These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#701 - 2012-09-18 22:34:03 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
T's little helper wrote:
Heavy missiles are already the weakest weapon, lowest damage, significant delay between launch and hit, low rate of fire.
If heavy missiles are too powerful on cruisers, then adjust the cruiser hulls, not the missiles or their launchers.
Can also agree on nighthawk, it has needed a boost for a VERY long time now. Changing misiles this much to the worse will have a dramatic effect on an already suffering ship, so if this change will ever happen, the nighthawk need extreme bonuses the very same day this change goes active.


I'm sorry, did you just say that Heavy Missiles are the weakest weapon system? And you said it with a straight face?

LolLolLolLolLol

-Liang


while not exactly the weakest, heavy missiles in and of themselves are far from strong. to see this, just compare HML ships to similar hulls:
caracal vs. rupture. cerberus (lol) vs ishtar or vagabond. nighthawk vs sleipnir etc.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#702 - 2012-09-18 22:34:48 UTC
SAY NO TO DMG NERF ON MISSLES!!

tkae a moment to think loki prot an dlegion will s**t stomp tengu in dps
also the Nighthawk will be even worse and how can trackign computers help missles when the normal guided missles are self tracking, nothing to do with the ship

and gunnery is already good, missles are **** poor compaired to guns so why change?

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#703 - 2012-09-18 22:36:31 UTC
Laura Dexx wrote:
Shizuken wrote:
DeBingJos wrote:
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)

Just noticed this! Holy crap CCP, 20% nerf to damage and 25% nerf to range?!



What?What?What?


Yeah, not sure if my current mission drake fit will be able to do L4's anymore...


You're doing level 4s in a t1 battlecruiser? The fact that it's even possible is pretty ridiculous. You try doing that in a Harbinger, sure you'll have a lot of fun warping out every odd minute.


I've done a L4 in a merlin, being able to do them doesnt make a ship OP, it just makes them able to fit towards a PVE role well.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#704 - 2012-09-18 22:37:27 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Look at all of these terrified Tengu/Drake pilots flailing at the windows.


The funny thing about it is that if people bothered to engage their brain instead of simply flailing about they'd see that this is likely going to result in a net boost to the PVE Tengu. Consider that HAMs aren't being directly nerfed but you'll have a low and 2 'utility' mids on the optimal PVE setup to spend on TE/TCs. Just how far are we going to be able to push the range these HAM Tengus? How much better is the damage application going to be? My gut feeling says that they're going to be a lot better than today's HML setup for virtually all practical use cases.

-Liang

Yeah, I was irritated at first until I realize this is probably the likely case scenario.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Rita May
State War Academy
Caldari State
#705 - 2012-09-18 22:37:34 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Rita May wrote:

hm, i would really like to see a Nighthawk fit, that has tackle, propmod, your "boost" moduls and still can fit a tank... Roll
where do you find all those slots, last time i checked my Nighthawks had 5 mids and lows, how about yours?


You aren't understanding what is being posted. Is the NH fine? No. Does that mean that the NH (and every other missile ship) isn't being boosted by the TE/TC change? No. Because they are.

-Liang

the TE/TC changes are a buff to missles, on that i can agree.

Now look at the ships that are NOT considered OP (read: Tengu) like the nighthawk or the cerberus.
If you fit these - and they are tight on slots to play around and put on top of that the proposed changes to HMs... for me this looks like a whole weapon system will be mostly useless - just telling everyone: "use HAMs" is partly OK, because most other ships fit close-range systems too, but the layout of these missle ships was not intended to use yet another module to apply its damage.
so i am saying if CCP touches missles the need to touch the ships that use them at the same time or it will not work.

cu
Laura Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#706 - 2012-09-18 22:39:02 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
T's little helper wrote:
Heavy missiles are already the weakest weapon, lowest damage, significant delay between launch and hit, low rate of fire.
If heavy missiles are too powerful on cruisers, then adjust the cruiser hulls, not the missiles or their launchers.
Can also agree on nighthawk, it has needed a boost for a VERY long time now. Changing misiles this much to the worse will have a dramatic effect on an already suffering ship, so if this change will ever happen, the nighthawk need extreme bonuses the very same day this change goes active.


I'm sorry, did you just say that Heavy Missiles are the weakest weapon system? And you said it with a straight face?

LolLolLolLolLol

-Liang


while not exactly the weakest, heavy missiles in and of themselves are far from strong. to see this, just compare HML ships to similar hulls:
caracal vs. rupture. cerberus (lol) vs ishtar or vagabond. nighthawk vs sleipnir etc.


If you really want fair engagements:

Put a HM caracal up against a arty rupture. Good luck even fitting four arties to a rupture.
Rail warden ishtar against HM cerb? Cerb wins without contest.
Arty vagabond? Are you kidding me?
Arty sleip vs HM NH? That'd be a pretty even fight.

If you're going to compare ships, compare them using the RIGHT weapon types.
Sueara Koshun
Doomheim
#707 - 2012-09-18 22:39:26 UTC
why dont just make everything equal and put some different names on it? than theres no need for the "socalled" balancing
the differences made this game interesting but it looks like you want to make a wow in space out of it, where everything is as good as any other, so people dont have to think what they choose

looks like eve will be another game whats becomes nerved to death
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#708 - 2012-09-18 22:40:00 UTC
The Bazzalisk wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
lierally no reason to use a BS in PVE at all right now and the Tengu is the reason.
I have used a Tengu for mission running in HS and the DPS isn't as good as everyone seems to think it is. It's good, but not spectacular. You will get more DPS from a CNR, Rattlesnake, DNI - maybe even a torpedo SNI with some TPs in the meds. HML is not an 'insta-win' against turrets and to suggest that they are OP in terms of damage is a bit silly imo. Sure, nerf the range a bit, but the damage shouldn't change significantly.


You don't have a torp SNI fit that's better than a Tengu. I guarantee it.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
NinjaTurtle
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#709 - 2012-09-18 22:41:12 UTC
Interesting changes Fozzie, it's great to have you on board as part of the balance team.

The only thing that frightens me about making TDs affect missiles as such is that Tracking Disruptors are pretty much the go-to EWAR as it is when you have an unbonused midslot to spend on EWAR. There's nothing more effective in said unbonused slot than a TD as it is, and now with these changes I wonder if it won't skew most EWAR choices to either a) lots of falcons or b) lots and lots of TDs. Just a thought. It feels like there should be some sort of counter there to make sure people still want to use other forms of EWAR.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#710 - 2012-09-18 22:41:37 UTC
Rita May wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Rita May wrote:

hm, i would really like to see a Nighthawk fit, that has tackle, propmod, your "boost" moduls and still can fit a tank... Roll
where do you find all those slots, last time i checked my Nighthawks had 5 mids and lows, how about yours?


You aren't understanding what is being posted. Is the NH fine? No. Does that mean that the NH (and every other missile ship) isn't being boosted by the TE/TC change? No. Because they are.

-Liang

the TE/TC changes are a buff to missles, on that i can agree.

Now look at the ships that are NOT considered OP (read: Tengu) like the nighthawk or the cerberus.
If you fit these - and they are tight on slots to play around and put on top of that the proposed changes to HMs... for me this looks like a whole weapon system will be mostly useless - just telling everyone: "use HAMs" is partly OK, because most other ships fit close-range systems too, but the layout of these missle ships was not intended to use yet another module to apply its damage.
so i am saying if CCP touches missles the need to touch the ships that use them at the same time or it will not work.

cu


I have absolutely no doubt that we'll be seeing changes to those ships.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#711 - 2012-09-18 22:42:43 UTC
Wolfstorm wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wolfstorm wrote:
...aren't very good except at being constant up close and far away.

Isn't that part of the issue? Being good at all ranges?


That isn't a problem - missiles are SUPPOSED to be good at all ranges - not very good, nor very bad... just OK. That's how missile systems work.

The real issue is people whine about having fast short range ships vs slow long range ships. Drakes are only broken in blobs... and you know what ... I can take a blob of 500 frigates out and pown 95% of any fleet in game.

Fix blobs, anything else is smoke blown up your ass.

Fixing blobs is bad for a variety of reasons regarding the core of the game itself, but as is being seen missiles have uses where other medium long range weapons systems don't and as it would appear aren't meant to. And no, missiles, particularly HM's are not supposed to be used in all situations. HAM's need to be comparatively better within their intended ranges to the point where it becomes a viable choice.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#712 - 2012-09-18 22:43:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Everyone is crying about HML nerf..

but noone seems to be comprehending the HAM + TE/TC thing.. /o\

MADNESS

If anything a TE/TC HAM drake will be better at 28km than the current hml drake? (although worse against frigs, boohoo)

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#713 - 2012-09-18 22:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Quoted instead of editing, i fail.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#714 - 2012-09-18 22:45:10 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
T's little helper wrote:
Heavy missiles are already the weakest weapon, lowest damage, significant delay between launch and hit, low rate of fire.
If heavy missiles are too powerful on cruisers, then adjust the cruiser hulls, not the missiles or their launchers.
Can also agree on nighthawk, it has needed a boost for a VERY long time now. Changing misiles this much to the worse will have a dramatic effect on an already suffering ship, so if this change will ever happen, the nighthawk need extreme bonuses the very same day this change goes active.


