|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 18:19:14 -
[1] - Quote
Taram Caldar wrote:Just my opinion but sentries aren't the problem, currently. The problem is the bonuses on the ishtar that push their drone damage, in general, so over and above the damage output of other ships in their peer group...
Ishtar Sentry damage is already in line with ships of their class. This happened the last balance pass on the hull when damage bonus was cut in half from 50% to 25%. They have maximal dps with Heavy Drones which have their own shortcomings.
The tracking/optimal bonus of 25% on the Ishtar Sentries and 37.5% on the Domi ones are significant but not out of line with other ranged systems.
Let's compare 3 HACs, bonuses only:
An Eagle gets: 20% shield resists, 50% optimal, 50% optimal, 25% damage. A Zealot gets a 50% weapon cap use bonus, 25% RoF bonus, 50% optimal bonus, and 25% raw damage bonus. An Ishtar gets 25% drone HP, 25% damage, 25% optimal, and 25% tracking.
The Eagle gets 1x tank bonus, 2x range, 1x damage, The Zealot gets 2x damage bonuses and 1x range bonus The Ishtar gets 1x damage, 1x range, and 1x applicaiton.
The bonuses are all in line with each other. It is the weapon system that then makes them stand apart.
****************** The problem with drone boats is this: the different ship classes share 1 ranged weapon type with no size variance. It has been brought up in the past that there should be a Medium Sentry and a Large Sentry. And now that Sentries are coming under the knife it is time to address this problem.
Some people complain that cruisers should not be able to use a battleship weapon system. But sentries have never been exclusively battleship and up. The issue is they had to be strong enough for BS and that has caused issues with the Ishtar balance. Hence why they nerfed all the sentry bonuses on that hull.
Are the sentry stats too strong when used by the Dominix and Armageddon? Or are they too good on cruiser hulls? If the latter then the solution is introduce a new set of sentries balanced for medium weapon strengths, and adjust appropriate hull bonuses in line with these new drones. Then rebalance the original sentry into a BS+ system and be done. No need to put restrictions or new bandwidths in place, if a cruiser is only bonused for medium sentries it will likely not make sense to field the larger size. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 18:26:38 -
[2] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Liking the change. In general I've always hated droneboats. Anything that discourages their use is fine by me. Makes those huge battles much easier on the Hamsters when there aren't 10's of thousands of drones being abandoned into space (sometimes purposefully to induce more tidi) [Sarcasm] We should get rid of everything except missiles, then it would all be balanced. [/Sarcasm] There are different weapon systems that behave in different ways, let us not get rid variety because you don't like one of the flavors. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 18:44:39 -
[3] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Why does the double bonus on the problematic hulls are allowed to stay for so damn long on ship that even CCP acknowledge are problematic?
Is there any other weapon where a bonus to application and projection (tracking + optimal) in any form is present on the same bonus slot for a hull? Looking at other HACs the Munnin gets rate of fire, damage, optimal, and tracking; which from a bonus only comparison is better than the Ishtar's.
Several other HACs get double damage bonuses and double range, some only get one range bonus. The fact that the Ishtar gets one for damage, one for optimal, and one for tracking is not out of line with other HACs. It is the weapon system that makes the bonuses more meaningful. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 19:13:58 -
[4] - Quote
Desudes wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:Taram Caldar wrote:Just my opinion but sentries aren't the problem, currently. The problem is the bonuses on the ishtar that push their drone damage, in general, so over and above the damage output of other ships in their peer group...
