| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Daelin Blackleaf
   |
Posted - 2008.10.17 06:27:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 17/10/2008 06:27:50
 Originally by: 'Gavin Darklighter
My problem isn't with blasters sucking in the upcoming patch, but ALL short range large turrets.
Not quite all, one type of close-range BS turret can still tear apart cruisers very nicely, the one whose tracking and damage calculations aren't balanced around the existence of 80-90% webs.
It's the one that will typically still allow you to fire on the target of your choice even when tackled.
The one everyone was laughing at not too long ago.
I'm wondering how many cons Blasters and Autos can build up before everyone trains Amarr and has done with it. It was already unbalanced before hand with blasters typically having just 5-6% more damage than Pulses while Pulses have three-four times their optimal range with only a minor difference in tracking. Now that changes put favor yet more heavily on weapon systems that don't rely on webs the gap has grown further.
Not that I don't think the web change is necessary, nor that I'm not very much looking forward to a lot of ships become much more viable choices. I'd just like to know CCP are still paying attention to the issue. 
Not easy to solve though. Perhaps the answer lies in having the turrets themselves grant a bonus to webs, increasing their tracking, or (as many have suggested and I tend to agree with) altering the tracking formula.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 15:44:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
You not talking about pulse lasers are you? They have the worst tracking of the three types of short-range turrets. Their strength is hitting targets OUTSIDE web range.
With their terrible tracking they can track things the other two weapon systems could never hope to. Transversal is effected by both speed and range, your ability to track targets is likewise effected by your tracking speed and weapon range.
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Their strength is hitting targets OUTSIDE web range.
My point exactly.
I'm not saying they need a nerf, they have their downsides. The other two need a buff in my opinion. But if your looking for a more viable large short-range turret then they're what your looking for.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 11:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Your ability to track a target is affected by RANGE TO TARGET, not the potential range of your weapons. You can't expect your target to burn out to your optimal range and sit there while you pount on them; combat doesn't work like that. If your tracking speed is bad, the target is going to do everything it can to get in close and orbit, and at 1km lasers track a lot worse than blasters.
The game isn't balanced around solo combat. It would be nice if they could also balance well for solo, but it's hard enough for them to get a vague approximation of balance in gang combat.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 21:42:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
The game isn't balanced around solo combat. It would be nice if they could also balance well for solo, but it's hard enough for them to get a vague approximation of balance in gang combat.
Then why nerf webs when a gang can still put multiple webs on the target and make it just as immobile as you can now. The web nerf only hurts solo and very small gang pilots.
As the Discordians might say:
Don't ask ask me I didn't do it.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 17:55:00 -
[5]
General reactions to the impact of changes currently on SiSi on their BS class weapon systems:
Pilots who prefer Caldari: 
Pilots who prefer Gallente:
Pilots who prefer Minmatar:
Pilots who prefer Amarr: Everything is fine, nothing to see here.
..on a more serious note 125m bandwidth isn't all that great on any ship that cannot carry a spare wing of mediums or lights, in many cases pilots will fit mediums or lights with spares ignoring the added bandwidth.
The ships balanced around blasters and autos, high DPS, high Alpha, reliance on drones, and reliance on 90% webs have been repeatedly nerfed. The HP changes, the drone changes, the speed changes, the web changes.
If these ships (not just counting BS here) were balanced before, or at any point during, these changes then they are certainly below-par now.
I like my Mega, on TQ I already see little practical reason to fly it over my Abaddon or Raven. Seeing it get yet worse will result in me no longer flying it for laughs either which is a shame.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 18:39:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Because amarr are the race that has been forced to adapt for years now? We are used to this and cope with it alot better it seems. 
The fact that they went from awful to awesome after a relatively minor resistance change implies that those who prefer Amarr are simply better at whining, and that the general community (myself included) had underestimated lasers without having using them.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 20:41:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Then go complain to the general community then. Because it is the same general community that is whining the most right now and it serves them well tbh.
I don't care who else is whining about what. I also don't care for being told to take my points elsewhere by someone who disagrees with them. There are better ways to deal with those you don't see eye to eye with, and your always welcome to ignore me if all else fails.
...and if the general community were whining there would be fifty or more threads with a vast number of pages and a huge number of people flaunting idiotic signatures like "Boost Blasters" or "Blasters '08 - Blah, blah, blah". Though I imagine we'll see just that kind of drama after release probably followed by a "fix" six months later.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 13:37:00 -
[8]
Originally by: eliminator2
so i say now well done on another reason for players to leave the game CCP.
Every change is a reason for someone to leave the game.
Everything left unchanged is a reason for someone to leave the game.
