These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#841 - 2012-09-19 00:44:49 UTC
JEFFRAIDER wrote:
I'm Down wrote:


No one in PL likes you

your personality is terrible

enjoy -a-

lol



omg, online space ship personalities are my crutch.
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks
PowerDucks Alliance
#842 - 2012-09-19 00:45:36 UTC
what ships were already using TE and TC and used to fit handicapped missiles just to fill spare highs with extra dps? Minmatar turret\missiles ships are going to completely replace caldari with missiles only in pve
Markku Laaksonen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#843 - 2012-09-19 00:45:44 UTC
Here are my tears. Take them and leave me alone. Cry

DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/

EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#844 - 2012-09-19 00:46:51 UTC
Isaiah Harms wrote:
Proposition:

Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).
Do not nerf Hurricane powergrid.

If you destroy the battlecruisers to fix cruiser aren't you just making more work (and grief) for everyone down the road?

Oh... and whoever reading this:

IF YOU SUCK SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF DRAKES... go play Wow.



How come you didn't sign your post this time? Where are our regards??
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#845 - 2012-09-19 00:47:12 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
Um, Fozzie... what about the Cerberus, Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Nighthawk?

I would rather see the Drake lose a launcher than to see the Caracal et al. get hurt this badly. The Cerberus is now out classed by the Sacrilege. The Nighthawk needed a buff, not a nerf. The Caracal heavy missile damage was always just decent, never a problem. Since when was the Navy Caracal ever a problem? (Yes, I understand that these ships we will need to be balanced, but the HM change that addresses the Drake hurts ships that needed a buff.)



The Caracal is getting two more low slots and more tank.
BinaryData
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#846 - 2012-09-19 00:47:44 UTC
Oh yeah,

Fix AFK cloaky camping. Covert Ops cloak needs an overhaul. Permanent cloaking shouldn't be available, balance Citadel Torps & Cruise Missiles, my god a damn Erebus can out run the explosion radius of a Cit Torp. 20m/s? Are you kidding? The only crap that its good for is shooting stationary objects.


Fix stuff thats actually broken, i.e. Drake tank needs to be nerfed, it can have as much friggin' eHP as a plated battleship.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#847 - 2012-09-19 00:48:36 UTC
Isaiah Harms wrote:
Proposition:

Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).




i dont get it a beam harby with 3 heats with long range ammo does 305 dps

a similar fir for the drake gets 395 dps... take away 20% you get 316... i say take away 15% wich would be 335 which is a ok for me...

by low dps what do you mean?

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#848 - 2012-09-19 00:49:18 UTC
Isaiah Harms wrote:
Proposition:

Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).
Do not nerf Hurricane powergrid.

If you destroy the battlecruisers to fix cruiser aren't you just making more work (and grief) for everyone down the road?

Oh... and whoever reading this:

IF YOU SUCK SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF DRAKES... go play Wow.


How is nerfing the Drake and Hurricane destroying all the battlecruisers? You do realize there is more than those two right?
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#849 - 2012-09-19 00:49:20 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.

Ahac HAM Sac's.



They were never HAM sacs you ****. At least get the concept right before you bash it. An god forbid this game has someone try new things out.



It's very easy to bash Yaay, but the man has a point and a very solid track record. I for one hope your offer of sitting down with the devs still stands, I'm sure Ytterbium and Fozzie would greatly appreciate your input. In only Greyscale listened to your critiques Titan blobbing would be a thing of the past.

I'm Down wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:


We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.


Alright, now I'm going into true ******* mode.

This is why your player base has such a horrible connection to you developers. We try to help you and give you massive feedback, and you just **** on everything we do and say so that you can rush in a **** ass patch which I see you're now leaning towards **** ass mechanics once again. I mean, do you even get the point that this game is not spreadsheets online?

At what point did you guys think that "omg, this spreadsheet looks good so this idea must be good."


YOUR new latest greatest idea does nothing at all to address titan blobbing. It doesn't address titans in bulk on a field. It doesn't address tracking issues as range increases. It doesn't address natural titan counters with the 1 small exception that it removed maelstroms from being as useful a tool against capital fleets since they get hammered even harder now. And if you played the game, you'd see how this is a further buff to titans since the counter to carriers supporting titans just got a nerf.. It very weakly addresses the ability of the ship to hit. And then you throw back in the bullshit artificial damage modification with a small tweak even though we've already addressed in mass why this is a horrible idea.

How do you expect the player base to ever get along with you when you make such poor decisions in haste. I mean this is exactly why we have gotten so emo over the years to the point of nearly collapsing your company last fall.

I even offered to sit down and have a chat with you in real time free of charge so as to help you along this process which seemed ignored. It's amazing since I'm Literally the most experienced Super Capital FC in game in terms of combat applications and I fly with the most seasoned alliance in terms of Super capitals as well. And that's not even trying to gloat... it's just raw fact.

I mean jesus christ, make the proper fix or just delay the fix. But stop doing this ass backwards approach.

Next Server patch, Nuke the tracking by half with further changes down the llne and leave it at that. At least it will have some small effect with promises of larger fixes on the way. Then you can go fix your damn tracking formula and make all the appropriate and reasonable sig adjustments there as I've already explained to you how to do.

~
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#850 - 2012-09-19 00:49:55 UTC
don't worry everyone, iterations, future eve, and all.... its only going to be a year or so more.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#851 - 2012-09-19 00:50:13 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Yaay has corrected me, they were HML AB Sacs....yea, I said it.



well the 5% to cap recharge is a pointless bonus for the ship...

how about something usefull like a flight time bonus... not as good as velocity but not OP either...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#852 - 2012-09-19 00:50:45 UTC
BinaryData wrote:
Fix AFK cloaky camping.

Remove local, problem solved. Cool
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#853 - 2012-09-19 00:50:45 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Isaiah Harms wrote:
Proposition:

Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).
Do not nerf Hurricane powergrid.

If you destroy the battlecruisers to fix cruiser aren't you just making more work (and grief) for everyone down the road?

Oh... and whoever reading this:

IF YOU SUCK SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF DRAKES... go play Wow.


How is nerfing the Drake and Hurricane destroying all the battlecruisers? You do realize there is more than those two right?


In fairness to him, the other ones are, for the most part, complete garbage. The Harb is good, but the other non-tier-3 BCs are pretty bad :\
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks
PowerDucks Alliance
#854 - 2012-09-19 00:51:02 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Isaiah Harms wrote:
Proposition:

Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).




i dont get it a beam harby with 3 heats with long range ammo does 305 dps

a similar fir for the drake gets 395 dps... take away 20% you get 316... i say take away 15% wich would be 335 which is a ok for me...

by low dps what do you mean?



Now, if you're going to use lasers, you going o shoot with EM\thermal. Put Em or thermal on drake...
BinaryData
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#855 - 2012-09-19 00:51:40 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Isaiah Harms wrote:
Proposition:

Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).




i dont get it a beam harby with 3 heats with long range ammo does 305 dps

a similar fir for the drake gets 395 dps... take away 20% you get 316... i say take away 15% wich would be 335 which is a ok for me...

by low dps what do you mean?



RoF with Max skills is still roughly 8 seconds or so. I have L5 on all but 2 skills, and the RoF is still around 8 seconds. Most battlecruiser class ships have a 6second or lower RoF. Not to mention damage is instant, and missiles take 2 - 4 seconds to reach their target, depending on the range.

If anything the damage should be nerfed by 5 -10%, and the flight time of missiles needs to be boosted. Faster flying missiles for less dps, makes sense to me.

Tengu's don't need to be nerfed by this, they already take god damn forever to get into, not to mention if you die in one, you lose SP. Might as well do that for drakes too. You're "balancing" the wrong stuff, once again.
El 'Terrible
Cat Squad
#856 - 2012-09-19 00:51:46 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
According to eve-kill.net; the heavy missile launcher is used almost 35% of the time. Followed by 425mm auto cannons being used 8%.


LOL

That probably has to do with the fact that the Drake regularly has at least twice the amount of kills of any other ship, the problem isn't the HML at all (Drakes can do 3-400dps max) its the huge buffer the Drake is able to fit, thats reason its used so much.

Rebalancing the amount of CPU the drake has as well as considering removing a midslot would be more appropriate, completely nerfing missiles is not the solution.
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA
New Eden Alliance 99013733
#857 - 2012-09-19 00:53:02 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Oh yeah, anyone want to talk about the double wammy of ratting in the south where rats Tracking disrupt and spew defender like no other. Guess Missiles are worthless ratting platforms through and through and through down there now.

Good thing they haven't ****** over drones yet.



You forgot to add "Where the bots are printing isks."
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels
The Obsidian Front - Reborn
#858 - 2012-09-19 00:54:04 UTC
Whatttttt ??!

Canes are already a soft target compared with others, now even softer?!

This make absolute no sence to me Evil

Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
Shade Millith
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#859 - 2012-09-19 00:54:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Shade Millith
Frankly, HML's are going to be pretty useless for everything now. PVE and PVP.

I'd have rather you'd have removed 50% range than 20% damage. At least Turrets have the OPTION to vastly increase their damage close up.

So, unless that Fury ammo has a 40% damage increase, you've pretty much nerfed it into the ground.

Not to mention you're already gearing up to further nerf the drake into the ground.

Stop flailing around randomly with a sledge hammer, and start carefully adjusting things.

EDIT : And what about HAM's? Not that TD's effect them, they're even worse.

Why use a Close range weapon system that hits things worse than longer range, that then are impacted even more by TD?
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#860 - 2012-09-19 00:55:41 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Aglais wrote:
Bla Railguns are worse system ever

Actually, 70km is the range were railguns start to become even or better than beams. Yes railguns are bad until this range, but don't take the only thing they have please.


Ok, so they have the highest operational range. Fascinating. But what's their peak damage output compared to beams and artillery? Range is pretty much all they have going for them. If you can present to me a DPS graph in which two ships in the same class, one using medium railguns, and the other using any other kind of long range weapon system for cruisers of the same size rating, with the railgun ship somehow doing more peak DPS than the other, then I'll change my view.