Ishtar Sentry damage is already in line with ships of their class. This happened the last balance pass on the hull when damage bonus was cut in half from 50% to 25%. They have maximal dps with Heavy Drones which have their own shortcomings. The tracking/optimal bonus of 25% on the Ishtar Sentries and 37.5% on the Domi ones are significant but not out of line with other ranged systems. Let's compare 3 HACs, bonuses only: An Eagle gets: 20% shield resists, 50% optimal, 50% optimal, 25% damage. A Zealot gets a 50% weapon cap use bonus, 25% RoF bonus, 50% optimal bonus, and 25% raw damage bonus. An Ishtar gets 25% drone HP, 25% damage, 25% optimal, and 25% tracking. The Eagle gets 1x tank bonus, 2x range, 1x damage, The Zealot gets 2x damage bonuses and 1x range bonus The Ishtar gets 1x damage, 1x range, and 1x applicaiton. The bonuses are all in line with each other. Still waiting for a Zealot setup that can do 420 dps at 160 km. Eagle can reach that with CN Plutonium at 58+20 km. Quote:It is the weapon system that then makes them stand apart. So just a battleship-sized weapons system. Apples/oranges comparison. zealot will have half again the ehp of a fleet ishtar, a tiny signature, the zealots dps is where the ship is, not where he drops it, fleet zealots are typically AB brawlers, not shield kiters, even beam zealot has significantly more tracking... 160km drone control range is nigh impossible with any tank due to cpu. 120ish is feasible. I'm addressing people that have issue with the Ishtar bonuses as being far and above all other HACs. I went through and looked at the the bonuses on all the HACs and the Ishtar bonuses are in line with all the other HACs so it is not a bonuses issue.
That is why you see CCP now adjusting the weapon system and not the one hull. My point is that they are on the right track but it is probably a better solution to create a ranged weapon for drone ships below Battleship class and adjust accordingly.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 19:26:15 -
[5] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Why does the double bonus on the problematic hulls are allowed to stay for so damn long on ship that even CCP acknowledge are problematic?
Is there any other weapon where a bonus to application and projection (tracking + optimal) in any form is present on the same bonus slot for a hull? Looking at other HACs the Munnin gets rate of fire, damage, optimal, and tracking; which from a bonus only comparison is better than the Ishtar's. Several other HACs get double damage bonuses and double range, some only get one range bonus. The fact that the Ishtar gets one for damage, one for optimal, and one for tracking is not out of line with other HACs. It is the weapon system that makes the bonuses more meaningful. Ishtar sentries gets bonus to damage, optimal, tracking and range. That's 4 bonus just like other HAC gets on top of another bonus specifically targeted at heavy drones. Drone control range is the same as missile flight time/max velocity. It's a projection bonus especially when it's possible to reach the normal drone control range with your primary weapon system (sentries). Quad weapon bonus at the cost of 3 bonus slot. Scrap the tracking or optimal which occupy the same slot so it's like other ships. People keep confusing control range as a range bonus when it is comparable to a targeting computer. It lets you lock farther out and start shooting, but if you are outside falloff you are not going to hit anything. Using a Garde with 50 control range vs one with 120 control range is not going to let the drone hit a target any better.
Yes I missed the control range bonus since I was mainly looking at Sentries wich is what this thread is about. It helps mobile drones but due to travel time and not being as disposable as missiles, it is not really a good comparison to missile flight time/velocity. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 19:42:42 -
[6] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: The sentries range cap out much shorter if not for this projection bonus. This is why it needs to be counted as projection. Normal drone boat range cap out much closer to ishtar because of that. If you don't see it as a projection bonus, you are delusional. People fit DLAs to their but a bonus to drone range does not count because :reasons:...
It is as much a projection bonus as a targeting computer. Yes it is beneficial. I discounted it because I was not considering ships targeting range in the equation when comparing to drone boats. I'll look at some numbers and edit this post. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 20:05:20 -
[7] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: The sentries range cap out much shorter if not for this projection bonus. This is why it needs to be counted as projection. Normal drone boat range cap out much closer to ishtar because of that. If you don't see it as a projection bonus, you are delusional. People fit DLAs to their but a bonus to drone range does not count because :reasons:...
It is as much a projection bonus as a targeting computer. Yes it is beneficial. I discounted it because I was not considering ships targeting range in the equation when comparing to drone boats. I'll look at some numbers and edit this post. Yes Drone Control range benefits 3/4 of the sentries. Base is drone contol range is 60km and the Ishtar bonus takes it to 85km. I assume this was done due to other HACs having base targeting ranges in the 70km to 90km range. Because having your weapon max range cap go from 60km to 85 KM is not a bonus? Ishtar targettign range is 100km so there is no need for a module to boost it untill you go with DLAs. Bouncers, curators and wardens all still do damage past the 60km mark that would be the limit if the Ishtar didn't have a range bonus. So if a HML Cerberus (95km base targeting range) had a 60KM limit on missiles being able to engage that would be okay? The control range bonus is to bring the weapon system in line with with the ships targeting range. SO while it is a bonus it is only in order to equalize the weapon system.
