Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Again, you compare a faction BS and a dedicated PvE battleship ......to a cruiser.

You live in a fantasy land, your....opinions......are suspect.

I think the one thing that people tend to forget with Missiles is that their skill tree is dedicated to ONLY missiles. Thus Missiles should be more power OR the skill requirements considerable lower.

Now you want people to train for a set of support skills that support only one weapon type and you are nerfing many many aspects of how it works.

Before others post about DRONES. Nearly every ship uses drones, thus training in Drones supports just about every ship.

I don't care what you chaps wrap this up as, for me this is a purely ISK control change. I'd much rather you just come out and say it.

*EDIT*

When you chaps do bring in the TE/TD changes, and we all know you will as the only reason you won't now is that you will highly likely face to many sub cancelations, is it going to affect ALL missiles?

Not sure if you know or not, but we have a few varieties of missiles.... guided and unguided. If you are going to apply EWar to both of these sets then I do hope that us pilots that have put a LOT of time into training the Missile supports get the benefit of our supports to ALL of our missiles.

Point II is plain wrong : a tier 2 BC with LR turrets have between 400 and 450 dps. It then have absolutely no tank, and it cannot hit anything moving at less than 20km. So a drake will outdps such a ship at approximately 25km (yes, because a drake can reach 400dps) if doesn't already outdps the turrets boats. In the same time, the drake sport an amazing tank (like twice a turret medium LR boat).

I don't care about everything else, this is not balance ; HML are OP, because that's not really the drake that allow for these stats, but the weapons themselves, as it has been showed numerous times before with weapons stats (the drake is only a revelator of the problem) ; but some continue to ignore them completely and bring some silly arguments about other missiles (which are all buffed amazingly) and whine that HML is the only usable missile system (a wrong assertion once again, proved numerous times before).

Point IV is garbage : T2 ammo with long range would be OP considering how they work with missiles. T2 short range ammo on LR turrets are *very* short range. Javelin on medium railguns give you 9km range with all 5 skills. T2 missiles with skills will have more than 20km range... This range justify the few percent dps they lack compared to turrets, even after the changes (yes, because a 35% damage bonus over T1 ammo is almost more than what they are doing now).

As for the statistics we saw, the only thing we can say about them is that they seem to be some large zealot fleet used, probably in nullsec, this week. There were also some Naga fleets. And some others. But that tell us more about nullsec politic than balance.

trust me i want a range buff on my torps i was merely making that as a statement to repair the gap between instant damage of turret systems and missile delayed damage

I'm curious.

Back before the initial post was changed I got the impression from the actual post and from others in the game that other than the Heavy Missiles, most other things were receiving a buff..... so that got me to looking at your chart closely and I have put the following information together which makes for pretty dismal reading if you have points in Missiles.

I was going to put comments in against changes, but I think they showed my view to much, so I have left it as pure figures.


Heavy Missiles:

Negative:

• Have received an AVERAGE negative change to the value of 22.7%.
• Across all of the Heavy Missile types there is a total of 725.% drop in stats.

Positive:

1. Have received an AVERAGE positive change to the value of 13.3%
2. Across all of the Heavy Missile types there is a total of 132.% increase in stats.

Balance:
Average change -9.4%
Total Change -593%

Other T2 Missiles:

Negative:

• Have received an AVERAGE negative change to the value of 19%.
• Across all of the Heavy Missile types there is a total of 304.5% drop in stats.

Positive:

1. Have received an AVERAGE positive change to the value of 10.4%
2. Across all of the Heavy Missile types there is a total of 114.8% increase in stats.

Balance:
Average change -8.6%
Total Change -189.7%

Make of it what you will..............

Regards

Barrak

Barrak: what I make of that is you don't know how to do analysis, as your numbers are meaningless.

Compare the weapon stats like you guys always do. Or compare fitted ships, then we have a different scenario. In this other aspects like Drone bay (yes, on 20km Drones DO play a role), speed and the like play a big role.



Thats your problem. You are focussed on one aspect and not seeing the big picture. Poor you.



Why does the Caracal then not own Cruiser PvP? Why isnt the NH better than Sleipnir or Absolution?

Besides - no other missiles are buffed. And atm there is no other MEDIUM or LARGE missile system usable in terms of PLAYING A ROLE in PvP.

And: we dont know yet IF this will change after the patch. I think it wont really change, except HML will also not be used in numbers anymore.

