These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
NextDarkKnight
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#6041 - 2012-11-12 16:05:01 UTC
Also, Since we are on the subject.. and not to derail that missile should not be like guns and defense has always should be a high slot item. Once was a time you could bookmark missiles in flight. Not that it would have any tactical purposes with the new bookmarking system. I'm sure RvB would add some interesting tackle options if managed correctly :p

Just a general reminder for some of the great unique options missiles use to have which was removed. and for way way back.. missile I believe use to have a little splash damage which I remind you could be added as a specialized missile type.
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc.
#6042 - 2012-11-12 16:07:55 UTC  |  Edited by: nikon56
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
I agree with NextDarkKnight.

I would prefer the a anti-missile system to be a laser-based system and a defender-missile system. Defender missiles are broken. They could be fixed as everyone knows. However, many races ships can't fit them. With a few T2 exceptions to that rule: ex. Amarr.*

Having a turret-like interceptor system and missile-interceptor system to knock out hostile missiles would make sense. Gallente ships use turrets only. Amarr ships with the exception of T2 variants use turrets only. Minmatar use turrets and launchers. Caldari presently are canonically extremely missile inclined. As such, having two different and complimentary counters to missiles would add diversity and reflect the racial preferences.

On a different subject, I strongly dislike the proliferation of hybrid turrets among caldari ships. It doesn't fit into the Caldari canon well at all. Caldari make use of and are masters of missiles. That should be reflected in their ships and and ship-bonuses. In other words, Caldari ships should be uniquely different but still missile systems. If you want to use hybrids that is what Gallente are for.

*Footnote: I am ignoring the new Destroyers for the sake of this post.

agreed on the "defender" needed an upgrade

the best solution imao would be a laser based module that can destroy incoming missiles.

or better, any hostile missiles, maybe bringin a new role for fleet as a missile destroyer ship, packed only with thoses (like some are actually packed with damps / TD ) to protect a fleet from incoming missiles.

actually, defender are just useless, they don't kill enought of the incoming, need you to perfect time them, doesn't autorepeat, useless under 15-20KM (while most of the current engagement happens below this range) cause you cannot react fast enought to launch them.

at least make them autolaunch when an incoming missile is detected....
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6043 - 2012-11-12 16:09:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Keko Khaan wrote:
Well coercer has one mid too much anyways.. Besides its ammar all you need is armor plate and lasors Lol


"Who needs webs or points?"
Spoken like a true Caldari. Big smile

What about Geddon then?
You will need slots for prop mod, point and cap booster and... oh nose all slots are already used.
NextDarkKnight
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#6044 - 2012-11-12 16:18:09 UTC
nikon56 wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
I agree with NextDarkKnight.

I would prefer the a anti-missile system to be a laser-based system and a defender-missile system. Defender missiles are broken. They could be fixed as everyone knows. However, many races ships can't fit them. With a few T2 exceptions to that rule: ex. Amarr.*

Having a turret-like interceptor system and missile-interceptor system to knock out hostile missiles would make sense. Gallente ships use turrets only. Amarr ships with the exception of T2 variants use turrets only. Minmatar use turrets and launchers. Caldari presently are canonically extremely missile inclined. As such, having two different and complimentary counters to missiles would add diversity and reflect the racial preferences.



agreed on the "defender" needed an upgrade

the best solution imao would be a laser based module that can destroy incoming missiles.

or better, any hostile missiles, maybe bringin a new role for fleet as a missile destroyer ship, packed only with thoses (like some are actually packed with damps / TD ) to protect a fleet from incoming missiles.

actually, defender are just useless, they don't kill enought of the incoming, need you to perfect time them, doesn't autorepeat, useless under 15-20KM (while most of the current engagement happens below this range) cause you cannot react fast enought to launch them.

at least make them autolaunch when an incoming missile is detected....



This sounds all good and great.. but until some one from CCP gets to Storyboard this and sells it and gets a design team on it.. We are all just talking about nothing. I want missiles (though somewhat useless) to have really nice level of depth and not to be converted into another turret based design.
Ludiah
GOTTEG Mining and Industrial Union
#6045 - 2012-11-12 17:08:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here.
Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.
The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.


Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG.

By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by.

I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#6046 - 2012-11-12 17:34:12 UTC
Aglais wrote:
Caldari use hybrids and missiles. It's like how Gallente use hybrids and drones. Notice how both factions have specialized missile/drone ships but also have ones that primarily use hybrids. Not to mention, that Caldari and Gallente were, in the lore, which you seem to be a rabid supporter of, were for a long time the same political entity. You could say that this is a hint that they have shared ancestry.

If you only want to use Caldari missile ships, by all means go ahead. But don't complain when you can't join in on some fleets, because you don't have a ship that'll properly perform in that role (ie. snipers- Notice how long it takes missiles to hit things at range. Hybrid boats can at least be fit to snipe. The Moa may not really be an optimal choice yet but that's because medium railguns are horribad. Once that's fixed, well, I think they may be mobile mini-Rokhs.)

Perhaps I wasn't clear with respect to my remark. If you look at Caldari BSs the only one truly useable for PvP is the Rokh. Which is a hybrid system. Missiles will be excellent for damage projection come this winter. The issue is that the bonuses on the Raven make it ill-suited for PvP. Though that may be mostly or at least partially due to the issues with Torps and CMs.

That said, I am well aware of the background. I do understand the point you are making. No, I am not a sloth and have quite good hybrid weapon skills, for the amount of time that I have been playing Eve, and use them regularly.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#6047 - 2012-11-12 17:50:08 UTC
Keko Khaan wrote:


Well coercer has one mid too much anyways.. Besides its ammar all you need is armor plate and lasors Lol


If only this were true. Lol

The reason for mid slot is, that is where all of the EWAR and ECCM goes for slot layout. Putting it on a high slot would mean 70% of the ships in game could not mount the system without losing a gun. And the AMS would not completely negate missile boats, it would have a chance at each missile shot of picking it off is all, lowering the incoming damage a bit.

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
#6048 - 2012-11-12 19:02:59 UTC
Ludiah wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here.
Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.
The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.


Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG.

By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by.

I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho.


start flying something else than a hurricane and you'll realize why it needs to be nerfed
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#6049 - 2012-11-12 19:25:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Ludiah wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here.
Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.
The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.


Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG.

By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by.

I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho.


If I pick your comments about pg requirements and ship loss:

-17%pg requirement for Arty = +17% PG available

-10% base pg available means you still have left +7% PG than before changes. Not sure this is exactly what you wanted to say but it's what it looks like.

brb
Sycotic Deninard
Basgerin Pirate
#6050 - 2012-11-12 20:59:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Sycotic Deninard
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Tengu competes against BSs in BS ranges (~100km) dealing 700+ dps at that range. Why someone would use turret BSs when one ship can do it better even without drones?
Tengu deals 1000+ dps at 50km with HAMs.

You sure you don't see a problem here?

1000+dps at 50km range with HAMs? To achieve that you would need 4 faction BCUs and the rigs would all need to be missile velocity/travel travel time rigs and you would not have enough PG left to fit any tank in the mids. Tengu does have issues but exaggerating to such a level just weakens your argument.

SNIP




Well, this isn't entirely true... Here is an incursion fit that I will be using come patch day... Please note: This is a PVE fit NOT a PvP fit and its only designed to be used in Assault/HQ incursion fleets.

[Tengu, Incursions - DPS HAMS (Passive)]
Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening
Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor

6x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II (Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile)

Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender
Pithum A-Type Explosive Deflection Amplifier
2x Pithum A-Type EM Ward Amplifier
Pithum A-Type Kinetic Deflection Amplifier
Domination Target Painter

4x Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System

Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II


As you can see, this has plenty of tank with excellent resists (at least 80% accross the board with fleet boosts) and best of all.... its all passive (meaning that even when I'm nueted by the Outunis, Deltrolls and Niarjas), I still retain my tank. To achieve that kind of DPS ALSO requires +6% Missile implants which a lot of regular incursion runners use.

I agree with what you are saying in general however, this is an example of an extreme fit that to be honest most people won't be using. The point Im making is that it is possible to acheive that amount of DPS in a Tengu AND have tank.

