These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#61 - 2012-09-18 14:25:47 UTC
DeBingJos wrote:
NiGhTTraX wrote:
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.


Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range?


this!

plus...


Daneel Trevize wrote:
NiGhTTraX wrote:
CCP Frozie wrote:
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.


No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho.
Who said the intended purpose was 2 medium neuts?
Or that BCs were balanced?
Or that a Brutix can fit Neutrons while using its active tank bonus?


bring on the drake army and whelpfleet tears

also medium rails need some love and gal ships need to be fixed without changing their intended tank style or weapon choices.
NiGhTTraX
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-09-18 14:25:51 UTC  |  Edited by: NiGhTTraX
DeBingJos wrote:
NiGhTTraX wrote:
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.


Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range?


Nonetheless, the new 257 DPS is laughable. I get that the Drake has range to its advantage, but 257 DPS? Come on. You can't kill anything with that if you're solo.

I have no problem fitting a Brutix with Ions and perfect skills.

If you're gonna post here thinking your idea is the greatest thing since bacon and that it will save EVE and possibly all humankind with it, you're gonna have a bad time.
Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#63 - 2012-09-18 14:25:54 UTC
This is amazing stuff. The dmg difference between 220s and 425s arent too steep, less fitting really addresses the core issue of the cane, in that it honestly does a bit of everything a bit too well. You can have great utility, or great DPS, just like every other ship.

Really excited about the beam changes. Lets see if it actually does it though. With the HML changes one might actually fit beams, though I think arty is still far more versatile and does more practical damage. Happy to test it though!.
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-09-18 14:26:06 UTC
NiGhTTraX wrote:
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.

The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? Goodbye solo missile platforms!

CCP Frozie wrote:
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.


No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho.



to be fair, consider that the current range is at "peak" around 80km, the 25% nerf will take it down to around 60km meaning you'll engage at most around 50km. thats still not exactly BAD when you have 100% of the damage being applied out that far and still have reasonable options to push that range out further?

as for "no other battlecruiser needs fitting implants or gun downgrading", brutix and ferox. sweeping claims woo!

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
stoicfaux
#65 - 2012-09-18 14:26:35 UTC
TDs (and TCs/TEs) only affect guided missiles? (not rockets, HAMs and torps.)

Is anyone going to bother using TPs on guided missile boats?

How much is the Fury damage increase going to be?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Karah Serrigan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2012-09-18 14:26:47 UTC
Tyrus Tenebros wrote:
I virtually never post to eve-o forums but the missile changes are way to excessive.

While I generally never join the whines of "don't make everything the same" I have to agree that the move to make missiles "more inline" with other weapon types is misguided. Missiles have always done low-ish to moderate dps in exchange for being reliable and difficult to stop barring outranging them. Shoving them in to the TE/TD paradigm dramatically affects the character of missiles.

While I understand the desire to increase the use of HAMs and promote the LR/CR dichotomy, I also don't think needing HMLs in ti the ground is the way to go with that either.
1) DPS reduction is too high. 10% would be a better start.
2) Range reduction is slightly too significant. 15-20% base might be better... missiles don't have falloff and are subject to chase distance against fast targets
3) TE/TD paradigm will likely reduce DPS further as some lows are swapped to TEs. While I "get" how the reduced dps is supposed to be compensated for slightly by increased applied damage to small targets, I don't think it will play out very well.
4) TDs themselves become extremely powerful. I suggest dropping the TE/TD change entirely, there's no reason for it. As they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.. and the balance of missile damage actually applied is fine as is, even if tweaks need to be applied there'sno need for a wholesale shift.


The 10% damage nerf should be sufficient to promote the use of HAMs. Slightly increasing damage applied by HAMs would also promote their use.

