These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#1721 - 2012-09-19 21:29:19 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Bloutok wrote:


More empty posting. I hope some ISD is going to come around at some point.



Amusing response, you haven't biomassed yet?


No. You ?
Sigras
Conglomo
#1722 - 2012-09-19 21:33:36 UTC
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.

Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . .

oh wait . . .

CCP Fozzie wrote:
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
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1723 - 2012-09-19 21:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Michael Harari wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/m8Aw9.jpg is a screenshot of several hundred heavy missiles flying at my stiletto.

Also, Ive volleyed many an interceptor in my artycane.



Do I need to point out yellow boxes and no ranges?

Several hundred heavies at 20km, you would be on to something, at 65ish (assuming a lateral path and boosted properly) the missiles won't get there without a very specific build Drake.

That being said I could barely tank a SINGLE HAM II with a Dramiel in 1200m/s orbit and a 44m sig , four volleys pushed me to half shields, and a single..as in one....HAM launcher on a Loki, I was starting to get nervous when the cavalry got there.

Sigras wrote:


Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . .



While true, you can't "get under" a missile.
Senarrius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1724 - 2012-09-19 21:36:02 UTC
I would like to know how TD's are going to affect non tracking missiles, considering that they do not "track" in the same way normal missiles do.

It makes little sense to me.
Comy 1
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1725 - 2012-09-19 21:38:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Comy 1
Are you people seriously complaining about TDs becomming overpowered?

I mean, sure they do affect turrets already and we do have the common rage about "BECAUSE OF PILGRIM"...or wait, it was Falcon...

Why would you after the change bring ships with TDs when you might aswell keep jamming everything like you always did.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1726 - 2012-09-19 21:43:50 UTC
Sigras 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.

Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . .

oh wait . . .

CCP Fozzie wrote:
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

The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used.
Monite Harajem
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1727 - 2012-09-19 21:46:05 UTC
So then with those changes could the heavy bays then hold more ammo?
I mean everyone wants to compair numbers of Damage per second. Why not expand the fight time and see that Every other weapon of the BC class hold more rounds and have more ammo space. Meaning less down time to reload and start firing again.

So crystals get off what? over 500shoots
Arts over 100 rounds
Rails over 100 round
Heavys 40missiles...

So With that said, theres at least a 30second down time for heavies compared to other bays
With this graph http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gif

When the drakes down reloading
harbs get off 1870 more dmg
brutix 1780
and so on...

Well seeing as theres going to be more down times for the drake, the damage levels out a bit.
And Large fleet battles are not a few seconds long, they are a few minutes to hours long so, expand the blood combate graphs and do the real math on over all damage...

DPS is only good for a second :) 30seconds down time compared to the next weapon is a LARGE gap
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1728 - 2012-09-19 21:49:42 UTC
If tracking computers affect missiles now, what happens if I switch the scripts while the missile is mid-flight?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#1729 - 2012-09-19 21:50:21 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Sigras 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.

Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . .

oh wait . . .

CCP Fozzie wrote:
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

The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used.


Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1730 - 2012-09-19 21:52:55 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
If tracking computers affect missiles now, what happens if I switch the scripts while the missile is mid-flight?


I'm guessing it only affects missiles fired after the switch.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1731 - 2012-09-19 21:54:07 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used.



Those are all T2 numbers, and all you also have to understand that all of the T2 ammo comes with a tacking penalty.

Sure you can switch down, but a 250mm Railgun II (biggest medium) rail with anti matter is 16km+13km sans bonuses or tracking enhancers, and tracks pretty terribly at 0.0277rad/sec....with Motion prediction V.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1732 - 2012-09-19 21:54:18 UTC
Here's my own take on heavy missiles:

Reduce effective range by ~20%
Reduce HM damage by ~10%, increase HAM damage by ~10%
Swap the powergrid requirements of heavy launchers and heavy assault launchers.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1733 - 2012-09-19 21:57:02 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.

This is the BIGGEST reason why HMLs shouldn't be nerfed as bad as the nerf proponents and CCP Fozzie seem to think they are.

Scatim Helicon has the right idea. 20% range nerf, 10% damage nerf, switch fitting requirements with HAMs, buff HAM damage slightly.

(Actually instead of buffing HAM damage I'd be for buffing HAM explosion velocity and radius, but other than that they're fine).

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Lili Lu
#1734 - 2012-09-19 21:58:42 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944512#post1944512

already mentioned and addressed this. suffice to say it's not as "HUGE" as you would hope.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#1735 - 2012-09-19 22:06:09 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
If tracking computers affect missiles now, what happens if I switch the scripts while the missile is mid-flight?


**** gets real.

(Probably nothing, but testing will reveal all. Once the changes reach the test server, of course.)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1736 - 2012-09-19 22:06:09 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944512#post1944512

already mentioned and addressed this. suffice to say it's not as "HUGE" as you would hope.

Yes, but it's one of several things that aren't, in aggregate, taken into account.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1737 - 2012-09-19 22:08:53 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.

This is the BIGGEST reason why HMLs shouldn't be nerfed as bad as the nerf proponents and CCP Fozzie seem to think they are.

Scatim Helicon has the right idea. 20% range nerf, 10% damage nerf, switch fitting requirements with HAMs, buff HAM damage slightly.

(Actually instead of buffing HAM damage I'd be for buffing HAM explosion velocity and radius, but other than that they're fine).


I feel like that's part of the trade off between not having close range damage and not being weak up close. Bring on the 20%! ;-)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1738 - 2012-09-19 22:11:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Onictus wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used.



Those are all T2 numbers, and all you also have to understand that all of the T2 ammo comes with a tacking penalty.

Sure you can switch down, but a 250mm Railgun II (biggest medium) rail with anti matter is 16km+13km sans bonuses or tracking enhancers, and tracks pretty terribly at 0.0277rad/sec....with Motion prediction V.

My comment was in response to:
Sigras wrote:
Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . . (list of T2 ammo changes)

I find issue with this statement in that while T1 ammo has the option for turrets, HML's do not.
Misspi en Divalone
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1739 - 2012-09-19 22:17:32 UTC
Such a lot of angry comments...

I think a lot of the angry people focus too much on the lowering of range and dps on the heavy missile launcher. At the very same time you are handed tools to increase the effective dps and range with TE/TC use. And then you get an, as of yet unknown, increase in T2 fury missile damage. On top of that there is a good change incoming that so far the kinetic damage bonus on Caldari ships is changed in favor to an all round bonus allowing you to shoot at resistance holes much easier.

I think in the end the effective drop in dps against quite a lot of targets will not be 20% but a somewhat higher number. The range on HML is still excellent even without TE/TC boosting that. I for one welcome these changes. It was needed and they are good.

The only problem I really see is the TD becoming the go to e-war module. A new e-war module affecting missiles only I'd welcome but now it's a no brainer. Once you get enough points and webs and maybe one or two tp in a gang you fill the rest of the med slots with TD. There should always be hard choices and I think giving the TD more strength makes one choice simply too strong. Same for the TE/TC affecting both guns and missiles. Don't let split weapon system ships get too much of a bonus with them although it is a nice buff to some Minmatar ships and makes the choice missiles or neut more interesting. I could live with a change in TE/TC even if only to give missile users more options.

Then again in a shield tanked ship/gang you might just lack med slots to fit enough TD's so you might even call this a sneak buff to armor tanking who might just have more med slots for e-war.. Weren't some people waiting for a buff to armor tanking?

My vote:

[ ] Balancing team dies in a fire
[X] Good job so far
Eckyy
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#1740 - 2012-09-19 22:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Eckyy
I've only read maybe 15 pages of the total thread so far (scattered bits) but I decided to investigate the Drake for myself.

To start with, I loaded up a Harbinger and a Drake with a full rack of long range weapons, and 3 damage mods:

Quote:

[Harbinger, Beam1]
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]

[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]

Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
[empty high slot]



Quote:
[Drake, HML1]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
[empty low slot]

[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]

Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
[empty high slot]


For now, I'm going to assume that fittings aren't an issue because CCP is going to adjust the grid usage of beams. We can also assume that T2 missiles will lose their penalties to be in line with other weapon systems.


I realize it's not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but these ships ARE different so an equal comparison really is impossible. In the above fits, these ships each have the same number of remaining open slots. Neither has drones in their bay as we're looking at extreme range where drones aren't likely to be applied.

The Drake does 414dps at 84km with Navy Scourge

The Harbinger does 305dps at 54+10km with Aurora

Comparing raw dps, at extreme range, the Drake does 36% more DPS at 55% longer range than the Harb. With Fury missiles, this changes to 51% more damage at 41% more range. The Harbinger has options to extend its range, but so does the Drake (with rigs), and with both they're stacking penalized anyway. The Harbinger has tracking to deal with, while the Drake has velocity itself reducing damage due to missile mechanics. These two systems each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The Harb has to deal with a -17.2 cap/sec, and both are currently locked in their damage types.

Currently the Drake is not affected by tracking disruptors, while the Harbinger is. Both suffer equally from ECM and damps.

The Drake does not deal instant damage which makes it a poor alpha-sniper. However, if both sides are forced to stay on the field (tackle, bubbles, aggression timers, etc.), the Drake has a considerable range, damage, ewar immunity, and cap advantage (harb will require cap mods to fire indefinitely, especially if you plan to fit a MWD or shield hardeners). The Drake also has a tanking bonus on top of these other advantages.

Clearly in the extreme case, the Harbinger is completely outclassed.


If the fight moves to close range and both of these ships still have their racial long-range weapon systems fit, things change a bit. In my hypothetical fight, the Harbinger is using Navy Multi because the damage advantage of Gleam is insignificant, and Gleam has additional range penalty. I loaded up thermal drones to really show a best-case scenario for the Harb against the Drake.

With NMulti and a flight of Hammerheads, the Harbi is putting out 684dps at 15+10km.

With Fury and a flight of Hobgoblins, the Drake is at 561dps.

At extreme close range, the Harbinger out-dps's the Drake by 22%. The Drake has no choice of close-range ammo to switch to. The Harbinger is able to quickly switch between long- and short-range ammo, but still suffers the same weaknesses as in the long-range scenario. Effectively, the Drake is ewar immune at close-range while the Harb still has to deal with tracking disruption. The Harbinger also has to deal with -17.2cap/s and does not have a stronger capacitor than the Drake, and lacks a tanking bonus.

In this scenario, it doesn't look as bad for the Harb, but I'd say the Drake is still in a superior position. The Harbinger has superior potential peak damage output but suffers from ewar vulnerability, capacitor limitations, and lacks a tanking bonus.

Continued in my next post....