These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#1841 - 2012-09-20 05:17:06 UTC
Althasandria Shadegrown wrote:
Sofia Wolf wrote:
A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf
My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps.

IMHO for winter expansion it would be best if HML get range reduction of 25% as suggested, but only 10% damage reduction. Leave it like that for few months until you are ready to introduce full BC rebalancing and then based of feedback and changes of ship/launcher popularity decide if you want to introduce remaining 10% of the nerf.

Similarly for winter expansion cut cain's power grid for only 10%. Leave it like that until you are ready to introduce full rebalance for all BCs, and then based on changes in cane's popularity decide how much more power grid you want to cut, together with any other changes you want to make to that ship and other battlecruisers. If you cut 20% of hurricane power grid at once I’m afraid you might be making it suboptimal choice compared to other ships in it's class.

I'd like to remind you of danger of overbalancing too much at once, like it was done with buffing Dramiel and nerfing sensor dampeners. Rather do it in gradual iterations, much like you did when introducing tech alchemy. You cautiously decided first to go for 1 to 10 ratio and only later after you see what transpires you likely intend to introduce 1 to 5 reaction. You should take same multi step approach when introducing nerfs to HML and canes.


^ this

I agree with the Heavy Missiles being op as they are now, but those 25% range and 20% damage nerf might just be too severe. As said above, implement only half of the nerf now, and rest with the ship rebalance if still needed. I can see a drake getting 10% damage nerf and even 25% range nerf being enough to balance them down. Tengu would still be the most powerful of all the t3 but that is the ships fault, not the weapon systems.


Yeah, definitely this. CCP is well known for nerfing things too hard. Just...take it easy guys. We know you're eager to swing that nerfbat, but lets take it in steps.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#1842 - 2012-09-20 05:19:25 UTC  |  Edited by: OT Smithers
Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros

RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744
Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170


Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks
IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664
Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953


Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs
CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657
Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961


Drake: HMs, 2 BCU
CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474

NOTES:
1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly
2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another.
3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits"


Looking at the numbers in this more realistic way it is clear that the problem with HMs -- if it exists at all -- is hardly as severe as some would suggest. The weapons, like the ships themselves, are relatively comparable to one another. They may be the most balanced class of ships (and weapons) in the game.

If we are going to compare the ships more completely we would need to look beyond HMs to do so. We would need to consider their resistances and tanks, fitting requirements, speed and agility, combat parameters, training time, ease of use, drone bays, utility slots, added capabilities such as EWAR, and what not.

When taken as a whole an argument could easily be made that ANY of these ships is superior to the others under the correct situation. The Drake excels in some areas and falls behind in others, and the same applies to all of them. The Drake does, however, offer a relatively inexpensive and easy to train for platform that makes fleet operations simple to control.

This is not the problem CCP wishes to correct. The problem is this:

A drake swarm of 100 ships encounters an enemy drake swarm of 100 ships. Combined the two fleets will begin spewing out an additional 1400 individual server tracked objects every 6 seconds, and often the second salvo will be in flight before the first hits. This is an incredible load on the servers, and one that the servers DO NOT HAVE when the ships are "firing" direct fire weapons.

Now imagine the same scenario, but up the ante to the blob sizes we see in some fleets today.

By shortening the range and increasing the speed CCP can reduce this server load by getting more missiles off the field faster. But better still (for them) is if they can essentially break the Drake and HMs and have them replaced by something less demanding. This is a win win for them, and in some respects for all of us.
Absinthe Verte
Perkone
Caldari State
#1843 - 2012-09-20 05:34:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Absinthe Verte
delete
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#1844 - 2012-09-20 05:45:44 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros

RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744
Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170


Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks
IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664
Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953


Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs
CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657
Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961


Drake: HMs, 2 BCU
CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474

NOTES:
1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly
2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another.
3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits"


Looking at the numbers in this more realistic way it is clear that the problem with HMs -- if it exists at all -- is hardly as severe as some would suggest. The weapons, like the ships themselves, are relatively comparable to one another. They may be the most balanced class of ships (and weapons) in the game.

If we are going to compare the ships more completely we would need to look beyond HMs to do so. We would need to consider their resistances and tanks, fitting requirements, speed and agility, combat parameters, training time, ease of use, drone bays, utility slots, added capabilities such as EWAR, and what not.

When taken as a whole an argument could easily be made that ANY of these ships is superior to the others under the correct situation. The Drake excels in some areas and falls behind in others, and the same applies to all of them. The Drake does, however, offer a relatively inexpensive and easy to train for platform that makes fleet operations simple to control.

This is not the problem CCP wishes to correct. The problem is this:

A drake swarm of 100 ships encounters an enemy drake swarm of 100 ships. Combined the two fleets will begin spewing out an additional 1400 individual server tracked objects every 6 seconds, and often the second salvo will be in flight before the first hits. This is an incredible load on the servers, and one that the servers DO NOT HAVE when the ships are "firing" direct fire weapons.

Now imagine the same scenario, but up the ante to the blob sizes we see in some fleets today.

By shortening the range and increasing the speed CCP can reduce this server load by getting more missiles off the field faster. But better still (for them) is if they can essentially break the Drake and HMs and have them replaced by something less demanding. This is a win win for them, and in some respects for all of us.


This. ^^

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#1845 - 2012-09-20 05:47:42 UTC
Absinthe Verte wrote:
Just adding my two cents as a new player since, as you say, "missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players."

To begin, I only heard about this change by chance when I glanced at my chat window and saw folks discussing it. If I didn't happen to notice this, I would have continued on my merry ignorant way. If there was a way to communicate big changes like this to the players without leaving it to chance, it would be great!

Being a new player, there is a LOT about EVE that I am still getting used to. There is just so much to learn here! One thing that I really appreciate is the fact that I have things like "recommendations" to let me know which direction I should be taking. Since it takes such a large investment in time (and actual real world money) to train up these skills, it's a boon to have a little help!

However, it is a bit disheartening to find that these recommendations have sent me down the wrong path for several months. As a new player, I don't appreciate being conned by the folks who actual develop the game. It does kinda feel that way...

I would recommend changing your recommendations on the ships that you will be nerfing so that folks don't waste their time (and again actual real world money) training skills that will be useless a year later.

Thanks for listening to my gripes! Cheers!


Quick Comment:

I understand where you are coming from. It's frustrating. For what it's worth, the time you have invested is not wasted. It's understandable that you might feel that way after seeing the way these changes are described here, but in truth none of these things are really THAT important in the game world. There are so many other factors that influence combat that even significant changes to ships and weapons have very little to do with victory.

The battle is usually won or lost before the first shot was fired. Whatever CCP decides to do here, we will all adapt and get on with killing one another. Just train and fly whatever sounds fun to you and don't sweat the little ****.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#1846 - 2012-09-20 05:56:22 UTC
I personally never really use heavy missiles (only for PVE) but I think 20% reduction to damage is a bit excessive along with 25% range reduction AND affected by tracking disruptors.

It is fairly excessive in my option perhaps a lower 10% reduction would make sense.


There's another thing that bothers me is Tracking Disruptors being an all in one module that affects all types of ships with simply a switch of a script.

ECM have different racial jammers that make them fail often when pairing the wrong ship with the wrong jammer. Sensor damps are pointless for close range ships and ships that lock faster than you can lock.

I believe that Tracking Computers, Enhancers, Links, and Disruptors should have a separation.


One group of modules for Turrets and One group of modules for Missiles.

This will ensure that TD will not become all God module that is useful in all situations.

I personally think that rather than nerfing the PG on the hurricane, the other ships should have a PG buff so they can fit proper modules.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1847 - 2012-09-20 05:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
Any good reasoning behind making track ench / track dis work for missles? Bringing the weapon "in-line" is a bad reason, we dont want all weapons to be the same. Missles has always been a special case, let it remain so.

If the reason is to validate support / anti-support tactics for missle ships - that is a good one. But considering we still want missles to be special - make a separate set of modules that only affect missles. Besides, that is a solution of over-powering track dis.

I do acknowledge that a new set of modules is a bit more ambitious task, and would take more time and efforts. But imo, that is the right way and I urge to follow it.

Edit:
Same idea just one post above... I guess it mean something.
Soon Shin wrote:
I believe that Tracking Computers, Enhancers, Links, and Disruptors should have a separation.
One group of modules for Turrets and One group of modules for Missiles.
Acac Sunflyier
The Ascended Academy
#1848 - 2012-09-20 06:01:49 UTC
Think you're overly nerfing the range and damage for the missile to kill the drake without overly hurting other ships like the cruisers that rely on them. I think cruisers should have their stats buffed a bit to lessen the nerf of missiles on them while letting the full effect hurt the drake as your intended goal
Meta Pyrr
TYTANIA Inc
#1849 - 2012-09-20 06:05:30 UTC
Interesting changes but a little confused the word "tracking" in the title. It is more associated with turrets. How about adding new modules or rename the current like some kind "weapon computer/enhancer/disruptor"?
Next, if we compare the missiles and turrets and traced some injustice in the medium and large size. Missile weapons like HAM and Torpedoes consumes a lot of resources spaceship (CPU/PG) compared with turrets. This will be sometime changed?
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#1850 - 2012-09-20 06:12:51 UTC
Meta Pyrr wrote:
Interesting changes but a little confused the word "tracking" in the title. It is more associated with turrets. How about adding new modules or rename the current like some kind "weapon computer/enhancer/disruptor"?
Next, if we compare the missiles and turrets and traced some injustice in the medium and large size. Missile weapons like HAM and Torpedoes consumes a lot of resources spaceship (CPU/PG) compared with turrets. This will be sometime changed?


I personally am against an all in one module.

There should be two group: Turret and Missile.

You have the tracking disruptor for Turrets

and

Missile disruptor for Missiles.

Having a single module group would make it into a God module that everyone will fit.
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
#1851 - 2012-09-20 06:29:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Katharina B
If CCP is changing TD to have an effect against missiles; CCP MUST delete defender missiles. If they do not do this the most missions will be unplayable for Caldari Pilots!

In my opinion it is a more than a daft idea to change TD so that they affect missiles. There is absolute no reason for this! If you kill missiles by -20% damage und -25% range it seems that CCP want that my NPC's intercept the rest of my missiles with defenders and disupt them with TD!
They are unable to rework defenders for PvP so that they still change TD but leave the defenders in game. Bad idea.
Two accounts cancelled with reference to this changes and the lie to change the unified inventory as promised -which they had never done till now!

Listen CCP.. If you ignore the customer - The customer ignores you!

Bye o/
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#1852 - 2012-09-20 06:42:54 UTC
Missiles now have the disadvantages of:

- Defender Missiles
- Vulnerability to AOE damage like Smartbombs and Bombs
- Tracking Disruptors
- Difficulty dealing damage to small, fast-moving objects at all times


Whereas guns have disadvantages vs:

- Tracking Disruptors
- Difficulty hitting small, fast-moving objects at all as long as transversal is above a certain threshold


---

Another note:

Absolution -- improved, all guns are significantly easier to fit
Sleipnir -- nominally unchanged, artillery versions are now slightly improved
Astarte -- unchanged
Nighthawk -- nerfed to the point of uselessness, ignoring the fact that it was rarely used before


---

Just highlighting some things

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1853 - 2012-09-20 06:43:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Shanudar wrote:
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.





Quoted this one because I'm tired of looking for the original.

lasers, hybrids, and projectiles all share support skills where as missiles require a completely different set of skills, they should be better to a certain extent.


Call me when you have to train 18 differnt turrets to T2 and you can't bypass the small Crap you don't need, and you need.

Even with support skills filled out, its 45 days to train a large T2 turret.

Takes two weeks for any missile system.....and you have one more support skill.
LAlpha
BLACK STUMP AU INC
#1854 - 2012-09-20 06:55:10 UTC
I can use almost all Med weapon systems and cruisers. But I have to strongly object against this HML nerf.

Currently, HMLs are the only viable weapon system for Solo and very small fleets doing Missions. Nerfing HMLs to oblivion without giving an alternative viable weapon system, is a clear punishment to a group of EVE players that are silent and invisible in the forums.

As it stands, Missions are repetitive and somewhat low in rewards. Currently suggested change will make a boring but doable activity into a boring and difficult activity.

I have nothing against Balancing but it should be an exercise using precision tools and not sledge hammers.

Also, CCP should stop touting Game Mechanic Balancing as an Expansion feature. Expansions should be about better Graphics (e.g. Update to Existing Ship Models) new Ships, new and improved Game assets and Infrastructure (e.g. POS rework), improved Missions and so on.
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#1855 - 2012-09-20 07:23:47 UTC
Travis117 wrote:
Ima wait and see most likely sell my tengus for a proteus
................................................................


Dude, no one will buy your Tengu after this
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#1856 - 2012-09-20 07:27:24 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros

RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744
Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170


Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks
IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664
Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953


Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs
CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657
Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961


Drake: HMs, 2 BCU
CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474

NOTES:
1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly
2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another.
3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits"


Looking at the numbers in this more realistic way it is clear that the problem with HMs -- if it exists at all -- is hardly as severe as some would suggest. The weapons, like the ships themselves, are relatively comparable to one another. They may be the most balanced class of ships (and weapons) in the game.

If we are going to compare the ships more completely we would need to look beyond HMs to do so. We would need to consider their resistances and tanks, fitting requirements, speed and agility, combat parameters, training time, ease of use, drone bays, utility slots, added capabilities such as EWAR, and what not.

When taken as a whole an argument could easily be made that ANY of these ships is superior to the others under the correct situation. The Drake excels in some areas and falls behind in others, and the same applies to all of them. The Drake does, however, offer a relatively inexpensive and easy to train for platform that makes fleet operations simple to control.

This is not the problem CCP wishes to correct. The problem is this:

A drake swarm of 100 ships encounters an enemy drake swarm of 100 ships. Combined the two fleets will begin spewing out an additional 1400 individual server tracked objects every 6 seconds, and often the second salvo will be in flight before the first hits. This is an incredible load on the servers, and one that the servers DO NOT HAVE when the ships are "firing" direct fire weapons.

Now imagine the same scenario, but up the ante to the blob sizes we see in some fleets today.

By shortening the range and increasing the speed CCP can reduce this server load by getting more missiles off the field faster. But better still (for them) is if they can essentially break the Drake and HMs and have them replaced by something less demanding. This is a win win for them, and in some respects for all of us.


Although I agree with lag reasoning. Please don't compare weapons enhanced with 4 mods to weapons enhanced with 2 mods. Also 19 + 36 with fallo does only give half dps at 55 km

Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#1857 - 2012-09-20 07:30:14 UTC
Katharina B wrote:
If CCP is changing TD to have an effect against missiles; CCP MUST delete defender missiles. If they do not do this the most missions will be unplayable for Caldari Pilots!


How so?
Aren't Sansha the only rats that TD you in missions?
That's about 6% of mission rats.
6% =/= most

Stop exaggerating.
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
#1858 - 2012-09-20 07:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Hazen Koraka
Maybe CCP Fozzie was actually joking, and just wanted to make the first 100+ page sticky P

Edit: Fozzie not Fonzie! lol

Exploration is Random. Random is Random... or is it?! http://docs.python.org/2/library/random.html
Kubiq
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1859 - 2012-09-20 07:32:44 UTC
I just hope that you are serious about 20% for HM nerf and not just saying it, so you can say later 10% and ppl will be more happy.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#1860 - 2012-09-20 07:33:38 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:
Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros

RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744
Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170


Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks
IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664
Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953


Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs
CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657
Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961


Drake: HMs, 2 BCU
CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474



Well done.

Gun boats - 2x damage mods + 2xtracking mods == 4 mods
Drake - 2x damage mod == 2 mods

4 mods >> 2 mods