These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2261 - 2012-09-21 11:20:47 UTC
what?
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2262 - 2012-09-21 11:23:10 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun


Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun.


Is 7 times the speed of sound fast enough?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-video_n_1311251.html

Looks more like you don't understand differences between missiles and railguns/coilguns.


No where near fast enough lol.

That is half the speed of current eve missiles. Mach 7 is 2.4k m/s, so it would take the rail gun projectile well over a minute to reach 200k. It could a bit faster in a vacuum and with more advanced tech but is a million miles away from being instant it. Modern missiles can reach not far off that speed even if you don't use the same to tech to launch them as you do to fire the rail gun (which you could do and one assumes that is how eve missiles are launched). Really there should be very little difference in missile and hybrid speeds and projectiles should be slower than either. lasers should be the only practically instant hit.


well also you know they started using missiles on jets because they kept shooting themselves down with their own guns when they ran into their projectiles, lol.
Sigras
Conglomo
#2263 - 2012-09-21 11:33:41 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
you are missing a few things:
1. long range medium turrets are not exactly popular to begin with. if you nerf HMLs down to their level, they will just become equally useless. that's like killing your neighbor's wife because your own wife is an ugly *****.

HAC sniping got killed by on grid probing, and the tier 3 battlecruisers, before those, you used to see fleets of 100 km beam zealots, heck you even still see 80 km muninns for their alpha, theyve just been overshadowed by something better, this doesnt make them bad necessarily, just that those other things need perhaps a slight adjustment downward.
Daniel Plain wrote:
2. you don't need piloting skills to mitigate missile damage. just be small and fast, that's it.

small and fast works against guns too . . . a dramiel orbiting at 250km can basically never be hit by a sniper apoc, even running an MWD at that extreme of a range. being small gets under guns just as well for guns, perhaps even better because missiles always do at least some damage.
Daniel Plain wrote:
3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever.

thats really a sweeping generalization as you are not stating what ships youre trying to get range from. can you keep range from interceptors? no, but youre more than able to keep range from battleships . . . and though most cruisers are faster than you are, it doesnt matter because your fleet usually warps in at 100 km anyway and leaves when the enemy crosses the 50 km line.
Daniel Plain wrote:
4. arguing paper dps is stupid. it's applied dps that matters

True, but right now all we have are the numbers. And besides as a statistician, I can tell you that the number are more than adequate, you just have to account for all the variables.
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#2264 - 2012-09-21 11:39:02 UTC
I agree that heavy missiles should be nerfed in some way but TD affecting missiles is ridiculous.

1) it's not logical because missiles don't have tracking
2) it will make TD overpowered so I expect every ship in game to have at least one fitted
3) you already have defender missiles - just make them act as other ewar: you lock ship, activate module on it and it kills some missiles fired by that ship. Can't be simpler than that.
4) unlike turret fire missiles can be killed by smartbombs which gives too much counter to missile ships compared to turret ones

I understand your solution is much simpler and straightforward to implement but you shouldn't make everything in this game the same. Variety is what's interesting about it.
Sigras
Conglomo
#2265 - 2012-09-21 11:43:06 UTC
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
[quote=Jorma Morkkis]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun


Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun.


Is 7 times the speed of sound fast enough?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-video_n_1311251.html

Looks more like you don't understand differences between missiles and railguns/coilguns.


No where near fast enough lol.

That is half the speed of current eve missiles. Mach 7 is 2.4k m/s, so it would take the rail gun projectile well over a minute to reach 200k. It could a bit faster in a vacuum and with more advanced tech but is a million miles away from being instant it. Modern missiles can reach not far off that speed even if you don't use the same to tech to launch them as you do to fire the rail gun (which you could do and one assumes that is how eve missiles are launched). Really there should be very little difference in missile and hybrid speeds and projectiles should be slower than either. lasers should be the only practically instant hit.


While that is true, I will point out that the article stated the railgun used was a "32-megajoule prototype railgun" by comparison, 425mm Raingun IIs take 21 GJ to fire thats 656.25 times the energy used to accelerate the projectile.
Renegade 41
The Dark Space Initiative
The Initiative.
#2266 - 2012-09-21 11:45:48 UTC
NO TD mod for Missiles, and a damage nerf of 10-15% would be fine.

That is all.

