These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
Doomheim
#2281 - 2012-09-21 12:51:14 UTC
Quote:

I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.

So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.


Okay you guys realized that HM were to good.
When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption.
backtrace
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2282 - 2012-09-21 12:53:11 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. Kinda tells you where the problem lies.

As you might know not all Caldari ships are missile boats. Omitting T1 cruisers and special purpose ships (Onyx, Vulture, etc) there are just 6. And all of them are heavily used.
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2283 - 2012-09-21 12:53:12 UTC
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:
Quote:

I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.

So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.


Okay you guys realized that HM were to good.
When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption.


I think CCP didnt realize any ,this is more like CCP Fozzie did.They were waiting to long for this changes.

We can say we have now dev that played this game.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2284 - 2012-09-21 12:54:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?
    • Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control.
    [/list]

    1) Does this mean that HAM have to be subpar because HML are better than medium rails that nobody use?
    2) What about Tops and Cruisers? The problem here is with BS missiles so unappealing there are no progression like with any other systems.
    Small AC ==> Medium AC ==> Large - that's a progression for both PvP and PvE
    ... HML = X => Cruise launchers and HAML = X => Torps just because BS-sized missiles are not a viable choice for PvP. This mean that missile path for a PvP player starts and ends on HML (probably HAML after Winter, but not sure about that because of fitting, ammo capacity, inability to downsize caliber and close-range slowboats).
    Seems that you just forgot about existance of those systems. Ugh
    Sinigr Shadowsong
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #2285 - 2012-09-21 12:55:38 UTC
    double post
    Noisrevbus
    #2286 - 2012-09-21 12:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
    Instead of making a new post, i replaced and hooked on a third section of more general concerns to my first post.

    It might be worth a second view if you enjoyed the initial draft, but the end is very abstract and game-design specific.

    I think it's important that we don't just talk about the missile change but also what motivated it and in what general direction they are taking the game by doing these changes.

    I'd also like to spotlight this side of the argument, from another related thread over at S&M.
    bornaa
    GRiD.
    #2287 - 2012-09-21 12:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
    @ CCP Fozzie

    -> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range???
    Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow.
    Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!!

    -> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.

    -> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle?
    It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...

    -> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect???

    -> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!!

    -> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!

    -> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps?
    They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range.
    [Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
    bornaa
    GRiD.
    #2288 - 2012-09-21 12:58:27 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Seranova Farreach wrote:
    " Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
    It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"

    your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350


    The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.



    @ CCP Fozzie

    -> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range???
    Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow.
    Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!!

    -> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.

    -> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle?
    It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...

    -> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect???

    -> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!!

    -> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!

    -> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps?
    They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range.
    [Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
    Fon Revedhort
    Monks of War
    #2289 - 2012-09-21 13:00:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Seranova Farreach wrote:
    " Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
    It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"

    your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350


    The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.


    CCP Greyscale wrote:
    NH balance - is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?


    LOL

    You both could make up a great team - both of you express views covering the opposite poles, neither being correct. Such phrasing (died the day...) forces us to suspect you're still loyal to CCPs former sladgehammer approach to balancing, all or nothing. NH surely could use some help, but by all means, you shouldn't turn it into crappy no-brainy choice like Tengu has been for years.

    "Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
    Sinigr Shadowsong
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #2290 - 2012-09-21 13:01:50 UTC
    Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:
    Quote:

    I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.

    So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.


    Okay you guys realized that HM were to good.
    When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption.

    Agree on this point, t's very selective to see advantage of HML and not to see same for medium AC.
    And that's also a problem not only with HML and Medium AC, but with small AC (bleeding Punisher anyone?) and large artillery (1400mm Abaddon says hello).
    HELLBOUNDMAN
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #2291 - 2012-09-21 13:02:11 UTC
    Signal11th wrote:



    CNR/Golem? Used both and the Tengu, Both are better at certain missions than the other.



    No.

    The problem with the CNR/Golem is the need of at least 2 target painters minimum even with cruise missiles.