A person that does'nt use his intelligence is no better than an animal that does'nt have any and thus are steaks on the table by choice and consent.
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6051 - 2012-11-13 00:31:13 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Keko Khaan wrote:
Good idea put id prefer mid slots as highs are usually consumed by guns. It would mean less guns for some ships.. Or then give more high slots to 8 turret ships...


Mid slot you say?

Some of my Amarr ships will like it a lot (for example Armageddon, Coercer).


And how is that different in any way from trying to fit TD in there?

Please feel free to reply to my posts, you haven't done so yet, only thing you have been doing now is attacking and nitpicking others in some minor almost irrelevant things to this current topic...
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6052 - 2012-11-13 12:36:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Johnson Oramara wrote:
Please feel free to reply to my posts, you haven't done so yet, only thing you have been doing now is attacking and nitpicking others in some minor almost irrelevant things to this current topic...


I already did... Roll

Defender missiles are kinda bad counter since you can't fit launchers to ships with "launcher hardpoints: 0".
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#6053 - 2012-11-13 12:56:58 UTC
I see Jorma is still ignoring what doesn't suit and reporting pre-nerf stats (with a current shelf life of ... oohhh....3 weeks) to prove that hulls are overpowered when arguing with people talking about post-nerf things.

"oh look how far the caracal can shoot today!"
"look, it has a ROF bonus too!"

Note that both of these sit in mutually exclusive patch sets, but don't let that dissuade you arguing to hell and back people who are unhappy with these changes Blink

He even claimed a raven was not a bad PvP boat and linked a video where a raven jammed out another battleship for AGES and STILL popped...yeah, what a showcase.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6054 - 2012-11-13 13:09:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I see Jorma is still ignoring what doesn't suit and reporting pre-nerf stats (with a current shelf life of ... oohhh....3 weeks) to prove that hulls are overpowered when arguing with people talking about post-nerf things.

"oh look how far the caracal can shoot today!"
"look, it has a ROF bonus too!"

Note that both of these sit in mutually exclusive patch sets, but don't let that dissuade you arguing to hell and back people who are unhappy with these changes Blink

He even claimed a raven was not a bad PvP boat and linked a video where a raven jammed out another battleship for AGES and STILL popped...yeah, what a showcase.


Translation: "Because cruise missiles and torpedoes suck we need our OP heavy missiles."

I'm still waiting that 400 dps rail Ferox fit you claimed exists.
Kasel Duval
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6055 - 2012-11-13 13:10:09 UTC
how about this:
RENAMING+SOME NEW LAUNCHERS (split by ammo type used):
LML==>Small warhead launcher
RL==>Rapid fire small warhead launcher
RLML==>anti-frigate cruiser launcher:cruiser's better cpu performance enable faster data-crunching for the improved guidance sistem,bigger load of ammo make this module a deadly anti-frigate system, because of change to the old light missile damage need some rof tweak ( shouldgenerate low-end dps for a cruiser)

HML==>medium warhead launcher
HAM==>rapid fire medium warhead launcher
(NEW!)==>anti-cruiser battleship launcher: yes this is like the anti-frigate version, but spew assault missile and heavy missile, cons are similar to anti-frigate version

CML==>large warhead launcher
TML==>rapid fire large warhead
(NEW!)==>anti-battleship citadel launcher (capital ship module) tired of drake blob? Battleships still hate you? This will **** some faces, cons: like all the rest of the family of this kind of module exspect low dps for a capital (just for looks: make it look like like a crazy big, 16 tubes RLML)

CCL==>XL warhead launcher
CTL==>rapid fire XL warhead launcher

all launchers use both short and long range kind of ammo (example small,rapid small,anti-frigate warhead launcherc can use rocket and light missile),affect rof and the use of the skill guided missile precision,implant and similar rigs

-warhead launchers:improved guidance computer, takes time to give precision to missile so slow rof. Affected by all missile skil;
-anti- launchers:the improved guidance computer takes less time to give precision to missile than warhead launchers thanks to the bigger resources of the ship so medium rof.Easy fitting, affected by all missile skills;
-rapid fire launchers: the computer use an approximative guidance sytem to predict enemy trajectory, improved rof, can't use guided missile precision skill, implant and similar rigs to affect the warhead, you can improve performance with exsplosion speed

AMMO REBALANCE:

ammunition performance rating (1=worst 6=best):
ammo range dmg ex rad ex vel
t1 long 6 2 5 5
precision 5 1 6 6
rage 4 3 4 4
t1 short 2 5 2 2
javelin 3 4 3 3
fury 1 6 1 1
(note:obtain those result will require a lot of tweaking to the ammunition )
Do something like this will make missiles similar to guns for range choice and dmg/range progression



Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#6056 - 2012-11-13 13:31:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I see Jorma is still ignoring what doesn't suit and reporting pre-nerf stats (with a current shelf life of ... oohhh....3 weeks) to prove that hulls are overpowered when arguing with people talking about post-nerf things.

"oh look how far the caracal can shoot today!"
"look, it has a ROF bonus too!"

Note that both of these sit in mutually exclusive patch sets, but don't let that dissuade you arguing to hell and back people who are unhappy with these changes Blink

He even claimed a raven was not a bad PvP boat and linked a video where a raven jammed out another battleship for AGES and STILL popped...yeah, what a showcase.


Translation: "Because cruise missiles and torpedoes suck we need our OP heavy missiles."

I'm still waiting that 400 dps rail Ferox fit you claimed exists.



I dont and have never said I did use heavys. Nor did I say *my* application of cruises sucks. I said they suck in PvP. And they do.

Nor did I claim to have a 400dps ferox. You however claimed a drake has more dps than a ferox at any range. I proved this fundamentally untrue after the patch and you ignored it/went rather quiet. You are, of course at liberty to show me a drake capable of outranging a ferox post expansion. I'll not hold my breath though...

in fact I've said repeatedly throught this thread that HML probably need tuned down, you however are firing out falsehoods and lies to further that agenda. at least I'm being balanced in the debate.

My post was merely a note to others debating with you that it is...futile. Because you neither listen nor acknowledge that any viewpoint other than your own is correct and you want to see missiles nerfed into the dirt - and that's fine - but lying and deliberately mixing pre and post expansion facts to muddy the waters to further your belief is poor form.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6057 - 2012-11-13 13:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
My post was merely a note to others debating with you that it is...futile. Because you neither listen nor acknowledge that any viewpoint other than your own is correct and you want to see missiles nerfed into the dirt - and that's fine - but lying and deliberately mixing pre and post expansion facts to muddy the waters to further your belief is poor form.


In what reality HML Draek will have less range than pulse/beam Harbinger after the patch?

Also, if you want to snipe with missiles, maybe Draek isn't the best ship for the job... Ever heard of Cerberus?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#6058 - 2012-11-13 14:10:19 UTC
Link my post where I used the word "Harbinger" in that context.

I don't. It was your quote (re: Drakes and Ferox), not mine, so please don't expect me to explain it to you.


See, more water mudding/point ignoring.

Carry on, it's mildly amusing.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6059 - 2012-11-13 14:26:14 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Link my post where I used the word "Harbinger" in that context.

I don't. It was your quote (re: Drakes and Ferox), not mine, so please don't expect me to explain it to you.


See, more water mudding/point ignoring.

Carry on, it's mildly amusing.


What's the point then?

Other than "we need to have OP missiles".
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#6060 - 2012-11-13 14:33:49 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Link my post where I used the word "Harbinger" in that context.

I don't. It was your quote (re: Drakes and Ferox), not mine, so please don't expect me to explain it to you.


See, more water mudding/point ignoring.

Carry on, it's mildly amusing.


What's the point then?

Other than "we need to have OP missiles".



The point? That you are firing out falsehoods, misleading numbers, mixing pre and post patch numbers and other proven lies* to further your hatred for missiles.


*I'll stand corrected on this when you find a retri fit where a drake outranges a ferox.


You're well entitled to your opinion and HML DO need tuned, however that is no excuse for the above.