The only way I can see CCP getting around this would be to remove control range and use a ships targeting range instead. In which case no bonus would be needed. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 21:06:36 -
[8] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: The sentries range cap out much shorter if not for this projection bonus. This is why it needs to be counted as projection. Normal drone boat range cap out much closer to ishtar because of that. If you don't see it as a projection bonus, you are delusional. People fit DLAs to their but a bonus to drone range does not count because :reasons:...
It is as much a projection bonus as a targeting computer. Yes it is beneficial. I discounted it because I was not considering ships targeting range in the equation when comparing to drone boats. I'll look at some numbers and edit this post. Yes Drone Control range benefits 3/4 of the sentries. Base is drone contol range is 60km and the Ishtar bonus takes it to 85km. I assume this was done due to other HACs having base targeting ranges in the 70km to 90km range. Because having your weapon max range cap go from 60km to 85 KM is not a bonus? Ishtar targettign range is 100km so there is no need for a module to boost it untill you go with DLAs. Bouncers, curators and wardens all still do damage past the 60km mark that would be the limit if the Ishtar didn't have a range bonus. So if a HML Cerberus (95km base targeting range) had a 60KM limit on missiles being able to engage that would be okay? The control range bonus is to bring the weapon system in line with with the ships targeting range. SO while it is a bonus it is only in order to equalize the weapon system. The only way I can see CCP getting around this would be to remove control range and use a ships targeting range instead. In which case no bonus would be needed. 2 out of 3 missile type on the cerberus won't shoot to it's maximum lock range. One of them can't shoot to the unbonused drone range. Oh and please don't forget to mention the cerb need 2 range bonus on those weapon to achieve those range numbers. I think the sentries needed 2 bonus to range (max velocity and flight time) just like sentries do (drone control range and optimal).
Right, you're proving my point for me. The base lock range of the ship exceeds the usable range of all but T1 missiles. Thus you can shoot any missile at any target you can lock, they won't all hit because they have limited range to apply damage. Drones will not shoot at any target you can lock. They will only engage a target you lock AND is in their control range. It is a unique feature to the weapon system that no other system has. If control range didn't matter, then in passive mode, lock range and the drones optimal/falloff would be equivalent to the other weapon systems.
I'll stop after this one because it is clear we won't agree.
You fit a Cerberus with HML it will shoot ALL T1 missiles to 141km, Faction to about 72Km, and T2 Fury to 106KM. Imagine you had another limiting factor on your launchers that wouldn't let you shoot them unless you also had a missile control range, and it started at 60km. Thus what you see as an extra bonus is only bringing the use of drones up to the same engagement window of other HACs. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.21 21:17:41 -
[9] - Quote
Lady Aesir wrote:Ishtar
A Cruiser should not be able to field sentries PERIOD Yes they should. All other drones are not considered ranged weapons, and both in PvP and PvE having drones travel long distances proves this.
There are two way I see to solve this:
1) Nerf sentries a bit and buff the BS+ hull bonuses to compensate 2) Create a Medium Sentry class and change cruiser bonuses to this size sentry. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 18:38:58 -
[10] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Hilti Enaka wrote:I've said this many times after seeing the game become more and more "balanced", nice way of saying nerf BTW.
When things are "unbalanced" they game is exciting and you have people trying to theory craft ways to counter the trends.
Many times over I've seen exciting gameplays get it's arsed ripped out because CCP decided to nerf rather than be proactive and think of ways to allow us gamers to counter act. Part of what made/makes eve so exciting is the freedom but the rules and the constant tiers of "this needs balancing" annoys me rotten. This is what made Eve so formidable as a MMORPG.
Please Fozzie, rather than nerf things and sugar coat it as balancing, think in the opposite direction to allow us to think strategically about being able to play out counter-attacks. The way it is at the moment you nerf one thing and another gameplay will emerge that you will nerf *cough* balance again. It's been months and the statu quo is still that Ishtar are dominant. You'd think the playerbase would of found other counter by now beside faction battleships? Do you think people didn't look at the ship roster to find what was possible with the current setup? How long do we let something unbalanced to push people to try new things? How long before we consider the baalnce was actually FUBAR and need to be modified because the ideas just plainly don't work?
Yes but consider this: You fly and own OP ship A. OP ship A gets nerfed to Very Strong. There are other Very Strong ships, but you don't own them nor are fully trained into them. What will you fly? You will likely still fly ship A.
It takes a long time for a small change to have a wide spread impact. If they nerfed the Ishtar so that 3-4 other ships are cleary better than it, then you would see a much more rapid change in ship use. But over-nerfing is bad for games. We don't want that.
The Ishtar might still be too strong, but only more time will tell for sure. |
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 19:02:29 -
[11] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
What about cutting out some of the ishtars dronebay so it cant have extra sets of almost every sentry? Fairly mild change and makes killing its drones a bit more feasible.
You do know that an Ishtar can carry 3 sets of sentries in total, right? That usually means 1 or 2 types with 1 to 2 spares sets. I highly doubt that having a spare set of sentry drones is what makes the Ishtar too good.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 19:08:51 -
[12] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Maximum Bandwidth by base hull and core design role
Is a Drone Boat Frigate/Destroyer - 25 Cruiser/BC - 50 Battleship - 125
Not a Drone Boat Frigate/Destroyer - 10 Cruiser/BC - 25 Battleship - 50
Drone boats then can be diversified by any applied bonus HP, Tracking, Damage, MWD Speed, Optimal/Fall-off etc
if you gave Give the Dominix a HP, Tracking & MWD bonus, and the Navy version a optimal/fall-off bonus & Damage bonus one would be better with heavies, the other with sentries.
the whole sentry-Ishtar meta becomes moot as it would no longer be possible
The Ishtar would no longer be used for fleets, at all. As you remove the only ranged drone. It is not as simple as removing sentries, you have to replace it with something or you have changed they ships very nature. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 19:31:10 -
[13] - Quote
Sticky wizzleteats wrote:Also instead of taking sentries away from drone boats, instead reduce their bandwidth to 100. I've 4 drones They did the equivalent to the Ishtar already.
Ishtar (125MB): 5 sentries x 25% damage bonus = 6.25 sentries. Myrmidon (100MB): 4 sentries x 50% damage bonus = 6 sentries.
There is a lot more to the issue than this. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 23:51:18 -
[14] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote: ...Also you still need to be in range to use missiles, given this is a Cruiser, we need do compare it vs Heavy/Heavy Assault missiles, and in both cases the control range alone on a hull like the Ishtar blows away the ranges a missile cruiser can put down....
Might want to check your facts. The missile HAC, the Cerberus has a longer base targeting range than the Ishtar and can shoot Faction /T1 missiles to 141km before any rigs and T2 Fury to 106km. It is not the Ishtar's fault that Heavy Missiles are what they are. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
35
|
Posted - 2015.05.25 23:23:19 -
[15] - Quote
EDIT: Removed Post |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 16:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:I see this as interesting, with some potential, though I disagree on 2 suggestions.
1) The drone bay. No reason not to leave it capable of 3 sets of the Heavy/Sentry. 225m3, keeps the choices and spares. 2) Control range. No need to change. If a ship opts to use sentries for long range sniping they will be out of rail range and lose that DPS. If they opt to stay in rail range, control range does not matter.
Plus as far as I can tell, Drone Control Range is a pilot stat not drone. So this would have to be reworked to accomplish your ends and it is an unnecessary addition of complexity to start with. Thanks a lot for taking the time to grab the actual numbers. I was running numbers on paper so had a few numbers off actually with my math. I would agree with your suggestion of increasing the drone bay to 225, I was honestly thinking 2 flights plus back up. But you make a very good point of why 3 flights should be allowed. As for your second point, I can see the problem here. I could have sworn they reached out further, so maybe a larger optimal range bonus in in order. I also agree it does do a number on the train time to get to perfect operation. However, the increased training should pay off in spades for those who can fly it optimally, while not being overbearingly so as medium weapon systems are not horribly long train times. As for the control range currently you are 100% correct, control range is currently decided by the drone's base range+skills to decide how far out from you/your drones is to it's intended target you can issue orders to attack. I effectually want that aspect removed from sentries such that sentries have a set targeting range (their optimal+falloff) and their control range be based on possibly the sentry skill itself, something along the lines of 4km per level. Numbers of course being debatable. And to reiterate, this doesn't effect their current functionality in the slightest to ECM/damps since to issue the attack command the pilot must still have the target lock, all that changes is their leash range to the sentries.
