These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Athena Themis
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#281 - 2012-09-18 16:44:45 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.

Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.

It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story.


Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok.
Roderick Grey
Koenigsbergers
#282 - 2012-09-18 16:46:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Canes suck drakes suck.


That's great and all but what about the cyclone? dual XLASB and great DPS and cheaper... and by extension what about ancillary shield boosters, are they going to be nerfed?

“We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.” - Special needs division of Fcon.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#283 - 2012-09-18 16:49:25 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently.
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5
Time to hit: instant

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8
Time to hit: instant

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
Time to hit: instant

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
Time to hit: 10 seconds

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.


fixed


Keep in mind you've listed every gun with its equivalent long-range but ****** dps ammo - except for the HML. With the HML you included faction ammo. This skews things a bit.

Instead of normalizing for distance, normalize the DPS, and highlight the disparity in range.

On first glance, I think the 20% nerf on damage may be a bit excessive - its the range that was out of line.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#284 - 2012-09-18 16:50:51 UTC
Athena Themis wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.

Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.

It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story.


Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok.


Of course it doesn't.

I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Barrak
The Painted Ones
#285 - 2012-09-18 16:51:24 UTC
So....

Tracking Disruptors will decrease the range/explosion radius/velocity of my missiles?

Therefore, in the interests of balance, which I assume you have thought about, you will be allowing me to fit tracking enhances/computers to re-enhance these things?

I'm curious as to the reasons behind these changes. Is this an attempt to control ISK flow into the game from ratting/missioning or because you genuinely believe they are OP?

I don't see how they are generally OP, this can only be an attempt at controlling ISK income. You don't see so many Drake gangs around now-a-days.

Also.... if you are nerfing missiles, just what are Caldari ships going to be good at?

If you believe that they are OP, just how on earth have they been left like this for so long? and if they are OP now, how insanely OP must they have been before the recent buff to guns?

Terrible decision if you ask me....... but then, you're not going to are you.


Regards

Barrak
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#286 - 2012-09-18 16:52:41 UTC
This change hits on so many levels, it is wonderful

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Barrak
The Painted Ones
#287 - 2012-09-18 16:52:48 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?



If that were the case, every single long range ship would be a missile ship. Last time I checked, they were not.
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#288 - 2012-09-18 16:52:56 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Athena Themis wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.

Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.

It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story.


Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok.


Of course it doesn't.

I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?


Because those long range systems can outdps HML at closer ranges? Isn't that not obvious?

How did a dummy like you become CSM?

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

 Kahlil Gibran
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad
Against ALL Authorities
#289 - 2012-09-18 16:53:26 UTC
Kethry Avenger wrote:
I
In terms of skill training ......



It just hit me, isn't it time to streamline missile training?
Right now if you training guns, you get close range and long range guns of given size from 1 skill, and tech 2 variations come from 2 different skills.

For missile you have 2 skills for each branch of each size + specialization. Are ppl ok with it?
Iri'yana
Corvus Technologies
#290 - 2012-09-18 16:53:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Iri'yana
I'm currently not sure, how I should feel about those changes. Sure, the Tengu and to some extent the Drake are doing too well right now, with esp. the Tengu outperfoming even more dedicated ships in their roles. But I'm not sure if CCP's way of changing things is the correct one. I would have prefered a change to the ships themselves, rather then to (only one of) their DPS systems.

And regarding that change itself ... well, it seems to be a nerf according to the CCP way of nerfing. I.e. if you take out the nerf hammer, then make damn sure that it hits critically. And leaving HAMs unaffected will really just make a lot of pilots shift to them and thus not really affect the Tengu and the Drake as much as probably desired.

On the topic of tracking disruptors (TD), I'm howver fairly entrenched in my objection to this particular change. Mostly based on the fact, that it will have a lot of negative side effects on missile boats and missile using playstyles in general:

1) Guns right now have their "nemesis" in TDs. Missiles on the other hand had their (intended) counter in speed and defender missiles. Speed works, defender missiles ... not so much too put it lightly. Defenders cost you a lot of your own DPS and are on top of that not very effective at their task, just taking out one of the incoming flight of missiles and thus reducing incoming DPS in no degree to their effect on outgoing DPS. Not really a wonder, that nobody uses them really ... well, apart from NPCs. Which brings us to the side effect of making missile based ships relatively less effective in PvE as they are right now. They get double-countered by NPCs if that change should go live. And while that might be somewhat okay, to get the Tengu of its pedestal of "King of Mission Runners". it will put Raven based hulls more behind their gun-based equivalents.

