These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Atherin Gaius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#301 - 2012-09-18 17:03:24 UTC
NiGhTTraX wrote:
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
With 7x T2 HAM launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing Scourge outputs 401 DPS.

The Hurricane with 6x T2 720mm Artys and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 371 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 477 DPS.

The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range or 320 DPS with HAMs. 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? So let me get this straight. Missiles will loose some of their range, will have the lowest DPS among weapons, they have flight time and they will also be tracking disrupted? And their only advantage will remain the ability to choose damage types? 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 high tier battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho.

TDs will be the new and improved ECM. At least with ECM you're taking the risk of bringing the wrong jammer. If TD effects will apply to everything there's absolutely no reason to not bring one.



This change will essentially push caldari missile platforms back to the bottom of the list for PVP platforms. How is this even remotely a balanced approach to PVP? This is the most FAIL approach to balancing PVP ever CCP....go back to the drawing board.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#302 - 2012-09-18 17:03:32 UTC
i love these changes... they are making drone ships worth using!!! keep it up! death to single ship fleet doctrines!

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Ensign X
#303 - 2012-09-18 17:04:53 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Ashera Yune wrote:
How did a dummy like you become CSM?

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.


Umm, Hans, when you're trying to refute somebody calling you dumb, you should probably try harder to not make your reply so dumb.
OlRotGut
#304 - 2012-09-18 17:05:30 UTC
Takeshi Yamato 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.


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.



Good graph, could you make another one for HAM's, and the close range guns/ammo for the others?
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#305 - 2012-09-18 17:06:00 UTC
What they are doing is a blanket nerf to ships that use heavy missiles.

Caracal and its variants - completely useless now.
Nighthawk - Worst Field CS is now even more worse than ever.
Lol Bellicose is useless for the future too.

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

 Kahlil Gibran
Ensign X
#306 - 2012-09-18 17:06:40 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
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.


What ammo are you using? Yes, you say long range ammo, but only the Drake shows that and what you're actually using is High damage faction ammo.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#307 - 2012-09-18 17:07:10 UTC
Ashera Yune wrote:
What they are doing is a blanket nerf to ships that use heavy missiles.

Caracal and its variants - completely useless now.





how about you put hamms on the caracal...

try getting out of your cookie cutter fits and get creative ffs!

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#308 - 2012-09-18 17:07:19 UTC
Takeshi Yamato 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.


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.


Yes, exactly. Many thanks for providing this. As you can see in the graph, heavy missiles pretty much dominate this range class of weapons, with the only weapons system providing any advantage at all being railguns on a Ferox - and at a huge DPS hit to achieve this.

If you run the same graph after the changes Fozzie is proposing, you will see that there are now actual advantages to using other weapons besides HML at these ranges.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Athena Themis
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#309 - 2012-09-18 17:07:24 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?


The point being is that this nerfs far too much at once. If eve history has shown anything about nerfs, it's that ccp is incredibly excessive with the nerf bat.

20% dmg reduction on HMLs. You can make an argument for that.
25% range reduction. You can also make a valid argument for this.
TD now effecting missiles. Again, you can make an argument here.

HOWEVER, all 3 at once is overboard and will have a tremendous impact on pvp and even pve, which was the saving grace to an otherwise underwhelming caldari race. Only a fool would think this is a good idea. If you want to nerf the drake, or the tengu....then nerf the drake or the tengu. This is rediculous.
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#310 - 2012-09-18 17:08:46 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Ashera Yune wrote:
What they are doing is a blanket nerf to ships that use heavy missiles.

Caracal and its variants - completely useless now.





how about you put hamms on the caracal...

try getting out of your cookie cutter fits and get creative ffs!


Because a caracal can't fit HAMS, weak tank, and less dps than other short range ships.

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

 Kahlil Gibran
Sarah Schneider
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#311 - 2012-09-18 17:09:25 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.

You must have realized that missiles have their own problems, a blanket solution and saying that missiles should be brought to the DPS level of other weapon types doesn't make sense.

  • Aside from bombs, missiles (and it's variants) are the only weapon type that doesn't deal instantaneous damage
  • the only weapon type that can be firewalled
  • the only weapon system in which target sig penalty always applies, regardless of whether they're moving or not
  • and it is the primary weapon system for most caldari ships in which : a lot of new players are using/training into and a lot of older players invested into, and it uses launcher hardpoints, so it's not interchangeable to other weapon types like guns do.


I don't disagree with the nerf, but the damage reduction is too much considering the other nerfs are also put in place.

"I'd rather have other players get shot by other players than not interacting with others" -CCP Soundwave
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#312 - 2012-09-18 17:09:39 UTC
If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.

Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.

At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.

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.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#313 - 2012-09-18 17:09:57 UTC
Ashera Yune wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Ashera Yune wrote:
What they are doing is a blanket nerf to ships that use heavy missiles.

Caracal and its variants - completely useless now.





how about you put hamms on the caracal...

try getting out of your cookie cutter fits and get creative ffs!


Because a caracal can't fit HAMS, weak tank, and less dps than other short range ships.


is that so?

Caracal:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire
10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity
Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers
Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1)
Signature radius: 135 (-10)
Cargo capacity: 450

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#314 - 2012-09-18 17:10:06 UTC
Like the curse wasn't awesome enough....
Ensign X
#315 - 2012-09-18 17:10:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Ensign X
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:


Yes, exactly. Many thanks for providing this. As you can see in the graph, heavy missiles pretty much dominate this range class of weapons, with the only weapons system providing any advantage at all being railguns on a Ferox - and at a huge DPS hit to achieve this.

If you run the same graph after the changes Fozzie is proposing, you will see that there are now actual advantages to using other weapons besides HML at these ranges.


That graph is flawed. It's using high-damage faction ammo for the Drake and, we're assuming, low-damage t2 ammo on the turret based ships. So, yes, Apples and Oranges are different.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#316 - 2012-09-18 17:10:34 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.



Compare Tier 1s to tier 2s for a start.

Also, instant alpha is arty's forte, not DPS. Long range DPS is what missiles are supposed to be for. That's why you put up with all the other disadvantages like delayed damage, explosion radius, etc.

If we're going to be normalising missiles with turrets, then fair enough, but we ought to go the whole way. An immediately obvious gap is that there are no weapon tiers for missiles like there are for turrets. Can't fit Neutron Blasters? Well you can always use Ion Blasters, my friend. They even track a little better as well.

Can't fit Seige Launchers? Well that's too bad. Leave a slot empty, I guess. Sure would be nice to fit Medium tier Seige launchers with maybe a smidgen worse RoF and a smaller ammo capacity or something, but nope.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ashera Yune
Doomheim
#317 - 2012-09-18 17:15:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ashera Yune
Current Fact:
-HML outdps medium turrets at long ranges.

-Medium turrets at dps HML at short ranges.


After Patch fact:

-Medium Turrets outdps HML at all ranges.

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

 Kahlil Gibran
Oraac Ensor
#318 - 2012-09-18 17:15:03 UTC
Ashera Yune wrote:
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.

This is also my view. Guns and missiles should have separate countering modules.
Dhaaran
deZoltral Bloodline
#319 - 2012-09-18 17:18:29 UTC
love the changes, tengu & drake had their years of dominance, now its time to spin the wheel once more
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#320 - 2012-09-18 17:19:24 UTC
Sarah Schneider wrote:

You must have realized that missiles have their own problems, a blanket solution and saying that missiles should be brought to the DPS level of other weapon types doesn't make sense.

  • Aside from bombs, missiles (and it's variants) are the only weapon type that doesn't deal instantaneous damage
  • the only weapon type that can be firewalled
  • the only weapon system in which target sig penalty always applies, regardless of whether they're moving or not
  • and it is the primary weapon system for most caldari ships in which : a lot of new players are using/training into and a lot of older players invested into, and it uses launcher hardpoints, so it's not interchangeable to other weapon types like guns do.


I don't disagree with the nerf, but the damage reduction is too much considering the other nerfs are also put in place.


I understand where you're coming from, missile have some inherent disadvantages, but these changes STILL leave HML's as king of DPS in their optimal range, even after damage and range nerfs.

"Too many nerfs at once" is itself an arbitrary sentiment - these changes should be evaluated based on where they leave missiles in comparison to other weapons systems. There is no magic number of nerfs (1? 2? 3?) that is "too many" for any change that needs to happen to any ship. It all boils down to whether they achieve the desired results.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary