Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It's not.. but just like you can run an L4 solo.. You should be able to run certain sites in a WH solo.

CCP Fozzie, some thoughts:

Cut HM's flight time from 14 to 12sec would probably be enough if in current ships rebalancing bonus will also affect this nonsense of HM's hitting stuff for 130km with right subs and skills. Take those speed bonus away and HM's will now with 12sec hit for about 70Km only with top skills and probably implant. This would bring it on line with other LR medium class weapon systems.

DPS on missiles, well this is a dam huge nerf stick on "THA" face if you add:

TD changes
Flight time changes
Ships bonus changes

Then you add a -25% dmg on missiles that clearly don't have the best alpha/dps and only work almost properly in very specific hulls. Think about trying a first step by reducing flight time and see what happens before changing dmg, it's just an opinion OC.
This will not make players choose HAM's over HM's, HAM's are bad and only work on some hulls because either huge tank or huge ROF, they don't have enough alpha and a mediocre dps giving nasty smiles when looking at EFT numbers.

These changes announcement without a clear list of also ships changes using them has nasty effects.
You have "OLOLOLZ BLOBZ WILL DIE": please create some wiki page to explain some people the "THING" will only be replaced by another "THING" but doesn't change anything about numbers game.

Changes to Hurricane, I rather look like this when I read those changes, this will not make Brutixes better because their LR weapon system is clearly awful and that awesome active armor bonus makes peanuts effect when you fit lows of MFS highs of T2 blasters to gank freighters and mining barges.
-Will not make it a desirable ship in fleets
-will not make it valid choice vs next "thing" (still canes and drakes imho)
-will not get the "stacking" interest you WILL search for your cost/effective fleets/gangs other than gank freighters/barges
-will probably make Harby more desirable but then armor speed penalties are so awesome :suicide:

Not sure where this is going but I'm about to think the next interesting "THING" will be cruisers. As it stands I'm not unhappy I've trained BC 5, unlocked Command ships but can't see a very good future for those too.

Then you try to rat an elite frig with med artys and come back and ask for the hmls back.

You mean in C3 plus that ccp designed to be multiplayer like lvl 5s? cos C1 and C2 you sure don't need a tengu for.

The only thing good about a HAM drake is the tank/dps.
Drake isnt fast or agile.
Sig res isnt good.
Now i see a nerf coming on a drake tank, so....

Several more pages of EFT Warrioring with Damage Ammo used as a basis... wonder if anyone will actually start up EVE and use these weapon systems, ya know like most of us engaged in PvP tend to.

On the whole the Weapon Systems DO need to be sat down and rebalanced.
The funny thing is if you just look at pure numbers, Heavy Missiles do seem a little inbalanced ... but the problem here is the mechanics of HOW the Missiles work is considerably different to Turrets.

I will make this clear now... TRACKING DISRUPTORS SHOULD NEVER AFFECT MISSILES.
Don't put in some bull**** stop-gap measure because you can't get Defender Missiles working how you want them to, frankly they're a lost cause and the entire system should be completely replaced.

What should be in their place are Chaff and Flare Defensive Systems.
Chaff should be used for UnGuided Missiles (Rocket, Assault, Torpedo) causing premature detonation.
Flare should be used for Guided Missiles (Missile, Heavy, Cruise) to provide a temporary "alternative" target they lock on to.

In both cases they should be activated systems that have passive effects, rather than the ******** "Suicide Drone" effect Defender Missiles have.

I would also focus here on how they are intended to work... Sure the Assault Launchers were added specifically so Missiles also had a "Close" and "Long" range option like the Turrets, but look at how they work or rather how they're suppose to work.

To me each of the weapon Systems shouldn't really be defined by "Is this a Long-Range or Short-Range Weapon" but rather the Role they are intended to play / playstyle they cater to. I mean they should be more unqiuely defined and specialised.

As this is a thread for Missiles, I will quickly rundown how I think the Missiles should be handled.

UnGuided • Rocket, Assault, Torpedo
The Role of UnGuided Warheads should be primarily be to create a Firestorm, as such that is how they should work.
This would mean that they would create Area-of-Effect Explosions that the more UnGuided Warheads used, the stronger it becomes; or they could be used in a more informal capacity a bit like an explosive machine gun.

Guided • Missile, Heavy, Cruise
The Role of Guided Warheads should be that of a well focused precision attack.
As such they would rely heavily on their Alpha Strike ability, to do considerable amounts of damage in a single hit as opposed large numbers focused on a target.

In this sense both of these would then gain Tech 2 Payloads based upon their given roles.
UnGuided would be Barrage (Hydra Multi-Warhead, Increased Size) and Bombardment (Hellfire Multi-Stage Warhead, Increased Size)
Guided would be Fury (Heavy Payload, Reduced Flight Time) or Ballistic (Light Payload, Faster Speed)

The UnGuided might need a little explaination here, but basically their power comes from being able to put down as many rounds as possible on to a target. The Increased size of the Tech 2 would reduce the number you can load (and carry) before reloading, this is offset by the Hydra creating a larger AoE Explosion; while the Hellfire creates a quicker succession of warheads prior to the next round fired thus focusing the damage more.

I mean basically what it boils down to for the Tech 2 is Fury/Hydra are for a Larger Target(s), while Ballistic/Hellfire are for a Smaller Target.

The difference in the missile types, shouldn't be Damage either; but rather follow the same SKU that the Projectiles and Hybrids follow; where-by there are multiple warheads types that have Multi-Resist Damage Variations;

e.g.
Mjolnir - • 75 • 05 • 15 • 05 - 35 • 65 (EM • TM • KN • EX - Armour • Shield)
Nova --- • 05 • 15 • 05 • 75 - 65 • 35
Inferno - • 05 • 75 • 05 • 15 - 50 • 50
Scourge • 15 • 05 • 75 • 05 - 50 • 50

As a base they would have Damage and Range Balanced... then they would be Skued towards a 35% - 65% balance for either Damage or Range to create the 2 sets. Providing 8 Missiles in Total consisting of Short and Long Range variants.

This would allow UnGuided Short > Medium Range and Guided Medium > Long Range capabilities.
Extending this focus on the ranges would be how they achieve their speed (i.e. the propulsion systems)

With UnGuided being designed with Fast Burning Microwarp Drives and Guided using Slow Burning Afterburners.
While they would both achieve similar overall speeds (let's suggest around 4.5km/second) but their ability to reach their top speed would be considerably different.

Until a Missile reaches it's top speed the Explosion Velocity should be reduce accordingly (thus reducing the damage), in this way you could technically be "under the guns" of Long-Range Missiles.

This.

HML DPS is already in the middle of close range/high damage ammo and long range/low damage ammo when compared against other medium LR weapons. Guns have the flexibility to switch between ammo types to control damage and range in a way that missiles do not. I think a nerf to HML makes sense, to bring their range to a midpoint as well. HML damage is clearly not radically high, it's their damage projection that's unbalanced. A 25-30% nerf of range alone would balance HMLs pretty well IMO. An argument could be made to nerf the damage slightly, by 5-10%. I'm not sure I agree it's necessary, but an argument could be made. 20% is clearly out of line based on the numbers that I see. Further balancing issues with the drake and tengu ships in particular should be handled on the ships, not to HMLs as a whole.

Fozzie, please share the numbers you used to determine that 20% is an appropriate HML damage nerf so that we can better understand your reasoning. Based on what I've seen and my experience as a Caldari pilot, I just don't see the rationale for such a large nerf.

Also, will you comment on the claim I've seen made several times that lag from HML spam in large sov blobs is causing performance issues and is a motivating factor in the HML nerf?

Bookmarked this and ears for the reply...

I'll say it again...

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535

CCP need to either reduce exp radius of HAM's or allow GMP skill to affect all unguided missiles as well.

Because currently HAM's have shorter range than HML and worse "tracking" because there is no possible way to reduce its exp radius that guided missiles can.

Rigs that reduce exp radius and the skill the reduce exp radius do not apply to Unguided Missiles.