Missiles can be dodged already, why put an even bigger chance to miss in? HM's dont have alpha, they have late beta.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2267 - 2012-09-21 11:46:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Alexander the Great wrote:
I agree that heavy missiles should be nerfed in some way but TD affecting missiles is ridiculous.

1) it's not logical because missiles don't have tracking
2) it will make TD overpowered so I expect every ship in game to have at least one fitted
3) you already have defender missiles - just make them act as other ewar: you lock ship, activate module on it and it kills some missiles fired by that ship. Can't be simpler than that.
4) unlike turret fire missiles can be killed by smartbombs which gives too much counter to missile ships compared to turret ones

I understand your solution is much simpler and straightforward to implement but you shouldn't make everything in this game the same. Variety is what's interesting about it.



1) Using RL logic is a terrible arguement - we have fluid dynamics for space movement and max range on projectiles in a vacuum!
2) Entirely depends on the details. Are Multispecs overpowered? Are damps? Both work on all ships.
3) Defenders dont work. They have been broken for years. To get them working is too CPU intensive (read Fozzies response around page 70).
4) Since various missle changes smartbombs are no longer effective against most missles as they have more HP than a single bomb blast. Its not a realistic disadvantage. Turrets have the added disadvantage of being COMPLETELY unable to hit any small target that gets <500m from the ship. Missles hit at all of their ranges.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#2268 - 2012-09-21 11:59:11 UTC
Lallante wrote:

Yes and no. Yes, the medium guns are not popular, but this is a problem with the platforms NOT the guns themselves. The DPS output, range and tracking is balances as against short range guns. The issue is the long range platforms are completely outclassed by tier3 BCs. Boosting the long range cruisers is the correct balancing step - and one I'm sure CCP will take when they get to tech2 cruisers.

i disagree. even without T3 BCs, the long range turrets (especially rails) have huge trouble dealing with most opponents. basically, anything that isn't fast enough to get under your tracking is either a battleship and outranges you anyway or is outside of tackling range and can just warp out unless it gets alpha'ed(that's why arties are stille good). then of course the T3 BCs are here to stay and if medium long range guns can't compete with them, that is clearly a problem with the weapons (unless you argue to remove/nerf the T3s).

Quote:

Exactly. With guns you can be "small and fast" OR use pilotting skill. Missles have a big advantage AND don't fully "miss" so can still force (for example) a tackling inty off the field even with anemic damage.

if you are small and fast, you are likely fragile which means you are vulnerable until you get under the guns. with missiles, you do always get a portion of the damage but you do not need to get into scram range to avoid part of it. to me this seems pretty balanced overall.

Quote:

Yes they have. MWD Drake blobs kite all the time. They cant 'absolutely' dictate range against a focussed, faster opponent but they dont need to - they sit at 100km and noone approaches them. "Dictating Range" in a fleet fight IS NOT the same as dictating it in a 1v1. In a fleet fight warping and warping back in is a form of dictating range. IF a drake blob engages MWD on mass and moves away, theres not many short range platforms (if any) that can both keep in range of the majority of the blob (they might web and pick off one or two), and keep enough Cap to have a reasonable chance of actually beating the drakes.

blob warfare is one specific aspect of the game. if one hull or another performs exceptionally well in it, you should probably take a look at the hull and not the weapon system it shares with a dozen other ships. int his context, i will admit that the range on hevies is probably too long across the board and should be nerfed to less than the optimal of rails at least.

Quote:

"Arguing on paper is stupid, therefore I'll just shoot my mouth off based on my gut feeling (and did I mention I only fly drakes and Tengus so I'm not at all biased) and not produce ANY evidence"

actually, i mostly fly nightmare and hurricane. please don't jump to conclusions. as for evidence: posting random numbers is not evidence either; it just skewes the picture away from a ship's actual real-world performance. to give you an example: on paper, the cerberus would be an awesome boat. smae DPS as a drake but 190km lolrange. yet somehow it is not so effective on the grid, to find out why is your homework.

Quote:

If HMLs are arguably worse than beams and arty, howecome drakes and tengus are the most popular ships? Both the usage statistics AND the paper figures back up the belief that HMLs are OP. Cerbs and Nighthawks are underpowered, but will be addressed when CCP gets to tech 2 ships next year. barely anyone flies them atm so its hardly a disaster to have to wait.

drakes and tengus are overpowered because in addition to the HML range (which i won't deny needs a nerf), the one of them can easily fit a battleship sized buffer tank and the other one can fit a 100mn afterburner without losing too much of anything.
if you adressed these two issues and also did something with hml range, everything would be fine (minmatar would reign supreme again).