2) Leaving PvE, missile based ships will become even less desirable in PvP as they are (with the exception of Drakes and Tengus ... but see the heavy missile changes for that) right now. On top of their previous issues, they will now have to handle TDs as well.

3) Guns have a counter to TDs in tracking enhancers, which also in the absense of TDs enhance their potential. Missiles have no such systems that affects them and only them, as the counters to their existing weaknesses (signature - target painters and speed - webs) work just as fine for guns as well. This will leave missiles with a TD counter that they cannot fit against themselves.

4) Ships with bonuses to TDs will receive an (unintended) buff, potentially upsetting the balance with the E-war hulls ... altough I'm not sure if that is a bad thing, as I don't fly those too much. Maybe TD ships could need a bit of love.

5) Points one to three will put the missile launcher skill tree even further behind gunnery as it is right now. Esp. if you consider that most pilots got into it, due to the Drakes and Tengus, which will have their potential already reduced by the heavy missile changes.

So what could be an alternative to the TD changes? Two come to mind. One is to let TDs affect missiles, but then to get rid of the non-used defenders (to put guns and missiles on the same footing here) and to compensate missiles in other ways ... and not in the way that heavy missiles get "compensated" right now.

Another approach could be to change defender missiles. Instead of being just an alternative charge for regular launchers, why not turn them into a mid-slot based "point defence system" or charges for such a system. This would make defenders more effective to use, getting rid of the DPS reduction that using them entails. Yet, such a PD system should maybe be more effective in the reduction of incoming DPS as it (compared to TDs) affects a lower percentage of potential damage soruces, with only less then 25% of the combat ships in EVE being missile based.

Iri'yana

PS: What about the other missile types? Are cruise missiles and the unguided missiles (rockets, HAMs and torpedos) working as intended or are changes planned for
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#291 - 2012-09-18 16:54:10 UTC
Royal Hammer wrote:
So anyone that has spent months training up skills to use drakes or tengus just gets completely shafted? Was anyone complaining about heavy missiles being too powerful? The drake already does **** for damage. And now it's going to be worse? CCP, please do not go through with a huge nerf that gives a big middle finger to Caldari pilots everywhere.


drake has been most used pvp ship for a several years, time to change FOTM
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#292 - 2012-09-18 16:56:01 UTC
At what point did TD need a buff?

What are your plans for SD, which were previously the only sure way to counter missile ships. Will they now affect turret optimal range as well?

These recent changes, together with the rebalance of T1 Frigates (which saw a homogenizing of fitting slots across all ships) is a sign that CCP has absolutely no idea what to do, besides bringing all ships closer in line to each other and removing any variety between races and fitting choices. First it was frigates, now weapons (missiles vs. turrets).

Where is the variety, where is the choice and decision making involved in fitting my ship or choosing a race? Previously, Slasher and Condor has different slots. Now they have the same slots, but differetn weapons. And in the future you plan on removing any differences whatsoever in these weapons?

Realistically, why then would I choose a condor over a slasher now?
StevieTopSiders
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#293 - 2012-09-18 16:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: StevieTopSiders
So being on the other side of the battlefield from Goonswarm's Tengu and Drake blobs, I was like, "OMG, yes!" But I think the nerf needs to be aimed less at HML's and more at the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem.

(NB: These numbers come from T2 HML's with CN Scourge being shot on an All V's character in the latest version of EFT.)

The 25% range nerf:

This allows Tengus to hit at 90km for 570 DPS. (3 BCU)
This allows Drakes to hit at 63km for 370 DPS. (2 BCU)

The 20% damage nerf w/ range nerf:

This allows Tengus to hit at 90km for 455 DPS. (3 BCU)
This allows Drakes to hit at 63km for 296 DPS. (2 BCU)

The alpha numbers:

Before:

Tengu hits for 2.2k Alpha every 4 seconds.
Drake hits for 2.4k Alpha every 6.7 seconds.

After:

Tengu hits for 1.8k alpha every 4 seconds.
Drake hits for 2k alpha every 6.7 seconds.

Now let's take a look at Accelerated Ejection Bay bonuses:

5% bonus to Kinetic Missile Damage per level
7.5% bonus to Heavy, Heavy Assault and Assault missile launcher rate of fire per level
10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault missile velocity per level

The Drake gets one more Heavy Missile Launcher than the Tengu, and they both get the 5% Kinetic damage bonus. Where they differ, however, is the Tengu's ability to shoot these missiles 37.5% faster and at 50% more range.

When we look at the alpha numbers from a fleet combat perspective, we find ourselves really not losing a great amount of performance. When we look at the DPS number from a solo/small gang perspective, however, we find ourselves really lacking for damage.


I propose the following:

A 10% Heavy Missile Damage nerf.

Our Tengu now hits for 2k alpha every 4 seconds for 513 DPS.
Our Drake now hits for 2.16k alpha every 6.7 seconds for 333 DPS.

A 10% Heavy Missile Range nerf.

Our Tengu now hits out to 102km
Our Drake now hits out to 68km.

A 5% bonus to missile velocity for the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem:

Our Tengu now hits out to 85km.

A 5% bonus to missile launcher ROF for the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem:

Our Tengu now hits for 2k alpha every 5 seconds for 400 DPS.


These changes limit the sheer alpha/DPS power of the Tengu, while still keeping the Drake a viable and cheap T1 alternative.

Also, buff the other ships that use HML's.

Cerberus I love you.
Vincent VanDamme
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#294 - 2012-09-18 16:57:54 UTC
Ashera Yune wrote:
Why don't you stop thinking about just the drake and tengu and consider the other ships that use Heavy missiles:


Caracal
Bellicose(future suggestion by CCP)
Navy Caracal
Nighthawk
Rook
Cerberus

What I don't like is the blanket nerf, that not only nerfs the drake and tengu, but nerfs ships that were never OP, and mostly UP in the first place.


Caracal has gone from useless to utterly useless. And it is in dire need of a buff.

The lackluster buff to it here only adds to the fact it is being nerfed to the stone age.
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#295 - 2012-09-18 16:57:57 UTC
What I disagree is having a one TD mod affect all.

TD will become a module that you can guarantee that everyone and their mother will fit.

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

 Kahlil Gibran
GreenSeed
#296 - 2012-09-18 17:00:47 UTC
why nerfing the weapon system when the one with the problem is the ship? tengus/drakes need rebalancing... i mean i know noone uses anything BUT tengus and drakes as a HML platform, but there are other ships that use HML and HAML that were already pretty crappy and now will be even crappy-er.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#297 - 2012-09-18 17:00:52 UTC
Ashera Yune wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Of course it doesn't.

I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?


Because those long range systems can outdps HML at closer ranges? Isn't that not obvious?

How did a dummy like you become CSM?


Um, please actually run the numbers - check out rails on the Ferox, rails on the Brutix, beams on the Harbinger, and artillery on the Hurricane. Load tech 2 long-range ammo. Compare. Please demonstrate how these systems do more raw DPS at closer ranges than HML's, than you can continue calling me a dummy CSM.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#298 - 2012-09-18 17:01:36 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Ashera Yune wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Of course it doesn't.

I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?


Because those long range systems can outdps HML at closer ranges? Isn't that not obvious?

How did a dummy like you become CSM?


Um, please actually run the numbers - check out rails on the Ferox, rails on the Brutix, beams on the Harbinger, and artillery on the Hurricane. Load tech 2 long-range ammo. Compare. Please demonstrate how these systems do more raw DPS at closer ranges than HML's, than you can continue calling me a dummy CSM.


Dont use t2 long range ammo at close range?
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#299 - 2012-09-18 17:01:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.

Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.

It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story.


Something like this?

http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gif

This is with max skills, no other modules besides the weapons and long range ammo.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#300 - 2012-09-18 17:01:49 UTC
Barrak wrote:
So....

Tracking Disruptors will decrease the range/explosion radius/velocity of my missiles?

Therefore, in the interests of balance, which I assume you have thought about, you will be allowing me to fit tracking enhances/computers to re-enhance these things?


Umm... yes they did add the buff to TEs and TCs to affect missile positively. Did you not read the whole thing in your rush to post?

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.