    This means the cnr has pretty much not tank if you don't spend a lot of isk on the tank.

    and while the golem might have good tank on paper, it's rediculous sig radius counters that, and the crap sensor strength and requirement that you have both rig slots fitted with t2 rigs makes a huge difference.
    bornaa
    GRiD.
    #2292 - 2012-09-21 13:05:57 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Signal11th wrote:

    Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.

    I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.


    I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.

    So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.



    And whats with cruise missiles and torps???
    they are ****** you know?
    Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next class of weapons...
    [Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
    HELLBOUNDMAN
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #2293 - 2012-09-21 13:06:05 UTC
    Kharagor wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders?
    • We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.

    Fixing defenders don't necessarily mean, to leave them in the realm of "missiles" in their function. It can also be possible, to rename then to "chaff&flares", that produce a AE-Effect of maybe 1.5km radius who let maybe 30% of all missiles in range die. In this way, the game-mechanic is a "only missiles hitting smartbomb", and smartbombs already exits. For balancing-issues, it can be possible to have 4 different sorts of "defenders". Kinetic, EM, and so on. And each sort of "defenders" can only kill their damage-pendant...

    At the last: I don't like the idea to equal everything. Putting missiles in the same mechanic-realm with the turrets is not good in my eyes. Missiles should have nothing to do with tracking-stuff.


    The rest of the ideas (making NPCs a little capricious, giving the long-range Missiles noticeable less damage than their shortrange types) is ok for me.



    I prefer the idea of calling them Point defense turrets.


    If anyone has ever played command and conquer generals then they know what I'm talking about.

    (laser general...Tanks has turrets that could shoot missiles out of the air)
    Nalha Saldana
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #2294 - 2012-09-21 13:06:40 UTC
    bornaa wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Signal11th wrote:

    Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.

    I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.


    I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.

    So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.



    And whats with cruise missiles and torps???
    they are ****** you know?
    Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next class of weapons...


    They fix a lot of their issues with the new TCs and TEs.
    Sinigr Shadowsong
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #2295 - 2012-09-21 13:07:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:


    The problem with the CNR/Golem is the need of at least 2 target painters minimum even with cruise missiles.

    This means the cnr has pretty much not tank if you don't spend a lot of isk on the tank.

    and while the golem might have good tank on paper, it's rediculous sig radius counters that, and the crap sensor strength and requirement that you have both rig slots fitted with t2 rigs makes a huge difference.

    1) Not anymore! You can replace painters with TE/TC or combine for more efficiency.
    2) Most BS need to be pimped in order to be good for PvE. Try to make a good tank and DPS on Machariel without wasting at least twice hull price for fit.

    Nalha Saldana wrote:
    They fix a lot of their issues with the new TCs and TEs.


    Torps and Cruise will be fixed only when they be used as often as Large AC or Large Artillery nowadays in PvP.
    Kesthely
    Mestana
    #2296 - 2012-09-21 13:13:06 UTC
    Page after page its the same, people are not compareing appropiate data and keep referring to the drake (wich still needs to be redesigned and the tengu (same argument) then to look at these changes.

    Lets check announced changes to the Thorax and the Caracal and calculate, there in the same ship line, and thus should preform the same to a resonable degree. In this case were going to only look to the ships at varius ranges, not calculating in different possible fits, speeds etc, full set of weapons, full set of drones, and 2 damage mods

    Caracal HML 91.5km range 203 dps (242 dps up to 60km includeing drones)
    Thorax 250J 24.0km range 311 dps (470 dps up to 24km includeing drones)
    Thorax 250S 79.9km range 178 dps (336 dps up to 60km includeing drones)

    Up to 60 km on paper the caracal should have no chance against a thorax, and between 60 and 80 km its dps difference is marginally (25 dps difference) only in rougly the last 12 km of its on paper fighting range will it outshine the thorax.

    Within standard point range the thorax greatly out performs the caracal on guns (50% more dps) and guns and drones (nearly 100% more dps)

    If you do a weapons only graph for the first 80 km the average dps in that range for the caracal is: 203 the average dps of the thorax is 217 dps. Only if you extend the range to 90 km the average dps (190) of the thorax drops below that of the caracal

    But since were compareing ships like everyone else seems to do lets do a ship to ship comparison from ranges 0 to 100
    Caracal 60km 242 dps
    Caracal 91km 203 dps
    Caracal 100 km 0 dps
    Average dps 208 dps

    Thorax 24 km 470 dps
    Thorax 60 km 336 dps
    Thorax 80 km 178 dps
    Thorax 100 km 0 dps
    Average dps 269 dps

    On paper the thorax is a sure win, but people don't fit there ships how they would on paper. In reality the caracal would probably never use its drones, the thorax would probably be blaster fitted and the fight is determined by whoever is able to dictate there tactics. If the thorax is able to get into range he wins, if the caracal is able to stay out of it, the caracal wins.

    That is what the majority of people are talking about and that is what makes the drake and tengu an unprecedented obstackle in modern day pvp. The drake and Tengu are the least affected by the other sides Tactics. As long as there in range the'll do some amount of damage, if there not in range anymore they can warp away. They also have the buffer to withstand this.

    Nerf the HML to death, as well as the drake and Tengu? Blobs will go to Armor Typhoons with Precision Cruise missiles, with 3 Tracking comps and 3 Ballistic control units with even more range, more damage and more utility with drones and spare highs or something else that will then be screamed about as overpowered.

    Eve keeps changeing. Thats why i like the game, its still is and hopefully will always be one of the most tactical games i've seen and its possiblities are endless. Eventually people will adjust to whatever change theres made, and new tactics will evolve around them. (But that doesn't mean that very change is a good one, or a balancing one, or that you as a person should like the change, it doesn't mean that ccp could lose some customers over it, or gain customers because of it)

    I can understand why in order to balance the ships you first need to rebalance a weapon system, and i agree on the range but i'm not confident about the damage part.

    A few Summarizes:

    People don't post often about the Hurricane: Those who do post about it, don't like the change but in general they understand that the Hurricane is a verry dangerous ship and that this nerf might be balanced.

    People are afraid the TD are going to become a "must fit" ewar module. Several pleas for makeing multiple forms of weapons disruption, like the ECM variant have been brought forward, as well as some defender missile options.

    People haven't said one bad thing about the missile changes for Light missiles, Rockets
    A few posts have raised the concern for Rage and Fury Cruise missile and Torpedo effectiveness (Primarily in PVE content)
    Most accept the Range nerf for HML
    Damage modification on HML is highly debated

    Nearly everyone dislikes the drake and tengu ;)
    Ripperljohn
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #2297 - 2012-09-21 13:22:43 UTC
    ******* finally

    took them long enough to nerf that ****.
    Bubanni
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #2298 - 2012-09-21 13:27:01 UTC
    CCP Fozzie

    Wouldn't it be smarter to make the Tracking enhancers and computers increase the missiles speed instead og flight time?

    It's been known for a long time that many missiles in space is lag induceing, so a higher missile velocity would basicly = fewer missiles in space or missiles in space for a shorter time.

    Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
    Dato Koppla
    Neuronix
    #2299 - 2012-09-21 13:27:16 UTC
    Lots of discussion but going nowhere, it's been a couple days, it'd be nice if we got some additional information on what Fozzie plans to do next with this.
    Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
    Doomheim
    #2300 - 2012-09-21 13:27:58 UTC
    Hurricane nerf is great. It was even more overpowered than Drake.
    But buffing artillery..... oh oh. Artillery has an alpha that is really too awesome. Maybe fix that and give it a little bit more damage.
    Only some days ago I saw an omen alphaed by some arty canes and also some days ago a faction fitted daredevil alphaed by a Tornado. Only minnie arty ships can do THIS.
    Arty canes are actually getting really popular. Maybe even that powergrid nerf isnt enough nerf.