| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group
Templis CALSF
444
   |
Posted - 2014.12.23 12:57:07 -
[1] - Quote
While we all tend to get hung up on 'balance' for weapon systems by nitpicking over falloff, tracking speed etc, we tend to forget that despite the different ammunition, in relation to things like drones or missiles the guns in the game pretty much function fairly similarly. Instead of focusing on range and tracking disparities, recognizing and iterating on unique features should be a priority in any major weapon overhaul, so we can avoid future power creep in regards to the last few 'balances' to medium weapons.
So let's get in a mindset for what makes each of these systems unique, and maybe how to iterate on that:
-Lasers have the advantages of instant weapon swapping, and little to no supply footprint with the lack of ammunition required. Since its advantages are in ammunition, why not go all the way towards that instead of half-assing it? Simply put, a good balance for lasers should focus on the charge durability, namely eliminating crystal damage from the game so they can be used continuously and repackaged as need be.
Granted, it may make sense to limit this in some way, like only taking crystal damage when overheating, and being unable to be repaired due to the extremely fine nature of crafting this ammo type. But in general, focusing on the advantages of supply that lasers have would be a good start. Perhaps having them be the higher-tracking weapon in the game would also be ideal since they fire beams of light instead of projectiles, so having lasers track more poorly than firing projectiles out of railguns or space machine-gun barrels over multiple kilometers at moving targets seems kind of off.
-Projectile turrets don't use any capacitor, and have a wide variety of firepower options. The downsides are irregular damage application, and odd combinations of bulky ammo. So, why use projectiles over the others? Simply put, they're the most flexible weapon system in the game, even if they're not the most reliable. The excellent range, tracking speed and damage selection on autocannons has a much wider application variety than hybrids or lasers simply out of virtue of the ammo type and ranges used. Artillery has the highest alpha in the game, but heavy fitting and still suffers from irregular damage application with its falloff ranges and tracking; despite this it's used almost exclusively for its alpha damage, which is where it excels at, and is well-balanced in. The difficulty remains its high fitting cost in relation to projectiles, lending to balance problems on the ships that use them.
A good route to go for this weapon system would be to focus on its striking power and utility. Giving projectile ammo small, stacking penalized abilitiies to disrupt ship operations and performance relative to the size of the ship they're attacking might be a novel and unique way of reintroducing how projectiles work in the game.
Explosive/kinetic ammo could have a small chance to crit-hit, doing additional damage. Thermal ammo could have a small chance to deal heat damage on a gun or module on the target ship, and EM ammo could have a chance to disrupt the power flow of the ship, dealing a tiny amount of cap alpha.
The probability for these would be stacking penalized with each other, so giant groups of them together in fleets wouldn't wipe everything. In addition to having a moderate but noticeable stacking penalty on the turrets on the ship, there would be a stricter but manageable one between multiple ships using projectiles. This would amount to a maximum 'hit to special' chance in a given situation, that would fluctuate up to that maximum during damage being dealt. You would need a lot of ships to reach that maximum, so something like a 20-25% maximum hit to special chance would be what I'd put out there initially as a proposal.
-Hybrid turrets have an interesting balance between being primarily split between two races that compliment the short and long ranges primarily with a secondary weapon system of missiles and drones, respectively. Blasters have the highest dps output of any weapon in the game, and rails have the longest effective engagement range. While the bonuses on the ships that use them tend to balance out quite nicely, something unique might be in order to further differentiate them as weapon systems used by two different races, despite having a common technical origin.
Blasters fire globs of superheated plasma at short ranges, so having something like a small splash damage zone in a conic area might be an interesting route to go. Smaller blaster types would have a wider area of effect, with diminishing splash damage further outside the target point with a chance to hit formula based off of how far a radius off the central point it is. This could lead to some interesting gameplay options in regards to larger blasters at long ranges being able to add a certain level of fire control if they're firing at missiles coming towards them, or being able to damage drones. The offset would be the chance to hit would be balanced appropriately so as to more unreliable than not, but still provide that option for firewalling.
Railguns now are arguably the best balanced long-range weapon system across its different sizes, and is coveted for its range and high dps. As they stand they are fairly powerful, so something a little less game-changing than what has been listed for blasters and projectiles may be in order. A fun idea I had would be to introduce a chance for the railgun charge to ricochet off of the target it's shooting at, and have the shrapnel or whole bolt hit nearby vessels. This effect could be compounded in larger fleets where railguns are doing impressive (if noticeably reduced) secondary damage and hits to an enemy fleet that comes in as a group. The chance for this to happen would be adjusted to happen less often than not, but the graphic for it would certainly be entertaining.
What do you think? Ideas welcome! |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
843
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 12:59:41 -
[2] - Quote
This is a massive wall of text. I recommend bullet points for the main points to make it more readable.
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group
Templis CALSF
444
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:01:42 -
[3] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:This is a massive wall of text. I recommend bullet points for the main points to make it more readable.
I'll try and break it up a bit, sorry late night posting is late. |
Hadriana Aldent
I aint payin npc tax
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:57:07 -
[4] - Quote
any kind of ewar on a weapon system is a bad idea
not needing to reload is no real advantage I can't remember the last time i had to reload in a fight where reloading got me killed (also it's a balancing factor lasers don't reload so they get to do slightly less dps before reloads are taken into account)
directional/aoe damage is kinda bad for weapons
chance of hitting multiple targets is just a bad idea
|
Bob Maths
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:34:26 -
[5] - Quote
Oh ye gods, imagine the calculations. |
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group
Templis CALSF
444
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:31:42 -
[6] - Quote
Hadriana Aldent wrote:any kind of ewar on a weapon system is a bad idea
not needing to reload is no real advantage I can't remember the last time i had to reload in a fight where reloading got me killed (also it's a balancing factor lasers don't reload so they get to do slightly less dps before reloads are taken into account)
directional/aoe damage is kinda bad for weapons
chance of hitting multiple targets is just a bad idea
A few other games I play that do 'condition damage' have maximum stacks dealt. The max stacks on the ones for projectiles would be minor at best, and while they would be noticeable in larger quantities, wouldn't end up being game-breaking or decisive in a fight in the long run, they would just contribute to wearing down the enemy ship faster, so not really seeing what constitutes a 'bad idea'. Care to elaborate?
As for lasers...it's not specifically not needing to reload, it's the ammo never giving out. Explorers or people on a battlefront for an extended period of time not having to go back for ammo is a very definitive advantage in terms of logistical superiority; in the lore, it's one of the reasons why the Amarr have such a strong hold on their territory.
Again, saying something is a 'bad idea' without telling why has absolutely no substance and meaning. If you want to give specific examples or tell me WHY it's a bad idea, I'm happy to debate you. Otherwise, flinging poo like a chimp in a zoo doesn't really do anything other than make things look sh*ttier. |
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group
Templis CALSF
444
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 21:32:40 -
[7] - Quote
Bob Maths wrote:Oh ye gods, imagine the calculations.
We have the technology. We can rebuild it. |
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:59:26 -
[8] - Quote
http://www.eveiverse.com/items/crate_of_experimental_ecm_hybrid_rounds
Make railguns even more hilarious on Ishtars.
Now excuse me while I go post in the 'one-line bad idea' thread. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
416
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 00:55:21 -
[9] - Quote
Rawketsled wrote:http://www.eveiverse.com/items/crate_of_experimental_ecm_hybrid_rounds
Make railguns even more hilarious on Ishtars.
Now excuse me while I go post in the 'one-line bad idea' thread.
Jamming rounds? Really? Really?
...really? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
322
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 01:18:17 -
[10] - Quote
"hi i don't really understand balance or how games run behind the scenes but wouldn't it be cool if..." |
|
|
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group
Templis CALSF
444
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 02:30:46 -
[11] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Rawketsled wrote:http://www.eveiverse.com/items/crate_of_experimental_ecm_hybrid_rounds
Make railguns even more hilarious on Ishtars.
Now excuse me while I go post in the 'one-line bad idea' thread. Jamming rounds? Really? Really? ...really?
wtf seriously. @_@ |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |