These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#761 - 2012-09-18 23:16:28 UTC
Laura Dexx wrote:
School Nickname Worldmonkey wrote:
Welp. A proposition CCP. Make all Gurista rats orbit at ~20-25k and I'll forget this whole thing ever happened. HelI I might even train gallente to compensate you! Or at least T2 Blasters.


Or start using battleships like it was intended. If you're that dead set on using a cruiser, you're going to have to deal with having to get in range like all the other cruisers do.


caracal.. cerberus and im sure im forgetting some others.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Dato Koppla
Balls Deep Inc.
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#762 - 2012-09-18 23:17:20 UTC
It's confirmed that TE, TC, and TD will effect both guided and unguided missiles, doesn't this logically suggest that rig limitations should be removed as well? It makes no sense to be able to give up mids/lows for range/damage application but not rigs slots on HAMs/Rockets/Torps and just arbitrarily limits the options of boats that fit said weapons (gun boats already get more rig options with algid administration and I feel its unfair to missiles).
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#763 - 2012-09-18 23:17:58 UTC
Laura Dexx wrote:
It's not because it's as agile as a frigate

It isn't.

Laura Dexx wrote:
as tanky as a battleship

It isn't.

Laura Dexx wrote:
and as offensively capable as a battlecruiser

It isn't.

None of these apply unless you use faction modules all over the place.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#764 - 2012-09-18 23:20:54 UTC
Dato Koppla wrote:
Yeah, HAM tengus are already decent for missions and can gain some pretty good range, with the option of TE and TCs you'd get ALOT more range/damage application.

6 slots for L4 tank is too much, I've always run with T2 AB + Pithi C-Type Small + 2 T2 Hardeners and my tank has never even been in danger, some missions need care like Mordus Headhunters cause of tons of webbers on top of you but even then.



that sounds paper thin and wouldnt ever handle bonus room in angels extrav 4 or comparable missions.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Wolfstorm
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#765 - 2012-09-18 23:21:34 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
confirming that ccp is to incompetent to balance their game properly, instead of having unique in vastly different mechanics for their weapons systems and tanking modules to make the game exciting and engaging, where the meta-game is constantly changing and they have decided to make every tanking type, and every weapons system at virtually the same. .


A couple patches back in Inferno, they wanted to change shield/armor function virtually the same. Favoring passive/active changing as your choice. Needless to say that's a very bad idea. They started by trying to change the rigs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99872 ( CCP bouncing ideas, are as close to good , as fire is to ice .because none of them actually play it again besides missioning/mining in high-sec ).

Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players.. all it will do is dumbed down eve even more. It is gotten so bad that there is very little difference between the races, Beyond what slots they used to tank, and what flavor of gun they put in their high slots. well I admit there is problems with most of the missile boats in the game at the moment I think that is more wrong with ships themselves than the actual missile mechanic.

what is going to make this thing easier for new players, is more mechanics built in that facilitates experienced players teaching the new players. Here's some ideas off the top of my head. Reworking the certificate system so that players, make and share certificates among the corporation mates and their alliance mates easily. The certificates could be used for anything such as an easy to look up new player training plan. All the way up to figuring out if you have enough skills to qualify for reimbursement on a particular ship.

Because God knows none of the CCP staff are qualified to teach someone how to properly fit a ship or the skills required to properly fitted anymore. I'm going to hazard a guess and say no CCP dev is playing the way the average player does since the T2 lottery scandal. THE FACT THAT NO Dev plays the game the way the majority of pvper play. They have no clue about balancing past they care bearing in hisec.

so I urge you to put new player training in the hands of current players and give usThe tools to do it. Instead of dumbing down eve to the lowest of dominator


I want your space-babies.


This again!
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#766 - 2012-09-18 23:22:37 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Gargant
Grath Telkin wrote:



Thats it Yaay, rage because you're in an alliance that had one viable fleet comp that just got nerfed into the ground.

You've already been destroyed by Fozzie in the other thread with all your made up ****. Here, let me help, finish you off:


Missile ships will now be forced to make the same sacrifices as turrnet ships to extend the range of their weapons, giving up tank and utility slots to achieve their longest ranges. So while the Nighthawk got a little gimped on its overall range, it can give up a low and or mid and easily get that range back, with the added bonus of being able to hit smaller targets harder if they want.


Also please stop flinging out 4 damage mod fits that nobody but you would ever undock and use in a fight, it makes you look dumb when you post.

Missiles got nerfed and now AAA has no viable doctrines outside of Arty Loki's (you remember, the ship you claim in your post that nobody uses only thats not true and multiple alliances are currently using alpha lokis as a part of a doctrine) and you're mad about it, we get it, but you just keep posting this stupid outright false bullshit to try and save you from that fate. You're like the Fox News of fitting Yaay.


Actually, I came right back at Fozzie with proof pudding.

As for rage about the Tengu, you are obviously Illiterate as I've stated 100s of times that the ship, and all t3s need to be nerfed to hell and back. But I said hammer that ship for it's own design, not for missiles in general, which only had an issue with range.

But then again, it's Grath [EDIT: removed unneeded personal attacks - CCP Gargant] Come at me more about how I've never wanted a tengu nerf.

Quote:
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.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#767 - 2012-09-18 23:24:25 UTC
Man those 100mn afterburner fit Proteus are dangerous...
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#768 - 2012-09-18 23:24:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Whats stupid is a cruiser with a BS tank, the range of a sniper and the DPS of a brawler BC.

This nerf should have happened years ago.


I couldn't give a **** about the Tengu, I was talking from the perspective of the Drake. Yes, happy for the Tengu to have a nerf - it should never have been allowed to fit HMLs in the first place, but nerfing HMLs on the Drake is so ******* ******** I can't think even straight.

****.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#769 - 2012-09-18 23:27:20 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
D3vastator wrote:
Aaron Greil wrote:
Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.

Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.

Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock.


Ah, my bad. IshTAR :P
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1938285#post1938285

Seriously, your more expensive tech3 is meant to be a stepping stone to the superior specialised t2 ship for the particular role. Because you can get isk faster than SP. Tengus are brokenly overpowered, they need nerfs.


Yes and no. You're right about the stepping stone, and t2 ship role, and you're right that the Tengu performs very (probably too) well. But you're wrong that the Tengu needed the nerf. Tengu in non-dps subsystem is fine and very much in-line with other cruiser hulls. So the issue is not with the Tengu itself, but rather with a particular subsystem (especially combined with the engineering one that gives +1 launcher).

The funky thing is that that particular Tengu configuration, still have a decent balance between the +kinetic bonus and the other damage types. The bonuses applies goes in-line with Caldari in general too. There's two possible solutions to tweak this to make it more reasonable: either a) tweak the RoF bonus, or b) tweak the raw damage bonus itself (preferably keep the separated +kin bonus, to suit the Caldari damage bonus that goes on other ships too).

Tengu is fine. Its damage subsystem is not.
Drake is fine. In blobs they die too slow.
Poems are cool. I can't write em.

Cool

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#770 - 2012-09-18 23:28:36 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Whats stupid is a cruiser with a BS tank, the range of a sniper and the DPS of a brawler BC.

This nerf should have happened years ago.


I couldn't give a **** about the Tengu, I was talking from the perspective of the Drake. Yes, happy for the Tengu to have a nerf - it should never have been allowed to fit HMLs in the first place, but nerfing HMLs on the Drake is so ******* ******** I can't think even straight.

****.

if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#771 - 2012-09-18 23:29:54 UTC
John Ratcliffe wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Whats stupid is a cruiser with a BS tank, the range of a sniper and the DPS of a brawler BC.

This nerf should have happened years ago.


I couldn't give a **** about the Tengu, I was talking from the perspective of the Drake. Yes, happy for the Tengu to have a nerf - it should never have been allowed to fit HMLs in the first place, but nerfing HMLs on the Drake is so ******* ******** I can't think even straight.

****.


The drake is also far too good.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#772 - 2012-09-18 23:29:59 UTC
Seranova Farreach wrote:
if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****.


I like how you post this with no justification, yet I posted (with reasoning) why the Tengu may be solidified further solidified as the best mission runner.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#773 - 2012-09-18 23:31:12 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Daneel Trevize wrote:
D3vastator wrote:
Aaron Greil wrote:
Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.

Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.

Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock.


Ah, my bad. IshTAR :P
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1938285#post1938285

Seriously, your more expensive tech3 is meant to be a stepping stone to the superior specialised t2 ship for the particular role. Because you can get isk faster than SP. Tengus are brokenly overpowered, they need nerfs.


Yes and no. You're right about the stepping stone, and t2 ship role, and you're right that the Tengu performs very (probably too) well. But you're wrong that the Tengu needed the nerf. Tengu in non-dps subsystem is fine and very much in-line with other cruiser hulls. So the issue is not with the Tengu itself, but rather with a particular subsystem (especially combined with the engineering one that gives +1 launcher).

The funky thing is that that particular Tengu configuration, still have a decent balance between the +kinetic bonus and the other damage types. The bonuses applies goes in-line with Caldari in general too. There's two possible solutions to tweak this to make it more reasonable: either a) tweak the RoF bonus, or b) tweak the raw damage bonus itself (preferably keep the separated +kin bonus, to suit the Caldari damage bonus that goes on other ships too).

Tengu is fine. Its damage subsystem is not.
Drake is fine. In blobs they die too slow.
Poems are cool. I can't write em.

Cool


what about proteus? thats the most OP of em all.. up to 850k EHP.. 1300 dps drones! and so on.. (if my eft was correct)

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Meldorn Vaash
State War Academy
Caldari State
#774 - 2012-09-18 23:31:24 UTC
I think the Devs should put a hold on the heavy missiles and Hurricane changes until they get to the actual Battlecruiser tiercide changes. That way they can determine if this is a weapon systems/ammo issue or a problem with Battlecruisers in general. Once done, they can adjust the cruiser class shortcomings or overpower issues with the weapon systems.

My 2 cents...
"Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#775 - 2012-09-18 23:31:32 UTC
I'm Down wrote:

Actually, I came right back at Fozzie with proof pudding.


Actually you continued to make completely unsupported assertions and provided no proof whatsoever regarding anything you said. If you would be so kind as to return to the thread and provide fits that back up your ridiculous assertions, that'd be pretty great. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#776 - 2012-09-18 23:32:12 UTC
Wolfstorm wrote:
Misanth wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
confirming that ccp is to incompetent to balance their game properly, instead of having unique in vastly different mechanics for their weapons systems and tanking modules to make the game exciting and engaging, where the meta-game is constantly changing and they have decided to make every tanking type, and every weapons system at virtually the same. .


A couple patches back in Inferno, they wanted to change shield/armor function virtually the same. Favoring passive/active changing as your choice. Needless to say that's a very bad idea. They started by trying to change the rigs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99872 ( CCP bouncing ideas, are as close to good , as fire is to ice .because none of them actually play it again besides missioning/mining in high-sec ).

Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players.. all it will do is dumbed down eve even more. It is gotten so bad that there is very little difference between the races, Beyond what slots they used to tank, and what flavor of gun they put in their high slots. well I admit there is problems with most of the missile boats in the game at the moment I think that is more wrong with ships themselves than the actual missile mechanic.

what is going to make this thing easier for new players, is more mechanics built in that facilitates experienced players teaching the new players. Here's some ideas off the top of my head. Reworking the certificate system so that players, make and share certificates among the corporation mates and their alliance mates easily. The certificates could be used for anything such as an easy to look up new player training plan. All the way up to figuring out if you have enough skills to qualify for reimbursement on a particular ship.

Because God knows none of the CCP staff are qualified to teach someone how to properly fit a ship or the skills required to properly fitted anymore. I'm going to hazard a guess and say no CCP dev is playing the way the average player does since the T2 lottery scandal. THE FACT THAT NO Dev plays the game the way the majority of pvper play. They have no clue about balancing past they care bearing in hisec.

so I urge you to put new player training in the hands of current players and give usThe tools to do it. Instead of dumbing down eve to the lowest of dominator


I want your space-babies.


This again!


and again.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#777 - 2012-09-18 23:32:41 UTC
Meldorn Vaash wrote:
I think the Devs should put a hold on the heavy missiles and Hurricane changes until they get to the actual Battlecruiser tiercide changes. That way they can determine if this is a weapon systems/ammo issue or a problem with Battlecruisers in general. Once done, they can adjust the cruiser class shortcomings or overpower issues with the weapon systems.

My 2 cents...


This is a reasonable opinion, but you must consider that BCs use cruiser weapons, not the other way around. The cruiser rebalance is damn near done and thus the weapons are also going to need balanced.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#778 - 2012-09-18 23:32:43 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Liang Nuren wrote:
Seranova Farreach wrote:
if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****.


I like how you post this with no justification, yet I posted (with reasoning) why the Tengu may be solidified further solidified as the best mission runner.

-Liang


B/C everyone wants to run missions with 400dps boats that do **** all damage to smaller ships.

Not like the Golem is going to be heaps better now with the higher DPS, bonuses to hitting smaller ships, TP bonus, and TC/TE effects on larger missiles. Oh wait, there was that time long ago when LR torpedos were all the rage of Mission running... who knew they'd ever bring that back.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#779 - 2012-09-18 23:34:32 UTC
Has there been any clarification on how the TE/TC boost will affect missile range. Is it going to use the optimal bonus? Or the falloff bonus? Or both of them added together?
Kentren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#780 - 2012-09-18 23:35:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Kentren
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread.

I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible.

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.

The meat of this thread however is about missiles. There's a number of missile changes we have planned for the Winter, including the already announced buff to light missiles, a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles.

All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.

Light Missiles
-Explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40
-Damage increased by 10% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant light missiles, including FOF.

Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 30%
-Base velocity increased by 6.66%
-In total, base range reduced by ~25%
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.

Tech Two Missiles
-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes.
-Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius)
Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly
Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity
Javelin: Just remove ship penalties
Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly

Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
-These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles
-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 increases explosion radius
Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time

DON'T YOU TOUCH MY MISSILES YOU GO BE STUPID ELSE WHERE