Having a few battleships nerfed again and again won't lead to me or many others quiting. We'll either fly Amarr (perhaps Caldari depending on how the missiles end up) or fly ships of a different class. It's a shame that variety is reduced when something falls too far below the standard, it's even worse when something is shown to be too far above, but it's really not going to make the game worse than WoW anytime soon. They have exactly the same kind of balancing issues, difference being you have to level an entirely new character to overcome them.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 20:22:00 -
[9]
From the live dev-blog:
Originally by: 'Zulupark'
Personally I don't see anything wrong with blaster ships, and think they will be better after the changes. Though if anything comes up on TQ or during testing it'll be looked at.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 03:37:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Oh, and Lyria- you're not right. Both you and the rest of the CCP dev team are both wrong.
It may just be Zulupark, surely there are some devs left who play the game or at least are able to look at the numbers on a torp raven or pulse geddon/apoc/baddon and realize that the blaster and auto boats are terrible by comparison.
Still it is depressing that the person who guides the vision of the game displays a lack of any fundamental understanding of it's ships, their statistics, and game mechanics.
I can see how you might fall behind on the setups and tactics that are being used to great success (though tbh a well designed query should be able to bring up data on the most exceptional setups) but ignorance of this kind of basic knowledge shows that he clearly has little love for the game itself and that his job is just a job.
....that or he has a lot of off days and we keep catching him on them, to be fair he wasn't prepped for this blog and we've all made foolish mistakes when put on the spot.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 03:46:00 -
[11]
Originally by: CCP Fendahl
Rage/fury now do significantly more damage to larger targets (up to 28% more) compared to T1 missiles, but do very poor damage against targets of the same class and lower (if they are speed tanking). The damage boost makes them hit harder than even the best faction missiles when fighting larger targets. The penalty has been changed to a signature radius penalty, which makes the ship more vulnerable.
Anyone looked into this and how our friend the torp raven now squares up against ships like the Hyperion? |
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 11:07:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 24/10/2008 11:08:58
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Not really. I already showed you that the a megas max hit chance is around the same as a pulse geddons. Hyperion will also have no trouble hitting because it can fit dual webs and domi uses drones. Result: No huge gallente BS issue like claimed in this thread.
Do the plot vs another Battleship not an absurd target choice. And do the plot like for like, tracking bonus boat vs optimal range bonus boat, and see how skewed your ONE example is.
Just let him keep on doing it. On his own. The points have been made and repeated, neither side is going to agree the other is right, and any reader should have more than enough information to make up their own mind.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 18:01:00 -
[13]
Nice to see this much data being spewed out close to fanfest.
But that man should be beaten with a thorny stick if he comes anywhere the areas of the office where balance is being worked on or talked about. |
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 20:30:00 -
[14]
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
The balancing team is looking at balancing ships, they were doing some work on it today. I'm not going to promise anything but I know they spent pretty much the entire day looking at adjustments needed.
Source |
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 10:05:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Iog Krugar
Agility changes
The problem would be that many enemies, when seeing a blasterboats' prow pointed at them if not before, will start MWDing away firing upon the blasterboat. The new rage torps will give you a really bad day when trying to chase down a raven and pulses will ensure your similarly trashed by the time you catch the enemy... if you can catch the enemy before you die in a small-medium gang situation.
In my opinion the speed and damage should be higher allowing you to close to range and make up for the damage that has been "lost" and received on the way there.
Ravens are able to dish out similar damage at 28-30km (more with rages if your painted or using your MWD) pulses are able to switch out to scorch for lower damage but the ability to significantly smack a blasterboat around before it arrives. No amount of speed or agility alone will balance the blasterboat against the Raven as it will have dealt damage sooner and continue to deal the same damage when you reach your optimal (if you aren't webbed outside your optimal), too much will make you overpowered vs pulses.
Blaster and Auto boats should have a clear speed and damage advantage over Trop and Pulse boats, with the Auto ships leaning more towards speed and the Blaster ones towards damage. I'd say this is justified, especially considering how easily limited they are by a tackler or certain recons or made a mockery of by a solo opponent with the brains to MWD away and web at max web range (even easier now with overheating). Given a typical engagement range the speed should allow them to catch the enemy within a set time and the damage increase should offset the damage they would have applied during this time.
The increases wouldn't need to be huge either, and shouldn't be. Just enough to ensure that a retreating enemy can be caught within reasonable time with enough damage to put blasters and autos high enough above torps and pulses to offset the lost damage given a typical engagement time. We're talking just a few percent in both cases, the torp and pulse boats should retain an advantage if the engagement starts at over 25km, balance should be found at 15-25, and the advantage should go to the blaster and auto boats at under 15km.
All of this is just my opinion and none of it even touches on the changes to webs which I wouldn't give a damn about if pulses weren't still able to tear frigates apart. An alternative would be a reduction to pulse and torp DPS but I think that would bring far more drama and stop these ships from breaking certain tanks solo that they break fine now.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 16:05:00 -
[16]
Someone should have reminded CCP about the penalties on armor rigs and plates before they made these changes as they seem to have forgotten.
Unless Ravens going faster than Hyperions is by design.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 03:01:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
It appears armor tanking ships use of plates and armor rigs has not been taken into account with the speed and agility reballance. Is this going to be looked at or is the Raven being faster than the Hyperion working as intended?
Originally by: Zulupark
There have some changes been made to agility and acceleration on SISI recently, have you checked those out? Otherwise; are you comparing a trimark rigged and plated hyperion to a vanilla raven?
Well yes, yes I am, it was implied in the question that I am comparing a tanked Hyperion with a tanked Raven. Is the suggestion here that I should stop tanking my blasterboats if I wish to catch Ravens in reasonable time?
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
If you "want high damage to be close range and long range to have the least damage" why are torps and rage torps doing the same or more damage than blasters and autos at several times the range? Especially given that those ships that have to close with the Raven will be using MWDs and thus inflating their sig to the point where rage torps are doing full damage.
Originally by: Zulupark
The tradeoff there is that they aren't direct damage and as soon as you for example orbit with an afterburner on you've decreased the damage you're taking quite a lot.
It's darn sight more direct than the time spent chasing chasing ships around in a close-range ship. Though apparently I should be fitting an afterburner to my tankless blasterboats.
Originally by: Dealin Blackleaf
Damage vs Range on Blasers and Pulses
Given a typically fitted Geddon (A) and a typically fitted Megathron (B)
A = 1077 @ 15km optimal and 10km falloff with faction MF
B = 1148 @ 4.5km optimal and 10km falloff with faction AM
and
A = 923 @ 45km optimal and 10km falloff with MF
B = 980 @ 11km optimal and 16km falloff with AM
Do you consider the damage to range ratio of these ships balanced?
To clarify: Are pulse ships dealing damage only slightly lower than that of blasters at several times their range intended and considered balanced?
[Both ships have highest tier t2 guns and 2x damage mods, typical to many fits. As a side-note the issues shown here on a battleship scale translate to similar results with medium and small weapons.]
Originally by: Zulupark
This looks ok to me but I'll pass the data on to the balancing team.
At least he's relaying the information.
All in all I'm stunned, both by this and the various replies with regard to Matari being fine because they are versatile, that this guy used to have a hand in balancing the game. That being said he's still doing an excellent job in this role, namely that of being a conduit between the community and the development and balancing teams, despite our vast differences in opinion I can't help but feel happy that we at least got a reply and that these issues might make their way to the ears of those able to deal with them. Even if they do turn out to think I'm talking tripe it's the best I can ask for in a world regrettably not under my personal dominion.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 12:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Shira Rayborn
1. Pages mean nothing when it's filled with whine posts disguised behind bad math.
2. Blasters are fine afer patch.
3. Blaster ships already got an agility boost.
1. The same bad math brought to you by the people who had a hand in cracking the tracking formula in the first place.
2. Your arguments are compelling however I have no desire to sign up for your newsletter.
3. You didn't actually look did you? All BS got an agility boost making it utterly useless as far as this discussion is concerned.
Seishomaru: The point wasn't aimed solely at blasterboats. If armor tanking ships are to suffer from reduced speed then this should be accounted for unless shield tanking ships are deliberately balanced to be faster and more agile than armor tanking ones. The penalties on armor tanks directly affect many ships ability to perform their role, namely closing to close-range. Meanwhile the signature penalty on shields does not affect the ships primary role in most cases, and provides an approximately equal penalty tankwise as does the armor penalties decrease in speed, both making you more vulnerable to larger weapons.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 16:23:00 -
[19]
If the identity of the different weapon systems is to remain the same then I'd have thought it would make sense to add more damage (and possibly tracking) to blasters and more falloff (and possibly damage) to AC's. Enough damage on the blasters to account for the approach on a torp or pulse boat, enough fall-off on AC's to allow them to perform better than blasters further out and to allow them to start applying damage earlier to account for their approach time. Adding range to blasters would be taking their drawback away, which removes variety.
For weapon systems to have meaningful differences they need clear advantages and drawbacks. For them to remain viable these advantages and drawbacks need to be applicable in combat and balanced against each other. The more often a drawback is likely to be in effect the greater the advantage needs to be. The more difficult an advantage is to apply the greater it needs to be. This may need plastering all over the front wall of the CCP offices as a reminder of what should be obvious.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 17:42:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Gaelenus
i'd quite like to see what the devs have to say about this... theres a keep discussing post somewhere in this thread..
They buffed the agility on all battleships, told us it was a buff to blasterboats, and we can only assume they now consider it all to be working as intended.
|
| |
|