These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Eckyy
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1741 - 2012-09-19 22:18:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Eckyy
...Continued from my previous post.

I'd say the changes that CCP has proposed are not outrageous, but I disagree with letting them go live as-is. Effectively, CCP is promising to remove the kinetic-only focus of Caldari medium-sized ships and give them true damage flexibility. This can actually more than make up for the flat damage loss in PvE when fighting enemies not weak to kinetic damage. There is also the option of HAMs, which previously weren't even a consideration. The range penalty also seems reasonable, and CCP has promised to fix T2 missiles and additionally give Rage missiles a slight damage boost. In regards to the Drake itself, it makes sense that it will not beat the Harbinger at every range damage-wise because it will have a tanking bonus, damage flexibility, and zero cap use.

The problem lies in the fact that missiles and turrets are both going to be weak to tracking disruptors. Also, with the proposed changes, heavy missiles are still considerably easier to fit than beams are.

What I propose:
1. Swap HAM and Heavy fittings. This will bring missiles in-line with other weapon systems. Rockets are easier to fit than light missiles, blasters are easier to fit than rails, HAMs should be easier to fit than Heavies. I feel that this is reasonable because close-range ships need additional fitting room for tanking modules, and with medium-sized missiles it's currently bass-ackwards. Various adjustments may need to be made to the ships themselves such as grid or CPU tweaks, but I stand behind this change.

2. Missile disruptors - you already have these in game. If you're going to nerf the damage and range of heavy missiles, please consider the consequences of leaving defenders as they are in PvE. However in PvP, there is currently no real option for missile disruption as, frankly, defenders suck and need addressing. There have been several good proposals so far on this topic, but here's my take: Either fix defenders, or remove them and add in a new missile disruptor module. Give it to Gallente or Minmatar ewar ships. At the very least, if you're set on adding this effect to tracking disruptors, make them require a special script to effect missile ships, perhaps even separate range and explosion velocity scripts. I feel that adding this effect to TDs puts too much ewar power in Amarr ships though (which are already fantastic in their roles), and this is a wonderful opportunity to fix Gallente's weak ewar ships.

3. Look at the ships themselves! Obviously you already are, but consider how terrible all of the other ships in EVE that primarily have to use medium missiles are - ships such as the Caracal and Caldari faction cruisers, the Damnation and Nighthawk, and the Lachesis. Also, consider that there are a lot of ships that have missile hardpoints and spare highslots, and already don't generally opt to use missiles in them - ships like the Rupture, Cyclone, Stabber, Curse, Ferox (it got an extra turret though), Bellicose, Blackbird, Moa, Vagabond, Muninn, and perhaps others I've missed. Even ships like the Lachesis which have a bonus to both hybrids and missiles tend to ignore their missiles. I fear that these hardpoints, which are already overlooked, will become more than useless.

I've noticed (what is to me) a disturbing trend for CCP to tie weapon systems very closely to ships and take away fitting variation - things like giving the Ferox and Moa another hardpoint instead of making missiles actually valuable in its spare highslots. When Minmatar ships were not doing so well, CCP opted to boost autocannons rather than improve supplementary damage systems in their ships. This is obviously a perfectly valid way to improve these ships, but the result is that every cruiser has 5 turrets and every BC has 7 turrets and all of them fit only the weapon systems in their highslots that they're bonused for. Please consider at least trying to make missiles a valid supplementary weapon system.
Kalla Vera Quiroga
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1742 - 2012-09-19 22:19:44 UTC
CCP needs to be really careful what they nerf next, from what I learned to heart from another game "a nerf to a class is a subtle buff to many other classes", and I'm going to wish they scrutinize this change very well before launching it live. Although some heavy nerfs to missiles are huge, this new combination with TEs/TCs/TDs seems to improve deeper choices among players.
Not a fanatic missile user but when these changes come live I've be playing with them like new toys.
Celebris Nexterra
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1743 - 2012-09-19 22:20:55 UTC
Honestly idk if the devs are even still reading at this point, but meh. I read a bunch of posts, certainly not 87 pages' worth, but a lot. I didn't see anyone mention a separate disruption module for missiles. I think it's an incredibly simple and elegant solution, and will keep the "disruption" modules in their current state of effectiveness; if you fit a TD now, you are banking on running into a turret ship, otherwise it's useless; if you fit an Explosion Disruptor (or whatever it might be called if implemented) you're banking on running into a missile ship, otherwise it's useless. Everything everyone said earlier where there would be literally no reason to not fit a TD with the proposed changes is right on, it really would be the new ECM.