I'm sorry, did you just say that Heavy Missiles are the weakest weapon system? And you said it with a straight face?

LolLolLolLolLol

-Liang


while not exactly the weakest, heavy missiles in and of themselves are far from strong. to see this, just compare HML ships to similar hulls:
caracal vs. rupture. cerberus (lol) vs ishtar or vagabond. nighthawk vs sleipnir etc.



Why are you still comparing short range weapons to the long range heavy missile?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#715 - 2012-09-18 22:47:00 UTC
Marcus Harikari wrote:
NONONO drake already does less dmg than other BC's why 20% dmg drop??

Confirming massive blobs of Brutix's and Myrmidons being able to apply full damage at 80km.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#716 - 2012-09-18 22:48:30 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
These changes make both TEs and TDs both must-have modules for every ship. They need a nerf.

-Liang


* TE need a nerf in it's present state (that's the main reason of the revival and popularity of Minmatar, not AC's or the ships itself). It almost definately does not need to be changed to also affect missiles.
* TD is fine in present state, but should never hit the field in the suggsted affect-all-role

TL;DR a small nerf to present-TE is in place, and the suggested changes to TE/TD should never be implemented.

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#717 - 2012-09-18 22:48:32 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Marcus Harikari wrote:
NONONO drake already does less dmg than other BC's why 20% dmg drop??

Confirming massive blobs of Brutix's and Myrmidons being able to apply full damage at 80km.


Only if your alliance ticker is AHARM.... Twisted

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Bilaz
Duck and Finch
#718 - 2012-09-18 22:49:27 UTC
I'm Down wrote:

Yeah, I agree, an Artillery Sliep that does 600+ DPS and 5000 alpha with great speed, drone and slot flexibility and shield tanking logistics (which everyone knows are superior is in no way good.

TE/TC change isn't a boost, it's a straight nerf to a NH which doesn't have the built in range bonus that the tengu does.

The devs didn't even consider the fact that the only arguement for missiles doing too much damage was the Tengu... Yet the only reason this is true is because they gave the tengu an ungodly 7.5% ROF bonus on top of 6 launchers and a massive tank and plenty of low slots.... heaven forbid they actually fix the problem with the ship, not the problem with the missiles.

Hence, the only problem with missiles that was ever argued was range.


See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped.

To be honest every missile ship give more damage than their turret counterpart @ 50-60km (or @100 if hacs) range. Tengu was just made to be better than drake, which was much better than everything else caldary had - and that everything else was better than their analogs.

For instance cerberus with 2 damage mods give 350 where other hacs have 260. Plus much better "tracking", tank and such. Same stuff with drake - but with more slots, ehp, resists, drones and less cap management problems. nighthawk have what - 100 more dps than drake? pretty sure that it is much better than astarte and absolution, and more tank than arty-sleipnir. Maybe not better becouse med arty is quite broken also - but not much worse either.

So no - problems are not only with drake and tengu - problems with heavy missiles we also have. Another problem is passive shield tank - both tengu and drake are massievly overtanked - and frankly most ships are shield tanked nowdays. While i do not think like Fon that every second ship is horribly overtanked, i do agree that LSE and rigs are major parts of the problem.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#719 - 2012-09-18 22:49:38 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
These changes make both TEs and TDs both must-have modules for every ship. They need a nerf.

-Liang


* TE need a nerf in it's present state (that's the main reason of the revival and popularity of Minmatar, not AC's or the ships itself). It almost definately does not need to be changed to also affect missiles.
* TD is fine in present state, but should never hit the field in the suggsted affect-all-role

TL;DR a small nerf to present-TE is in place, and the suggested changes to TE/TD should never be implemented.


There's some truth there, but I admit I'm not looking forward to the TE nerf's knock-on affect for blaster ships. Fortunately I seem to only fly missile and laser ships lately. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#720 - 2012-09-18 22:49:59 UTC
I think the Drake and HML changes are ********. Really not impressed.

An option to refund SPs now wasted in Missiles would seem appropriate.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose