These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sun Win
#1381 - 2012-09-19 14:51:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aliventi wrote:


For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

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

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

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.





Quoting this because it's the only part of this debate that's had, you know, numbers.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#1382 - 2012-09-19 14:53:17 UTC
Metal Icarus wrote:
I still stand by my new module suggestion. To have the TD be able to disrupt ALL weapon systems with one mod is, IMO, too effective. (could be said for ECM, but you need racial jammers to be effective)

I am fine with the mod to have the same prereqs as the tracking disruptor, and recieve the same bonuses. Just have a different module. It will be better for the lore, more intuitive and would not make the TD OP.

Harr harr harr, yeah right. 5 x multispec all the way man

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1383 - 2012-09-19 14:54:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
baltec1 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:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

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

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

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.


do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?


The travel time is balanced by the low fitting requirements which allow for a substantial tank.

Versus frigates, HMLs can actually kill them at close-mid range, especially with precision missiles. For turrets it's the other way around, they can kill frigates at high ranges but have difficulties doing anything to them at closer ranges.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1384 - 2012-09-19 14:57:10 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


Do they factor in firewalls?


I hear its Norton.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#1385 - 2012-09-19 14:57:19 UTC
TDs are already overpowered.

The TD change to effect missiles just dumbs the game down.

Why not just eliminate missiles if everything is going to be the same as turrets?


Instead of shuffling stuff around that never really had much player support why not address the imbalances that players clearly think need addressing?

Offgrid boosts is something that about 100 players said is overpowered here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=10444&find=unread

Is there any thread that says tracking disruptors need a buff with anything close to that sort of support? Fact is that buffing tracking disruptors is going to benefit people with their loki boosters more than it will benefit the players in general.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#1386 - 2012-09-19 14:57:36 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Three things:
- The Drake does not have low DPS by any stretch of the imagination.
- Caldari will be fine in PVP.
- Caldari is likely going to be improved in PVE with the TE/TC changes.

-Laing
Drake DPS is hotly debated.
Caldari PVP was the Drake (Tengu rose slowly too) until it got a boost from ASBs, which will get nerfed somehow.
TP already did that, unless we are getting unscripted low slot versions.


I respect your opinion, but I am on the other side of the fence. And, no I haven't fallen off the edge to say HML are useless. I will agree that people are getting dramatic, which doesn't help my case. The Caracal needs more love (and, as I predicted, is out classed by the Bellicose). The Navy Caracal, Cerberus, and Nighthawk got nerfed with the Tengu/Drake. Caldari HACs are now a complete laughing stock.

Huge nerfs like this are something I always frown on. When they affect moderate to under powered ships, such as in this case, it really is ludicrous. I use both missiles and guns, have for years, and this really makes no sense to me.

Btw, while I’m glad there was a slight speed increase; HML at long range loses DPS from over firing. At close range, this doesn’t happen, but damage is still meh anyway and on-paper damage at range that is what is argued against. The range needed a nerf more, but range bonuses should have been buffed. Then ships like Cerberus would make HMs shine, while the Drake would fail (Tengu would get a bonus nerf).

I say:
Give back the HM damage
Make a low slot into a mid slot on the Caracal (mirror the Omen, make it choose gank or tank in lows)
Really nerf flight time on HMs (nerfs the Drake and sadly the Nighthawk)
Boost the flight time bonus on the Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Cerberus to 20%
Nerf the flight time bonus of the Tengu to 5%
Maybe buff HAM range slightly (I think it is too short)

This would prevent nerfing under powered ships, give the Caracal a buff instead of a nerf/buff, and at least nerf the Nighthawk less.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1387 - 2012-09-19 14:59:39 UTC
Vilnius Zar wrote:

"I'm not ok with it and so no one should be".
where did i say that? straw man much?
Quote:

HMLs are OP, their range&applied dps is too good, on top of that the Tengu and Drake themselves are also too good. If they weren't the Tengu and drake wouldn't be used as much and in case of the Tengu you'd see people using non-missile fits. The problem is that other missiles are below par (not counting cruise) so one way of solving that (and the best way imo) is to "nerf" HML and then give people the option to fit modules to boost ALL missile performance, which is what's happening.
the drake and tengu are without a doubt overpowered and people arguing against that are either stupid or dishonest. heavy missile range is also a little too long, not because it's longer than arty or beam range but simply because it's about as long as the targeting range for most ships. it might as well be infinity in these cases (unless sensor boosters blabla).
Quote:

Then have a look at the new proposed Caracal, range and rof bonus meaning all of a sudden HAMS become a more viable option now and when coupled with TE/TC they will really work quite well and HML will have the "if you want THAT much range then you'll have to accept low dps" just like other weapon systems.
so what, we nerf the weapon system and then buff all the ships using it to compensate? speak of a job-creation plan...
Quote:

HAMs will be the new kid on the block and they'll do well. Deal with it.

i don't have a problem with HAMs doing well. i just think that if hams are too weak in general, you should buff hams and not change every single hull that uses them. same goes for heavies. if their range is too excessive, fine, nerf it. but comparing them to other long range systems while in the same sentence crying that said long range systems suck is just idiotic, especially when aside from their range and the two overpowered hulls, they really don't have much going for them.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#1388 - 2012-09-19 14:59:50 UTC
Regarding TD's.

Simply add 2 attributes to the Tracking Disruptor. Then add 2 more scrpits to boost the new attributes. Simple to tweak and simple to use and fair for everyone.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1389 - 2012-09-19 15:00:55 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:


This would prevent nerfing under powered ships, give the Caracal a buff instead of a nerf/buff, and at least nerf the Nighthawk less.


You might want to read the numbers I just posted further up.
Heimdallofasgard
Ministry of Furious Retribution
Insidious.
#1390 - 2012-09-19 15:01:30 UTC
Just a quick one Fozzie... Be sure to review the effects of TD/TC/TE usage in combination with wormhole effects. Don't want another episode of infinite range guns/missles again.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1391 - 2012-09-19 15:07:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aliventi wrote:


For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

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

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

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.





Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo
compared to
Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo


cherry picked data for desired outcome ??
Sephanor
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1392 - 2012-09-19 15:08:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aliventi wrote:


For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

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

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

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.





When looking at these numbers keep in mind turrets can change ammo types to take advantage of closer range situations, Heavy Missile users can't.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1393 - 2012-09-19 15:11:02 UTC
Another good way to fix this nerf is to make fury missiles have even less range (Think 40-55km range, whereas javelin HAMs with a TE would get more dps, but only hit up to about 30km), but the fury heavies have 10% less damage than the current fury missiles instead of 20%.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1394 - 2012-09-19 15:11:23 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:


Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo
compared to
Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo


cherry picked data for desired outcome ??


That data is for long range. If you can get that kind of range and damage using faction ammo in the turrets then be my guest and post the results.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#1395 - 2012-09-19 15:12:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
(Lots of good justification and answers)


After giving it a day to think about it and reading further, I think the HML nerfs are pretty fair - but still need testing. And I would make sure you sell the justification up front, in bold letters, with pretty graphs and charts, or you will see lots of rage when the rest of Eve starts to pay attention.

However, there's still one imbalance with respect to HAMs and HMLs, and that is the fitting requirements.

Since close range fighting is the version that requires more tank, shouldn't HAMs, the soon-to-be only way to fight close range with a drake, be the weapon system that has lower fitting requirements, enabling a heavier tank to be fit?

My Caldari alt trained Drakes and HMLs because when comparing them to HAMs, there just was no reason to trade away the extra fittings for less range, less effectiveness vs. small targets and slightly more damage. Now that HAMs will be the only reasonable DPS option for a drake with tackle, shouldn't they have have the lesser fitting requirements like all the other close range weapon systems?

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.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#1396 - 2012-09-19 15:14:27 UTC
jonnykefka wrote:
I like the basic principle of TDs/TCs/TEs having an effect on missiles, but I don't think it should be the same modules. One of the things that make missiles strategically interesting is that you need a different set of tools to deal with them versus turret ships. It's part of EVE's eternal intel war. If you know your opponent is bringing missiles, you can bring something that would counter that but not guns (e.g., a firewall, smaller ships). If you know they're bringing guns, you can bring something that counters that but not missiles (TDs, fight from range).

In short, I'd prefer to see TD/TC/TE equivalents for missiles, but that are their own mods. That preserves all of the distinct strategic benefits of missiles while still allowing for missile users to adjust their range and "tracking" much like turret users, and to be countered the same way. Also, it makes more sense "flavor"-wise. Missiles don't have "tracking".


The modules affecting stats on both guns and missiles makes split weapon system boats much, much more viable.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Dante Lioncourt
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1397 - 2012-09-19 15:16:24 UTC
Just a thought , maby the cerberus will get some buffs which will turn it into the less tanky drake , could work
out well
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#1398 - 2012-09-19 15:16:24 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
(Lots of good justification and answers)


After giving it a day to think about it and reading further, I think the HML nerfs are pretty fair - but still need testing. And I would make sure you sell the justification up front, in bold letters, with pretty graphs and charts, or you will see lots of rage when the rest of Eve starts to pay attention.

However, there's still one imbalance with respect to HAMs and HMLs, and that is the fitting requirements.

Since close range fighting is the version that requires more tank, shouldn't HAMs, the soon-to-be only way to fight close range with a drake, be the weapon system that has lower fitting requirements, enabling a heavier tank to be fit?

My Caldari alt trained Drakes and HMLs because when comparing them to HAMs, there just was no reason to trade away the extra fittings for less range, less effectiveness vs. small targets and slightly more damage. Now that HAMs will be the only reasonable DPS option for a drake with tackle, shouldn't they have have the lesser fitting requirements like all the other close range weapon systems?

I was thinking this too. No reason for HAMs to cost more in terms of fitting. Should be brought in line with the formula used on long and short ranged turrets

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1399 - 2012-09-19 15:17:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Sephanor wrote:


When looking at these numbers keep in mind turrets can change ammo types to take advantage of closer range situations, Heavy Missile users can't.


This is not the correct way to look at it.

As I've said, the compensation for the travel time disadvantage is that HML ships can mount a substantial tank.

At closer ranges travel time stops being a disadvantage because it's so short. At that point it's turret ships that need some advantage to stay competitive. This is why turrets get the option of switching to close range ammo with higher damage.

At close ranges, Arty/Railgun/Beam ships are actually worse than HML ships. Paper tank, can barely track cruisers.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1400 - 2012-09-19 15:17:12 UTC
Sephanor wrote:


When looking at these numbers keep in mind turrets can change ammo types to take advantage of closer range situations, Heavy Missile users can't.


So the missile chucker dictates the rangeBlink