I understand *very well* though that you as a Gallentean Pilot dont like missile PvP too much :)



Do you actually understand what I wanted to achieve with this proposal? Define OP? Your statement is complete nonsense, seriously.




See, there were stats used before - Drake was number 1 there, and HML were used more. Everyone said "proof, this stats clearly show how OP" and so on. Some people tried to explain how they were made, and although we gave reasonable arguments for this point of view the anti-HML-fanatics wouldnt listen and claim "those are the best stats we have".

Now we have different stats, which give a different picture. Maybe invalidate a bit what the stats before showed ... and magically those new stats "show nothing", which explain maybe "nullsec politic" but dont show if something is broken or not.

You dont see what you dont want to see. I see HML are not out of line in terms of gamebreaking. You think they are in a certain role. I agree they are strong in that role, never denied that (in fact, I said that already when EVERYONE in Eve seemed to say "Drakes suck in PvP"). But they are not strong in others (naturally), and their short range pendant is not working as well as the Cane does with ACs. Or the Myrm does (with ACs). And I know people who will kill any PvP HAM Drake 1on1 with any other tier 1 or tier 2 BC except Prophecy maybe ... so no. The Drake is not OP, nor are HML. HML have a role where they are good, Drakes have roles where they are good. But so do MANY other ships in Eve too. But not so many Caldari ships, and no Caldari missile ship in PvP. Except the Drake (and, even when its more expensive and for sure not affordable for everyone, the Tengu).

So go on, fanatics. But be honest about your intentions - you dont want balance, you just dont like how missiles own you in PvP in certain situations :) because, if you were looking for balance, you would like to adress the *real* issues in this game.

Best regards

push back any changes to missles untill all t1 ships are rebalanced with the winter expansion caldari (dont know about other races) but caldari will not have a reliable ship that can even complete all missions dreed pirate scarlet for instance even a cnr will not be able to complete that mission.

Ok, personal experience having flown almost every caldari ship in missions, raven - sucks compared to tengu, CNR and Golem - better DPS worse tank (they do the missions alot faster), CNS - similar DPS and tank to a Tengu, Rattlesnake - greater DPS and similar tank to a Tengu, Gila - slightly weaker than a Tengu.

Note: These are Hi-Sec MISSION fit ships - NOT for use where you think you might loose them in PvP.

Basically, of the ones I mentioned there are only two that are worse than a tengu, and only one of those shouldn't be. All the rest perform better. Where they lack is in the ability to be fit inside an Orca hanger for mission runners - which is the ONLY reason I fly a tengu for missions.

I imagine an active Golem. Tengu doesn't come CLOSE to most battleship performance without faction launchers and a deadspace tank. At which point you may as well use....well a battleship, any battleship. Oh and did I mention the ammo costs for a Tengu are up there with an AC Maelstrom or Macharial, they chew ammo like mad.




Yeah so, you guys complained until they pulled the thing that would have buffed it. I was LOOKING FORWARD to seeing what a Torp Phoon could do with three BCS, two tracking comps and a a few neuts.



No one runs level 4s in ANY of the other T3s. I'vbe seen loki's plexing and prots doing lv 5s with logis but nothing like you see from Tengus. Hell you can run 8/10s with solo tengus.....none of the other T3s can manage that....why would that be. (Its not rate of fire)


Its not *my fault* CCP is not able to make CNRs and Golems work like they should. I gladly would take a Golem (which I can use with perfect skills) or a CNR (same) instead of my Tengu when I feel like doing a mission. If I want to max my ISK/h I have to leave my caldari ships in hangar though and have to use Winmatar/Angel. Or my Nightmare. Do you think this is ok? I dont. Especially not when I think of all those fanatics around who claim how "OP" and "gamebreaking" the incredible HML system is ..... its not. It can be dealt with. It is not overused anywhere apart from nullsec blobs. And even those seem to be countered now.



GTFO because my killboard is out there ....unlike yours..... you can see I lived in Low for quite some time, and guess what Drakes where everywhere and they were a force to be reconed with my FIRST ship loss was to a drake.



Apparently not, for all of the people that didn't think a drake could hit past 100km or thta HAMs needed 4 fitting mods to get onboard.

Like I said. I have a stack of kills in both Drake and Tengu in the last month. Post your **** or STFU.