My beef with control range limits is for everyone that does not use it in an abusive way. When I would run missions in my Dominix I would snipe from 100+ KM; with my imperfect skills I would have to use 3-4 DLAs and a SeBo with range script. Ishtar pilots basically get 1 free DLA which allows them to engage drones from a reasonable base distance for the design of the hull.
Control range only helps engage a target, it does not help hit or apply the damage, it simply allows the pilot to say shoot and the drone shoots. The drone is still limited by its optimal/falloff and tracking like any other weapon, if the target is out of the drones range the drone will miss 100% regardless of the control range. So other than certain kiting tactics, I don't see control range as a real problem. And I don't think a system should be balanced around one line of tactics, unless it is clearly exploitable.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 16:42:29 -
[17] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:I still think the best way to fix / solve the problem with sentry on cruisers is to branch out to 3 sizes of sentry. I'd be happy with 2 sizes. Frigates and destroyers normally engage from a range where small/med drone speeds are sufficient and mobility is preferred.
I'd hate for them to create another class of drones that was seldom used. But perhaps they would be used more than I think once available and people go and get creative with their tactics.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.26 16:44:27 -
[18] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:James Baboli wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:DEFANDER wrote:I like how DEV's stop responding when They have nothing more to argue with. We also stop responding when it's the weekend and we're not at work. I think the whole forum would like an answer to one question. What are sentries balanced against? Maybe we would understand what they are trying to achieve if we knew where they think they should be balance wise... EDIT: It's a Pandora box if they open it tho. Most game devs who ever make point like that turns out hating them self for it later on... Heck, all they need to do is say they are a long range or short range or mid range weapon in the small, medium or large class, and then the inherent range between all of those things (and the extreme range of power for them in most cases) makes it easy to argue they are or aren't balanced either way, as stuff is going to be on either side of it, almost regardless of which class they put it in. I think the issue is that they don't compare, they are unique. So fueling are need to compare them to other systems would not be in their interests. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 19:09:41 -
[19] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Maxi Dap wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Maxi Dap wrote:well there goes pve Ishtar again, still breathing thou, kick it again while on the ground in future patches. Eventually it will be as good as the rest of eve ships, we can have singularity then. not going to lie there are plenty of other ships you can use in pve that don't disrupt balance in the rest of the game. and yes things should always be balanced for pvp if the are overpowered in that area regardless of if they lose effectiveness in isk grinding or not Ok, without lying let me see those other pve ships. See if you can fit the criteria bellow: 460m budget 15 min C3 site clear avarage Cruiser size hull 700+ dps out ot 65km range application Those are fairly impressive numbers, seeing as I can't get such numbers out of two ships which are reasonably agreed to be OP almost everywhere, specifically tengu and loki. I get pretty close with a Tengu:
[Tengu, Tengu HML] Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System
10MN Afterburner II Medium Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Amplifier II Shield Boost Amplifier II Shield Boost Amplifier II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
Tengu Propulsion - Intercalated Nanofibers Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
685DPS from 71km |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 19:52:51 -
[20] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
At 90 mill/BCS, I think you are a bit over budget...
According to O.sium this Tengu is only 450M which was within the budget constraints asked for.
|
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.05.28 20:05:08 -
[21] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
At 90 mill/BCS, I think you are a bit over budget...
According to O.sium this Tengu is only 450M which was within the budget constraints asked for. EDIT: O.Sium is not giving the right number.... or else I would not have brought this fit up. I'll see if I can fix it.
Yeah dropping it down to T2 BCUs and swapping CPU rig for missile rig you get 637DPS. For the price of 450-460m, Sorry. Still not too bad though.
And of course you can not overheat drones, so PvP paper dps is 749DPS for this 450M Tengu. Just pointing out another DPS difference between drones and traditional weapons. |
|
|
|