I am hugely in favor of having some way to mitigate missile damage other than being a frigate or getting out of range, just like there is against turret ships, so I would really like to see some form of this go through. I want to see nullsec Drake blobs die in a terrible ******* fire. But straight-up adding missile disruption to current TD's is flat-out wrong.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1744 - 2012-09-19 22:21:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Lili Lu wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944512#post1944512

already mentioned and addressed this. suffice to say it's not as "HUGE" as you would hope.


So you dont think the ability to load gleam for 500% tracking over aurora is huge?

Not to mention, nobody uses beams on harbs because scorch does way more damage at non-blob (read: point) range. Artycanes are used because they outdamage autocannons at point range.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1745 - 2012-09-19 22:22:32 UTC
Missiles and turrets are different as it has been said countless of times. Though, that's not a reason for heavy missiles to do turret close range ammo dammage. Infact, that is the case right now : a Drake with HML can have the same dps as a long range turret ship with close range ammo. The difference is that the Drake don't lose dps over range. That is insanely overpowered.

Now, missiles are that way : they do the same dps at all range they can reach and changing this to be more turret like is silly, you would better have to get rid of missiles completely.

With these changes, missiles will still do 50% (FIFTY PERCENT !!!) more dps than turret at long range. Maybe we could consider that turret doing 30% more dps at close range (you know, the range were you are pretty doomed because of tracking and close range weapon dps and commitment) is a fair trade off.
Gungankllr
DAB
Solyaris Chtonium
#1746 - 2012-09-19 22:26:09 UTC
What I get from this is that putting a TD or 15 on a missile boat will affect the range of FOF missiles too, which are supposed to be a counter to EWAR right? So you can hit somebody that is jamming or dampening you? So if you get hit with a crapton of disrupters, which nerf your range into nothing, you can't fire back due to short flight time. Is that what is meant by effecting FOF as well as HM or am I missing something?

Also, I get everybody is whoo-hah ing about flight time not being a big deal (I.e. range) but its not instant damage. It takes 10-15 seconds to even get to max range, whereas guns are instant. Make lasers instant, and anything else have a time-to target. Slower than lasers but faster than missiles. By far. Just my two cents.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1747 - 2012-09-19 22:26:56 UTC
Gungankllr wrote:
What I get from this is that putting a TD or 15 on a missile boat will affect the range of FOF missiles too, which are supposed to be a counter to EWAR right? So you can hit somebody that is jamming or dampening you? So if you get hit with a crapton of disrupters, which nerf your range into nothing, you can't fire back due to short flight time. Is that what is meant by effecting FOF as well as HM or am I missing something?

Also, I get everybody is whoo-hah ing about flight time not being a big deal (I.e. range) but its not instant damage. It takes 10-15 seconds to even get to max range, whereas guns are instant. Make lasers instant, and anything else have a time-to target. Slower than lasers but faster than missiles. By far. Just my two cents.


You arent meant to fight back, you are meant to get more people than they have. They are better at the game than you because they have more people.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1748 - 2012-09-19 22:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
Also, the hurricane nerf has minimal effect on blobbing with welpcanes (you lose little damage by downgrading a gun size), but make the cane so much worse for small gangs (you lose a little damage but a lot of range on autocanes and a lot of speed and agility on artycanes)

Yet another change that hurts small gangs with minimal effect on blobbing
MisterArch
IBeast streamFans
#1749 - 2012-09-19 22:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: MisterArch
Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.

However, sevaral things are left out:
- other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead (or what is there more distant, Iron?)?
- other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DPS higher then theoretical
- missile damage can only go lower, then theretical

And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc.
20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK.
Lili Lu
#1750 - 2012-09-19 22:38:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Michael Harari wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944512#post1944512

already mentioned and addressed this. suffice to say it's not as "HUGE" as you would hope.


So you dont think the ability to load gleam for 500% tracking over aurora is huge?

Not to mention, nobody uses beams on harbs because scorch does way more damage at non-blob (read: point) range. Artycanes are used because they outdamage autocannons at point range.

Yeah, of course I was mostly addressing your characterization of the damage increase as huge, which it isn't. As for the "500%" tracking increase, that is a comparison from .01031 for Aurora and .05156 with Gleam. You tell me at 10km or less optimal just how much that is going to mean on a small fast target. So yeah, that increase is not huge.

As for noone using beams (except for pve in level 3s where they do get used) that's part of the point with the current Drake imbalance. You know you can't get heavy pulse on a Harby to hit at 70km (well with any reasonable fit and mods). Point range is often irrelevant in pvp because we have bubbles, Lachesises, and even gang buddies in trhowaway tech I frigs.

Arty get's used for it's over the top (imo) alpha.

Your reply does not support your original exageration concerning short range high damage ammo on long range medium guns.

If you read my post though,while I do have concerns that while the current damage differentials "hugely" favor the Drake too much (and everyone collectively has come to that conclusion through usage stats), I also am not sure that the proposed damage nerf is set at the right level. Testing will help tell once the changes hit the test servers.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1751 - 2012-09-19 22:39:15 UTC
MisterArch wrote:
Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.

However, sevaral things are left out:
- other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead?
- other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical
- missile damage can only go lower, then theretical

And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc.
20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK.


They compared HMLs to tremor, spike, aurora, completely ignoring that 99% of the time artycanes have rf emp, fusion or pp loaded.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1752 - 2012-09-19 22:44:22 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
MisterArch wrote:
Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.

However, sevaral things are left out:
- other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead?
- other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical
- missile damage can only go lower, then theretical

And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc.
20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK.


They compared HMLs to tremor, spike, aurora, completely ignoring that 99% of the time artycanes have rf emp, fusion or pp loaded.

And those artycanes will still have a much smaller engagement window that post nerf HML's.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1753 - 2012-09-19 22:46:12 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
MisterArch wrote:
Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.

However, sevaral things are left out:
- other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead?
- other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical
- missile damage can only go lower, then theretical

And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc.
20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK.


They compared HMLs to tremor, spike, aurora, completely ignoring that 99% of the time artycanes have rf emp, fusion or pp loaded.

And those artycanes will still have a much smaller engagement window that post nerf HML's.


At ranges people actually fight at in small gangs (point range) they outdamage prenerf HMLs, and vs targets smaller than bcs, they outdamage HMLs out to very silly ranges.
Arec Bardwin
#1754 - 2012-09-19 22:46:41 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps?
  • The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
    Are there any plans to make

    Rigor rigs
    Guided Missile Precision (rename it to Missile Precision?)

    affect the 'unguided' missiles as well? With these changes it would make sense to remove the difference between guided and unguided missiles altogether. This way you can actually change from long range loadouts to short range without having one or more rigs being useless.
    MisterArch
    IBeast streamFans
    #1755 - 2012-09-19 22:47:04 UTC
    But they can change ammo, missile boats can't.
    Terik Deatharbingr
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #1756 - 2012-09-19 22:50:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Terik Deatharbingr
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:
    Missiles and turrets are different as it has been said countless of times. Though, that's not a reason for heavy missiles to do turret close range ammo dammage. Infact, that is the case right now : a Drake with HML can have the same dps as a long range turret ship with close range ammo. The difference is that the Drake don't lose dps over range. That is insanely overpowered.

    Now, missiles are that way : they do the same dps at all range they can reach and changing this to be more turret like is silly, you would better have to get rid of missiles completely.

    With these changes, missiles will still do 50% (FIFTY PERCENT !!!) more dps than turret at long range. Maybe we could consider that turret doing 30% more dps at close range (you know, the range were you are pretty doomed because of tracking and close range weapon dps and commitment) is a fair trade off.



    You're numbers are way off. If fleet doctrines were updated to include afts instead of MWD's, you would cut down a drakes DPS to 188, and with the proposed changes, to 150 with a range of 56km....

    which means a cane with 720's and tremor ammo would have 230 dps with a 62k range and 28k falloff....so even without these changes, that means an AB Cane is superior to a Drake aside from range, where a Drake is superior to a slowboat *not likely* or MWD Cane...and if the Cane gets within 30k, it can switch to higher dps ammo, and the DPS goes up exponentially until 9k.

    essentially meaning unless the drake has an MWD, it stands NO chance against a Cane AT ALL. *mind you, these numbers are without any tank fittings*....because with equal prop mods, the Cane will always be able to kite...and since the Cane will have BETTER range, it can stay out of missile damage range.

    Honestly, the FC's that are NOT using Drakes, are morons in thinking it's better to have MWD's instead of AB's seeing as even if the Drake is in range, it can't hit you for ****.
    MIrple
    Black Sheep Down
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #1757 - 2012-09-19 22:59:34 UTC
    With the changes proposed would giving all missiles a resist to there damage type not be in order?
    Lili Lu
    #1758 - 2012-09-19 23:00:03 UTC
    Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
    talking about using afterburners

    Not using microwarpdrives is not such a simple thing. You need a hell of a tank and small sig to pull if off. Otherwise you will just die in bubbles or if in lowsec die to tackling frigs getting under your guns or Lachesis and Huginn tackle.

    ABs work with armor hacs because of the tank and the fleet comp. On BCs it doesn't work. On BSs it's even worse to fit an ab because the speed boost is essentially meaningless.

    Also, I think if the whole anti-drake blob solution was to fit ABs it would have become widespread seen by now, 3 years into Drake blobs.
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #1759 - 2012-09-19 23:03:08 UTC
    Michael Harari wrote:
    Tyberius Franklin wrote:
    Michael Harari wrote:
    MisterArch wrote:
    Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.

    However, sevaral things are left out:
    - other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead?
    - other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical
    - missile damage can only go lower, then theretical

    And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc.
    20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK.


    They compared HMLs to tremor, spike, aurora, completely ignoring that 99% of the time artycanes have rf emp, fusion or pp loaded.

    And those artycanes will still have a much smaller engagement window that post nerf HML's.


    At ranges people actually fight at in small gangs (point range) they outdamage prenerf HMLs, and vs targets smaller than bcs, they outdamage HMLs out to very silly ranges.

    For target sig HML's are getting help by the way of modules allowing them to use other slots than rigs to enhance their damage application. And while the difference at short ranges is being widened we have only really 2 choices here. Missiles retain damage but have shorter range leaving no true long range medium missile option and HAM's stay semi-obsolete, or have hams be the right choice for their role with some added flexibility and condemn HML's to long range/low damage and have a weakness in the middle.
    Ashera Yune
    Doomheim
    #1760 - 2012-09-19 23:04:33 UTC
    Well medium LR weapons are all now rather pointless.

    Time to pull out Tier 3 BC and superior Large LR Guns.

    Mega Pulse lasers with scorch is superior to every LR gun. -Napoc and Abaddon fleet is an example of this.

    Screw T2 HAC's I got the cheaper Tier 3 Battlecruisers that makes a superior gank mobile.

    "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."

     Kahlil Gibran