[fakequote]
You are also wrong about applied dps. In current fleet warfare, the 10 second (max) delay before missle dps is applied is meaningless, and there is no damage mitigation against the equal sized targets you normally see in fleets.[/fakequote]

again, fleet warfare is not everything and the reason drakes are so good in fleet warfare is only partly due to HML's supposed OPness.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#2269 - 2012-09-21 12:05:49 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Hazen Koraka wrote:
So... 110 pages of mostly angry mob against these changes.

Lol


Please don't quote people and edit their quotes... I didn't say angry mob, but its netequitte not to edit what ppl say...

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html

OmniBeton
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2270 - 2012-09-21 12:05:57 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
DPS: 17
Alpha: 242
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3

This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.


Perfect .... for stationary targets. Now calculate DPS and Alpha for firing from optimal range at target moving at 200km/s
Onictus
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#2271 - 2012-09-21 12:10:06 UTC
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:



3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever.

Yes they have. MWD Drake blobs kite all the time. They cant 'absolutely' dictate range against a focussed, faster opponent but they dont need to - they sit at 100km and noone approaches them. "Dictating Range" in a fleet fight IS NOT the same as dictating it in a 1v1. In a fleet fight warping and warping back in is a form of dictating range. IF a drake blob engages MWD on mass and moves away, theres not many short range platforms (if any) that can both keep in range of the majority of the blob (they might web and pick off one or two), and keep enough Cap to have a reasonable chance of actually beating the drakes.
[quote]
.

lol, how much damage do they do to a target at 100k?


Right about 400 dps, you can still get 2 BCSs with that build.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2272 - 2012-09-21 12:13:09 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
My most important comment to make on the subject is.


CCP...

PLEASE, for the love of Marauders!!!

Wait until you've buffed the rest of the missile boats before you go nerfing the only two effective ships we have!!!


(DISCLAIMER: I don't care about the troll posts of other players who claim that many other missile boats are effective in pvp when we all know they're little more than bait, extra dps, or just there to drop a bomb and then become a bonus if they stay alive because this doesn't make them effective)

The Drake and Tengu will still be good, maybe even holding onto the "Go Drake/Tengu or go home!" title they have now. It could be worse, it could be Gallente.


Yeah, but my concern is pve really.

Right now the tengu is the most efficient missile boat in pve.

This IS in part due to the OP nature of the tengu, however, the tengu is outperformed by t1 and t2 bs' without missile specialization in pve.

So, this is to say that the rest of the missile boats capable of lvl 4 missions are quite lack luster.

I'm willing to lose my tengu as my mission boat, however, I'd like to get a missile boat bs that is as capable as the current tengu before this nerf bat hits.



CNR/Golem? Used both and the Tengu, Both are better at certain missions than the other.

Not sure about the golem but cnr tank is crap compared to tengu, you are screwed if your drones are dead and your speed is so slow that you'll spend more time moving from gate to gate than shooting stuff.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2273 - 2012-09-21 12:14:06 UTC
Sycotic Deninard wrote:
Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread
Wanna bet? Blink

Hi again everyone. I said before that I would read every post in this thread and I'm not backing down from that. (Well if someone necros it in a year or something I may miss it but you know what I mean) Thanks once again to everyone who is providing constructive feedback.

I wanted to address a few more concerns:

  • Is it true that this change is being made to reduce lag?
  • Nope. Those of you who experience large fleet warfare on a regular basis know that the lag production from missile has been vastly reduced thanks to Team Gridlock's efforts behind the scenes. Although it would be possible for us to make missiles a problem again through design (If I were to increase the ROF of heavy missiles 10 times over CCP Veritas would probably poison my coffee), the game design department has received no pressure at all to nerf heavy missiles for any server performance reasons.
    Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games.
    .
    ..
    ...
    Hmmm

  • What about NPCs that use TDs and Defenders?
  • This is an excellent question and I really should have been more clear about it in the OP. We won't be changing NPC TD effects in this pass. Any adjustments to how NPC ewar works would require a more comprehensive balance pass on NPCs themselves to ensure it doesn't break anything. So even if we go forward with the TD change, Sansha TDs would not touch your missiles.

  • Why aren't you considering Delayed Damage/Firewalls/Defenders?
  • Another excellent question and the answer is that we have not forgotten them at all. Missiles are very different from turrets in a lot of ways and that's both a big part of their appeal and part of the reason that the arguments in this thread seems to be going in circles.
    Aspects like the delay on damage, vulnerability to firewalls, defenders, using their own formula instead of tracking and selectable damage types are all hard to put on paper since their importance changes greatly based on the specific ingame situation.
    "Bringing in line" may not have been the best choice of words since it can be misunderstood to mean that everything will be the same. Missiles will still have certain advantages and disadvantages inherent to their mechanics, and part of the compensation for those differences is the fact that even after this proposal heavy missiles would continue to be by far the best cruiser weapon for damage projection at mid to long range. I am not proposing making heavy missiles match guns in damage or range, I'm proposing reducing the advantage they have over guns slightly. That being said this is a tricky balance area since so much of their performance is dependent on all these other factors. We're not taking the challenges here lightly and that's one of the reasons we're reaching out to you all for your feedback on the proposal.

  • Are you trying to make all weapons the same to make the game more simple?
  • No, far from it. TE/TC/TD effects are the least of the differences between missiles and guns, and we are committed to providing players with interesting and distinct choices thorough our designs. The goal here isn't to trivialize the choice of missiles or guns, it's to make those choices matter more. We would be failing if after our changes guns are the obvious choice to train for, we would be failing if after our changes missiles are the obvious choice to train for, and we would be failing just as much if after our changes the choice between missiles and guns does not matter.
    It's a delicate balance but we're going to keep working with you all until we get it right.

  • Are the notes from the CSM 6 winter summit minutes a good guide for what will be done with Drakes long-term?
  • Nope. CSM minutes tend to be full of spitballing and random brainstorming that never makes it past an early design review. The idea to give the drake more range in exchange for its resist bonus is another one of those ideas that never made it past the brainstorming stage.

  • Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?
  • Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Frac Tal
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2274 - 2012-09-21 12:17:42 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything.


You mean like that missile will "teleport" next to target ship after launch and explodes. Yeah, if you can find the way to explain how it is possible...

... But of course 100+ km range on instantly hitting missiles... No thanks.


Just spat coffee everywhere laughing reading that :D
Signal11th
#2275 - 2012-09-21 12:19:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Sycotic Deninard wrote:
Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread
Wanna bet? Blink

Hi again everyone. I said before that I would read every post in this thread and I'm not backing down from that. (Well if someone necros it in a year or something I may miss it but you know what I mean) Thanks once again to everyone who is providing constructive feedback.

I wanted to address a few more concerns:

  • Is it true that this change is being made to reduce lag?
  • Nope. Those of you who experience large fleet warfare on a regular basis know that the lag production from missile has been vastly reduced thanks to Team Gridlock's efforts behind the scenes. Although it would be possible for us to make missiles a problem again through design (If I were to increase the ROF of heavy missiles 10 times over CCP Veritas would probably poison my coffee), the game design department has received no pressure at all to nerf heavy missiles for any server performance reasons.
    Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games.
    .
    ..
    ...
    Hmmm

  • What about NPCs that use TDs and Defenders?
  • This is an excellent question and I really should have been more clear about it in the OP. We won't be changing NPC TD effects in this pass. Any adjustments to how NPC ewar works would require a more comprehensive balance pass on NPCs themselves to ensure it doesn't break anything. So even if we go forward with the TD change, Sansha TDs would not touch your missiles.

  • Why aren't you considering Delayed Damage/Firewalls/Defenders?
  • Another excellent question and the answer is that we have not forgotten them at all. Missiles are very different from turrets in a lot of ways and that's both a big part of their appeal and part of the reason that the arguments in this thread seems to be going in circles.
    Aspects like the delay on damage, vulnerability to firewalls, defenders, using their own formula instead of tracking and selectable damage types are all hard to put on paper since their importance changes greatly based on the specific ingame situation.
    "Bringing in line" may not have been the best choice of words since it can be misunderstood to mean that everything will be the same. Missiles will still have certain advantages and disadvantages inherent to their mechanics, and part of the compensation for those differences is the fact that even after this proposal heavy missiles would continue to be by far the best cruiser weapon for damage projection at mid to long range. I am not proposing making heavy missiles match guns in damage or range, I'm proposing reducing the advantage they have over guns slightly. That being said this is a tricky balance area since so much of their performance is dependent on all these other factors. We're not taking the challenges here lightly and that's one of the reasons we're reaching out to you all for your feedback on the proposal.

  • Are you trying to make all weapons the same to make the game more simple?
  • No, far from it. TE/TC/TD effects are the least of the differences between missiles and guns, and we are committed to providing players with interesting and distinct choices thorough our designs. The goal here isn't to trivialize the choice of missiles or guns, it's to make those choices matter more. We would be failing if after our changes guns are the obvious choice to train for, we would be failing if after our changes missiles are the obvious choice to train for, and we would be failing just as much if after our changes the choice between missiles and guns does not matter.
    It's a delicate balance but we're going to keep working with you all until we get it right.

  • Are the notes from the CSM 6 winter summit minutes a good guide for what will be done with Drakes long-term?
  • Nope. CSM minutes tend to be full of spitballing and random brainstorming that never makes it past an early design review. The idea to give the drake more range in exchange for its resist bonus is another one of those ideas that never made it past the brainstorming stage.

  • Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?
  • Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control.



Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.

I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!

Signal11th
#2276 - 2012-09-21 12:24:31 UTC
Soko99 wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
My most important comment to make on the subject is.


CCP...

PLEASE, for the love of Marauders!!!

Wait until you've buffed the rest of the missile boats before you go nerfing the only two effective ships we have!!!


(DISCLAIMER: I don't care about the troll posts of other players who claim that many other missile boats are effective in pvp when we all know they're little more than bait, extra dps, or just there to drop a bomb and then become a bonus if they stay alive because this doesn't make them effective)

The Drake and Tengu will still be good, maybe even holding onto the "Go Drake/Tengu or go home!" title they have now. It could be worse, it could be Gallente.


Yeah, but my concern is pve really.

Right now the tengu is the most efficient missile boat in pve.

This IS in part due to the OP nature of the tengu, however, the tengu is outperformed by t1 and t2 bs' without missile specialization in pve.

So, this is to say that the rest of the missile boats capable of lvl 4 missions are quite lack luster.

I'm willing to lose my tengu as my mission boat, however, I'd like to get a missile boat bs that is as capable as the current tengu before this nerf bat hits.



CNR/Golem? Used both and the Tengu, Both are better at certain missions than the other.

Not sure about the golem but cnr tank is crap compared to tengu, you are screwed if your drones are dead and your speed is so slow that you'll spend more time moving from gate to gate than shooting stuff.



Yep but really thats the pilots fault for getting in that situation isn't it? CNR tank is worse than Tengu but I can still do any lvl'4 in it.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2277 - 2012-09-21 12:34:09 UTC
Signal11th wrote:

Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.

I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.


I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.

So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Shade Millith
Farmhouse.
Simple Farmers
#2278 - 2012-09-21 12:37:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
Lallante wrote:
Shade Millith wrote:
Ok, my thoughts on the issue, not that anyone cares.

Range nerf? Yes.

Damage nerf? Too far.

Bump the range nerf up to 60%-70%, remove Precision HML's and add Javelin HML's that increase the range back to 60-70kms.

Keep the decent damage to 40km's, with reduced damage out to 80km's.



Your changes will just make the HML worthless for PVP. Add to that the Drake changes you've hinted at, and I think your sending the Drake back to what it used to be. The 'LOLDrake'.


No, they make HML worthless for short range PvP where it cant dictate range. As a long range platform should be.

Please can you engage with the figures, which have been posted many times in this thread, that show that post nerf HMLs are still BY FAR the highest DPS of the long range medium weapons.

The changes you suggest take HMLs completely out of the light-heavy-cruise line and make them a sort of "super HML". You need to remember that HMLs are NOT supposed to be a short range weapon. In theory HMLs should be lower dmg than long range guns because nothing can "get under their tracking" through pilotting but I accept this wouldnt go down well with the very vocal drake/tengu hoardes.


They kind of are both our short and long range weapons. HAM's lack the tracking ability HML's do. If HAM's were just that, our true short range weapon, they'd have better tracking ability than HML's.

Since they don't, this nerf is, in my mind, nerfing both our hybrid short/long range weapon, and making the problems of our 'short' range weapon even worse (Rage HAM ammo even WORSE at tracking than it already is).
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#2279 - 2012-09-21 12:41:08 UTC
" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"

your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2280 - 2012-09-21 12:44:16 UTC
Seranova Farreach wrote:
" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"

your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350


The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie