughts/comments on the confusing composition of hybrid ammo? My bet is people rarely use more than a few types and they could really use a close look (shouldn't take long for you to see how messy they are)
so currently: better fitting smaller ammo Hybrids use 30% less cap Tracking blasters +20% and railguns +5% (I still think they deserve 10%) Damage blasters +5% and railguns +10% (Though even 15% is a very little increase in dps) reduced reload to 5 seconds ships getting velocity and agility changed (as long it's only a start)
Missed anything?
Uhh I can't wait to test this. Looks like blasters and railguns are getting looked into seriously now... Im just crossing my fingers for ammo revamp and a little extra dps on rails - then waiting for a ship balance overhaul next hehe |
Bomberlocks
CTRL-Q
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:52:00 -
[237] - 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%. This is an excellent compromise and will go a long way to improving blasters and increasing their use in eve.
You da man, Tallest! |
Jack bubu
GK inc. Pandemic Legion
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:56:00 -
[238] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:So blaster fits are better than passive since armor plates kill speed.
But active tanks take up cap.
blasters use cap like crazy.
CCP why aren't you interested and a complete reworking of the the way blasters work instead of just changing numbers?
edit: that said barvo on reload changes... Actually reload changes might change dps a lot.... Have you missed the part where cap use was reduced by 30% ? |
Harotak
Malicious Destruction War Against the Manifest
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:56:00 -
[239] - Quote
Medium blasters still need at least 10% dps imo. If anything leave small blaster DPS alone, boost medium by 15%, and boost large by 10%. The 20% tracking will be huge for small blasters and down right crazy when combined with better agility on blaster hulls. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
85
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:06:00 -
[240] - 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%.
Small hybrids are fine! There's nothing the matter with the Taranis, Comet, Merlin, Tristan or Incursus, they're all competitive, stop going crazy!
You will not fix rails without removing the hard 150 km limit on useful sniping. |
|
|
|
|
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 |