Have to agree with this guy. The whole TE/TD/TC change is way too much homogenization and there is simply no need for that.
There is also the difference, that a pilot can undo the penalties done by TDs to a degree, by going into range or by flying parallel and recuding the transversal. There is no way to undo a worse explosion radius/speed and it is significantly harder to get into range with somethign that is running away from you at decent speed, because it could mean that even if youre 1km away from him, given enough speed he will outrun your missiles.
The damage reduction to HMLs is beyond all good and holy of course. With faction missiles, a 3 bcs tengu does ~470 dps on a target that is standing still. A 2bcs drake does 407. A thrasher does 350 and an enyo can reach 450. But were talking about medium sized guns.
Reducing the range of missiles is ok as i agree that HMLs had way too much range, especially combined with range bonuses on hulls like caracal and tengu.
Aprudena Gist
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-09-18 14:26:51 UTC
Why are the tech 2 missles still **** compared to tech 2 auto, blaster or pulse ammo.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#68 - 2012-09-18 14:27:40 UTC
Boogie Jones wrote:
The powergrid nerf on the cane is a bit much imo. It should be able to fit a full rack of 425s + the neuts. What?

You mean the same way a Myrmidon should be able to fit a full rack of Neutrons and a triple rep tank?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-09-18 14:28:08 UTC
adopt wrote:
20% damage nerf is far too much. Same with the Hurricane PG Nerf.

I think you should reduce damage by 15% not 20%, and cut the PG by 150 rather than 225.

If you follow through with these changes you're making the entire BattleCruiser class obsolete.


I don't care much about the changes to HMLs, they might be a bit over the top with both a dps and a range nerf but whatever - I ******* hate flying Drakes.

The nerf to the hurricane is much much too harsh, however. Nerf autocannons rather than specific hulls - autocannons are too versatile.
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#70 - 2012-09-18 14:29:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Merkal Aubauch
Well death to OP battlecruisers. Now EVE gonna have some room for other tacticis than blobbing with t1 cheap **** battlecruisers. See ya on the field :)
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#71 - 2012-09-18 14:29:45 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

-Explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40

Ahemm... Psst it's Explosion Radius I'm sure?


:oops: Indeed.

Lili Lu wrote:

Fozzie, are you guys considering any slight nerf to TD base strength? Because if not, everyone and his mother will be fitting TDs. It seems to me that the module could use little nerf, so as not to become the must have "multispec of doom", and to make the speicialized ships more desirable in fleets.


Yup it's something we're looking very closely at.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#72 - 2012-09-18 14:29:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Karah Serrigan wrote:
There is also the difference, that a pilot can undo the penalties done by TDs to a degree, by going into range or by flying parallel and recuding the transversal. There is no way to undo a worse explosion radius/speed
Painters, webs, rigs. ZOMG committing and not fitting full tank on your brick drakes/Tengus?
Also new TEs as opposed to nanos too?

Remember you are talking about the other guy already having fitted a TD rather than a diff midslot.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#73 - 2012-09-18 14:31:31 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!


Baww. The rage is "Nerf ECM", did you forget?

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#74 - 2012-09-18 14:33:58 UTC
NiGhTTraX wrote:
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.


Yeah, at a 2km Optimal range. At actual engagement range.... Not so much. GTFO EFT

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Jack bubu
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-09-18 14:34:14 UTC
NiGhTTraX wrote:
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.

The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? Goodbye solo missile platforms!

CCP Frozie wrote:
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.


No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho.

Explain to me why you compare the DPS of a long range weapon to that of a close range weapon?

use heavy assault missiles, with the TC/TE boost they will be amazing.
Steelshine
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#76 - 2012-09-18 14:35:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Steelshine
RIP Heavy Missiles, you now get to go to that special place where hybrids lived for so many years, enjoy the 'rest'. Maybe you'll be useful again in 2016
Memrox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-09-18 14:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Memrox
Heavys range nerf..... ok. The DMG nerf is bad, Fozzie wake up!?!?!?!
Fowler
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-09-18 14:38:18 UTC
I'm curious what will happen to the Nighthawk and Cerberus after theese changes to missiles and especially heavy missiles.

Seems the Nighthawk gets a smack in the face it doesn't deserve.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-09-18 14:39:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
-Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect:
Max flight time (with optimal range script)
Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script)
-Make TDs affect Missiles
Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius
Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time


Excellent changes. Will there be name changes for these modules to go along with their expanded roles?
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#80 - 2012-09-18 14:40:02 UTC
Memrox wrote:
Heavys range nerf.. ok. The DMG nerf is bad, Fozzie wake up!?!?!?!

Yeah!! Wake up and give us medium railguns that has 400 dps at 0-80 km!!!!

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}