Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Qvar Dar'Zanar
EVE University Ivy League
307
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 00:16:44 -
[91] - Quote
But why should T1 ammo be comparable to T2? T2 and faction get used up. They have to be better. The main problem I see is conflag and the faction ammos that aren't multifreq.
edit: I'm not saying that T1 ammo couldn't use a buff. Only that not necessarily so big that it's an alternative to T2/faction ammo. |
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc. Lasers Are Magic
15
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 01:34:59 -
[92] - Quote
I'm really curious as to what the thought process behind what needs to be balanced is for the balance team. There are plenty of things in the game that are so obviously and totally broken (is the vigil even a ship?) that I sometimes wonder if the devs are really in touch with the game at all. These little nickle and dime changes to weapons and ships that either don't need changes or need more comprehensive looks are starting to get a little tiring. Tracking enhancers, light missiles, scorch. All these changes just seem like they are meant to make players feel like you guys are doing "something." Where are the iterations on ship balance? And I don't mean the tweaks where you add +3 CPU to the punisher. |
God's Apples
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
503
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 03:22:25 -
[93] - Quote
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:But why should T1 ammo be comparable to T2? T2 and faction get used up. They have to be better. The main problem I see is conflag and the faction ammos that aren't multifreq.
edit: I'm not saying that T1 ammo couldn't use a buff. Only that not necessarily so big that it's an alternative to T2/faction ammo.
By t1 ammo we mean the t1 line of crystals. By saying multi or standard we are meaning imperial navy multi and imperial navy standard. Anyone with half a clue understands this. Please don't propagate ignorance. Thanks.
"Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
|
Gavin Dax
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 03:32:41 -
[94] - Quote
I agree with the overall sentiment here.
It would be nice to see some actual data and a more comprehensive balancing of the weapon systems.
By that I mean graphs of things like effective damage at different ranges, vs. different velocities, etc. for all weapons (including drones, sentries).
I'm going to take a guess and say that those numbers would expose some obvious imbalances. For example, compare barrage to null - even though ACs give about 20% more falloff, their DPS is so much lower than the blasters that ACs barely match (and in most cases do less) damage at their max falloff (don't even mention close ranges).
It would also expose things like the huge ranges you can get on some of the larger supposedly short-range guns (e.g. why use beams when you can hit so far out with pulse lasers on a rev, as was mentioned here previously?).
Sentries need re-balancing way more than lasers, probably followed by ACs, then beams and missiles (select-able damage types don't mean as much when most of the ships only get a bonus for kinetic anyway). And hybrids really need a major range nerf, since their only drawbacks right now are no EM/explosive damage option and cap use - pretty much makes them the no-brainer best option outside of sentries. It's pretty ridiculous that hybrids can match AC ranges... I'd say that's a bigger problem than all this scorch stuff. |
Nordalis Rmith
The Scope Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 04:14:54 -
[95] - Quote
I really do like the effort of addressing scorch.
I feel like buffing other types is better than nerfing scorch. |
Gregor Parud
765
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 09:21:47 -
[96] - Quote
I'm kinda amazed by how people are calling this a nerf.
MUCH more workable ranges that actually matter: the falloff increases are pretty massive and the optimal bonus is nice, at a total cost of.... 2% derived optimal loss on Scorch (which no one is going to notice and will easily be made up for by the falloff buff). It's a BUFF folks, the only reason that scorch overall loses some optimal is so that they could use rounded numbers with the balancing changes. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
542
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 09:31:06 -
[97] - Quote
The thing is, it doesnt change the choice of crystal compared to today. It rearranges some deckchairs, but the ship's overall condition remains the same. |
Eessi
Murderous Inc
22
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 12:51:06 -
[98] - Quote
As someone who flies scorch ships alot thank you for being gentle with the changes. The balance pass factors in nicely with the release of the confessor and as such will change the fitting meta.
Thank you for your awesome work! |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
250
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 13:23:47 -
[99] - Quote
I'm happy this isn't a huge change. I was worried that I was going to come in here and find it over nerfed like arguably happened with HML. CCP don't need to make balance changes perfectly every single time, doing things incrementally where they have the option of doing a little more at a later date is much less disruptive and better for the game. |
Qvar Dar'Zanar
EVE University Ivy League
307
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:22:48 -
[100] - Quote
God's Apples wrote:
By t1 ammo we mean the t1 line of crystals. By saying multi or standard we are meaning imperial navy multi and imperial navy standard. Anyone with half a clue understands this. Please don't propagate ignorance. Thanks.
Woah really? Your words are LSD to my mind. I wouldn't have never realized that T1 = T1 if not for your savvy words, thank you sir. How did you came up with such brilliant convention? |
|
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 17:50:04 -
[101] - Quote
Why does scorch need nerfing even if slightly?
when rails (mid to super long range), sentries (everything), beams (mid to long range), Arty's (Short-mid to Long Range) and blasters (Brawling) do its job better
So Much Space
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
995
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:01:16 -
[102] - Quote
Faren Shalni wrote:Why does scorch need nerfing even if slightly?
when rails (mid to super long range), sentries (everything), beams (mid to long range), Arty's (Short-mid to Long Range) and blasters (Brawling) do its job better
technically a nerf, but in reality a buff.. you'll get more range from the falloff buffs than you lose in optimal range when using scorch
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
618
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:30:04 -
[103] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Fozzie, show us on the ship doll where the ebil Zealot touched your alt....
Really? People still say this? It's not furthering any cause, especially not with a dev.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
900
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 18:48:09 -
[104] - Quote
Faren Shalni wrote:Why does scorch need nerfing even if slightly?
when rails (mid to super long range), sentries (everything), beams (mid to long range), Arty's (Short-mid to Long Range) and blasters (Brawling) do its job better
absurd tracking at range destroys small ships. |
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
78
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:13:00 -
[105] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:Why does scorch need nerfing even if slightly?
when rails (mid to super long range), sentries (everything), beams (mid to long range), Arty's (Short-mid to Long Range) and blasters (Brawling) do its job better
absurd tracking at range destroys small ships.
try spiralling I hear it helps avoid that
So Much Space
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
651
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 20:19:24 -
[106] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:Why does scorch need nerfing even if slightly?
when rails (mid to super long range), sentries (everything), beams (mid to long range), Arty's (Short-mid to Long Range) and blasters (Brawling) do its job better
absurd tracking at range destroys small ships.
Then get closer. All weapons track better at long range.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Schneevva
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
4
|
Posted - 2014.11.29 21:30:53 -
[107] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:Why does scorch need nerfing even if slightly?
when rails (mid to super long range), sentries (everything), beams (mid to long range), Arty's (Short-mid to Long Range) and blasters (Brawling) do its job better
absurd tracking at range destroys small ships. Then get closer. All weapons track better at long range.
They also track well at close range.
The problem with Scorch was that it gave you incredible range on a gun with good tracking, which means it tracked incredibly well at range whereas actual long range guns did not. It was the only reason things like the Slicer worked at all.
Now, none of this fixes the fact that barring scorch, pulse lasers are fairly awful. That's the main reason I dislike this change, lasers are now being brought "into line" with other turrets, while also very clearly not being in line because of their massive and utterly pointless cap penalty, which CCP tacitly admits to with their constant attempts to band aid over. |
Shelom Severasse
The Maythorn
28
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 09:53:44 -
[108] - Quote
i feel that if pulses are getting a slight nerf to scorch range, then the tracking penalty on scorch should also be taken down a bit |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1002
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:02:46 -
[109] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Harvey James wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:5% and 2%? that's really underwhelming. do bigger things please. you should be tring to make scorch/null/barrage into being like javelin or something, and making the guns usable with proper ammos. t2 ammo should be a niche thing imo. javelin is pretty useless ammo as are all the T2 short range ammo on long range guns.. no, javelin is a nice example of T2 ammo done well. it's not a game-breaking replacement like scorch or null, it's an occasionally useful thing you carry around for when you really need more tracking.
like null makes blasters pawnmobiles ???
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
828
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 11:16:48 -
[110] - Quote
I wasn't aware this was a thing. I use Imperial Navy clears as much as scorch.
My observation on lasers is, you have Heavy Pulse, dual pulse, heavy beam, dual beam and nobody uses 3 of them. If you want to balance lasers you need to look further and larger than Pulse/ Scorch. |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
523
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 01:45:24 -
[111] - Quote
Ocih wrote:My observation on lasers is, you have Heavy Pulse, dual pulse, heavy beam, dual beam and nobody uses 3 of them. If you want to balance lasers you need to look further and larger than Pulse/ Scorch. Module tiericide, anyone? |
AspiB'elt
Aries Engineering Quasar Generation
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 06:43:22 -
[112] - Quote
Hi Fozzie,
it's nice for laser.
But can you also adapt the lens about damage.
Now we have a lot of lens. This is useful when you have Large beam only.
My idea will be to have right now two lens in the same range but will different damage.
One lens make more damage in EM the second make more damage in Thermal. |
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
132
|
Posted - 2014.12.01 19:40:19 -
[113] - Quote
Alright it's a step;
But can you please buff/change other crystals as well? I'm tired of looking at Purple lasers. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
293
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 05:38:14 -
[114] - Quote
........why....
this is your solution to a broken weapon system?
These changes are irrelevant.... |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1909
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 09:11:17 -
[115] - Quote
Schneevva wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:Why does scorch need nerfing even if slightly?
when rails (mid to super long range), sentries (everything), beams (mid to long range), Arty's (Short-mid to Long Range) and blasters (Brawling) do its job better
absurd tracking at range destroys small ships. Then get closer. All weapons track better at long range. They also track well at close range. The problem with Scorch was that it gave you incredible range on a gun with good tracking, which means it tracked incredibly well at range whereas actual long range guns did not. It was the only reason things like the Slicer worked at all. Now, none of this fixes the fact that barring scorch, pulse lasers are fairly awful. That's the main reason I dislike this change, lasers are now being brought "into line" with other turrets, while also very clearly not being in line because of their massive and utterly pointless cap penalty, which CCP tacitly admits to with their constant attempts to band aid over.
No that is NOT the reason why pulses have issues. THe main problem with pulses is that high damage cristals have same penalty as the other types of high damage ammunitions ( antimatter and EMP).. what you ask? How can that be an disadvantage? Because the MAIN advantage of pulses over other weapons is RANGE.
Result.. High damage ammunition penalty is FUNCTIONALLY much HIGHER on pulse lasers than on Blasters and AC. On AC the bonuses and penalties of T1 ammo were fixed long ago by making a tracking vs damage tradeoff. On blasters you use AM or NOTHING of t1 ammunition. The AM range penalty is irrelevant since you will already need to be very close.
Reduce MF range penalty to 30% and scale the other crystals .. and pulse lasers will be in a much more healthy place because they will be able to use their main advantage. That of REMOVE COMPLETELY the range penalty on T1 ammunition and exchange it for TRACKING vs Damage scaling.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1909
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 09:13:33 -
[116] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Scorch is quite bad as is, because it mostly does EM damage, other weapon systems do more thermal kinetic explosive damage which is way better than only EM. It is good against Sansha in PVE, but that's about it. Try shooting angel cartel with sorch, it takes FOREVER.
Game balance is made and DISCUSSED around PVP. PVE balance is secondary and is emergent from the PVP balance. No logic on changing a weapon system because of ANGEL rats, when its better to focus on PVP balance and then if there are PVE problems you tweak the RATS.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1909
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 09:15:59 -
[117] - Quote
Naoru Kozan wrote:Don't suppose you guys could take a quick look at Medium Autocannons? They are kind of bad atm.
The problem of AC are blasters. Blasters were overbuffed and that combined with the nerf to track enhancers means that AC have no engagement envelope where they are decent unless the ship has falloff bonus.
When you get in tackle range Blasters completely WIPE AC, with a hand tied behind their back. Outside that range AC are completely outdone by rails and missiles. That results in AC not having ANY LOGICAL usage at all.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
571
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 12:25:51 -
[118] - Quote
Gonna throw my 2 cents in here....
I feel that the major issues with weapons (especially hybrid and lasers) is that most of the ammo is more or less useless.
I've posted in the past that the ammo does need a full rework however it didn't gain much traction.
Original Thread
The meat and two veg of my idea is this:
Quote: LASERS
Two "Short Range" High damage ammo's that give the weapons a choice in damage type within the weapons damage profile Multifrequency (short range EM) ........: Hi EM low Thermal -50% optimal Infra-red (Short rng Thermal) .............: Hi thermal damage low EM -50% optimal
Two "Short Range" Speciality ammo's that offer either a ROF bonus (useful for specific ships) and a High Tracking ammo Gamma (short range hi RoF) ............. : +100% RoF -50% Damage -50% optimal (Double RoF but 1/2 the damage per shot) X-Ray (Short Range hi tracking) .........: -50% optimal +10% tracking low dmg
Two "Mid Range" Ammo's Ultraviolet (Mid range Mid dmg)...........: +25% optimal Standard (V.Low Cap Use Mid Rng) ..: +25% optimal -50% cap use -20% damage
Two "Long Range" ammo's. One offering heavy volley damage at the expense of tracking and one "Extreme" range ammo Microwave (Sniper/Alpha low RoF)......: +75% dmg -75% Rof +40% optimal +100% Cap use Radio (Extreme long range)..................: +60% optimal
HYBRIDS
Two "Short Range" High damage ammo's that give the weapons a choice in damage type within the weapons damage profile Antimatter (Short rng Thermal)..............: High Thermal low Kinetic damage -50% optimal Lead (Short rng Kinetic)...........................: hi kinetic low Thermal -50% optimal
Two "Short Range" Speciality ammo's that offer either a ROF bonus (useful for specific ships) and a High Tracking ammo Uranium (Short-Mid rng Hi RoF).............: +100% Rof -50% dmg -25% optimal -25% falloff (Double RoF but 1/2 damage per shot) Plutonium (Short-Mid rng Hi tracking):.... -25% optimal & falloff +10% tracking low dmg
Two "Mid Range" Ammo's Thorium (Hi falloff low optimal)................: +50% Falloff Iridium (Hi optimal Low falloff)..................: +50% Optimal
Two "Long Range" ammo's. One offering heavy volley damage at the expense of tracking and one "Extreme" range ammo Tungsten (Sniper/Alpha low RoF)............: +75% dmg -75% Rof +40% optimal & falloff +100% Cap use Iron (Extreme long range)..........................: +60% Optimal & fall off
I think the ammo really needs fixing first then look at the turrets and meta or tier cide it. Whatever we're gonna call it |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
268
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 20:55:18 -
[119] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:No that is NOT the reason why pulses have issues. THe main problem with pulses is that high damage cristals have same penalty as the other types of high damage ammunitions ( antimatter and EMP).. what you ask? How can that be an disadvantage? Because the MAIN advantage of pulses over other weapons is RANGE.
Result.. High damage ammunition penalty is FUNCTIONALLY much HIGHER on pulse lasers than on Blasters and AC. On AC the bonuses and penalties of T1 ammo were fixed long ago by making a tracking vs damage tradeoff. On blasters you use AM or NOTHING of t1 ammunition. The AM range penalty is irrelevant since you will already need to be very close.
Reduce MF range penalty to 30% and scale the other crystals .. and pulse lasers will be in a much more healthy place because they will be able to use their main advantage. That of REMOVE COMPLETELY the range penalty on T1 ammunition and exchange it for TRACKING vs Damage scaling.
Lasers are a kiting weapon system that only gets put on brawling hulls. Similarly, projectiles are a brawling weapon system that only gets put on kiting hulls. This, in addition to the fact that sentry drones are strictly superior to any weapon system that doesn't outrange them, makes them bad.
Imagine for a second if the Vagabond had laser bonuses while the Zealot had projectile bonuses. Both ships would be incredibly good. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1015
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 23:11:11 -
[120] - Quote
could the harbinger get some much needed fitting so it can actually fit a warfare link or a Nos please .. it needs some help too be useful
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |