These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2301 - 2012-09-21 13:29:35 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
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.


I think this would be a better solution as well. Here is my only concern with that idea path. Some ships like interceptors would get hit more often by missiles as they fly faster where as flight time does not change the damage or chance of catching said ships.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2302 - 2012-09-21 13:29:57 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


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.



I understand that fury heavy missile may be a bit OP, but why the nerf to precision range and dps?

I dont' feel that precision is a problem.

I mean, precision will have a range of 31.7km even if y'all manage to balance velocity to give us listed range, and that's all skills lvl 5.

The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.

This is only 1km more in range than javelin torps.

I can see where this could be problematic.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2303 - 2012-09-21 13:32:45 UTC
backtrace wrote:
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.



Yes, lets omit over half the missile boats in game and then we can say that missile boats are heavily used.

Seriously???
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
#2304 - 2012-09-21 13:33:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Katharina B
CCP Fozzie wrote:


  • What about NPCs that use TDs and Defenders?
    • This is an excellent question and I really should have been more clear about it in the OP. We won't be changing NPC TD effects in this pass. Any adjustments to how NPC ewar works would require a more comprehensive balance pass on NPCs themselves to ensure it doesn't break anything. So even if we go forward with the TD change, Sansha TDs would not touch your missiles.


    Can you give an ultimate statement that TD from NPC's NEVER will affect my missiles in my normal missions? Or ist it just so that CCP is unable to bring such changes within the next patch but work on it till it is ready? I am an 100% PvE player with Cruise missiles. I will NOT accept any changes concerning TD disturbing my missiles in my missions!
    Can you answer to my question and dispel my concerns?
    Subscription pending!

    You should also bring the answer in your original post in order to be found in this wall of pages. Lol
    MIrple
    Black Sheep Down
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #2305 - 2012-09-21 13:35:38 UTC
    I think people need to understand that the ships will be balanced with HM after the patch you just need to look at the new Caracal to see that they did a great job of balancing the ship around the HM nerf. With the other additions you will have more choices of Cal ships to fly. Lets keep an open mind about this. I think if CCP could get to BCs this patch and show that the Drake will come out ok people wouldn't be as up in arms about this.

    CCP the new Caracal looks great cant wait to fly it.
    Hannott Thanos
    Squadron 15
    #2306 - 2012-09-21 13:36:46 UTC
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:

    The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.

    I can see where this could be problematic.

    Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids?

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

         _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

    }
    Rommiee
    Mercury Inc.
    #2307 - 2012-09-21 13:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Rommiee
    Fon Revedhort wrote:
    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, priceless
    MIrple
    Black Sheep Down
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #2308 - 2012-09-21 13:38:13 UTC
    Hannott Thanos wrote:
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:

    The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.

    I can see where this could be problematic.

    Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids?


    A Drake also has 4 low slots.
    Seranova Farreach
    Biomass Negative
    #2309 - 2012-09-21 13:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Seranova Farreach
    dear CCP.

    make a missle disruptor modual.
    dont lower HM dmg (if you HAVE to just 10% max)

    FIX defeders. make defenders like a turret thing insted of missle intercepter missles.

    PS NH is completly underpowered compaired to other COmbat-command ships.

    [u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
    HELLBOUNDMAN
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #2310 - 2012-09-21 13:41:08 UTC
    Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
    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.


    most armor boats don't need pimp fits to be effective in pve.

    They can rock t2 fits and be just as capable as a pimped out shied boat.

    A domi can fit t2 and out perform a raven in pve even if the raven is pimp fitted.
    Seranova Farreach
    Biomass Negative
    #2311 - 2012-09-21 13:43:11 UTC
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
    Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
    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.


    most armor boats don't need pimp fits to be effective in pve.

    They can rock t2 fits and be just as capable as a pimped out shied boat.

    A domi can fit t2 and out perform a raven in pve even if the raven is pimp fitted.



    sad but true. t2 domi (normal not navy) with sentrys and 4/5 rails can easly get like 950 dps with t1 guns. while raven gets barley 700ish to 800ish iirc

    [u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
    Fade Toblack
    Per.ly
    The 20 Minuters
    #2312 - 2012-09-21 13:44:01 UTC
    Katharina B wrote:
    Can you give an ultimate statement...


    No - you'll never get an ultimate statement on anything.

    But to help you get to that unsub quicker...

    NPC e-war doesn't work the same as player e-war. The end result is the same, but the way it operates is completely different. In the devblog yesterday though it was stated that CCP want NPCs to steadily become more like players in the way they fly - so I can see standardisation in the future - and lots of changes in the way your game currently works.

    Personally I'm quite looking forward to the new challenges and playing through some different PvE experiences. Sounds like you hate change though - so maybe you should just unsub now?
    Seranova Farreach
    Biomass Negative
    #2313 - 2012-09-21 13:44:36 UTC
    Hannott Thanos wrote:
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:

    The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.

    I can see where this could be problematic.

    Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids?



    3 mids usually 2x cap recharger and 1 prop or web scram MWD for pvp.

    [u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
    Terik Deatharbingr
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #2314 - 2012-09-21 13:46:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Terik Deatharbingr
    Jorma Morkkis wrote:
    Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
    Jorma Morkkis wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun


    Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun.


    Is 7 times the speed of sound fast enough?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-video_n_1311251.html

    Looks more like you don't understand differences between missiles and railguns/coilguns.


    Looks like you don't understand that if you can make a railgun/coil go 7 times the speed of sound, or roughly 2.4km per SECOND!!!! Yet they hit instantly....then why can't they do it with missiles?

    So basically, in answer to your question is the speed of sound, which is 343 m/s, times 7 fast enough....no, it's not
    Savira Terrant
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #2315 - 2012-09-21 13:51:01 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    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.



    Hey CCP Fozzy,

    I am not sure at all if the proposal is any good at all. Might be good, might be bad. Who knows?

    The reason why I can't have an opinion - and basicly no one can, at least not, if it is not the general whine or people who hate caldari or missiles screaming hooray - about all of the missile changes yet, is because I can not fathom anything without knowing what is going to happen to all the missile platforms out there - balancing wise.

    What I want to say is: You guys speak about babysteps when balancing, but with the missile proposal you leap forward changing a system, that cannot be balanced, without changing and balancing every single platform that uses this system.

    Now I don't have any experience or knowlage on balancing processes, but from my perspective you can only upset people by doing things the way you are doing now.

    I propose you put the missile change aside for now, until you guys have time to have a look at the big picture of missile platforms. Please let me make clear that I am against missile changes per se! Just sometimes babysteps are counter productive.

    I mean, make babysteps in things you consider in need to balance. That's good.
    But please change the whole apparatus at once, if you consider it broken - as you said you do with the missile system.


    See, I rather have you hammer me with a big change "missiles and missile platforms", than have you change missiles now and leave missile platforms broken for months - considering battlecruisers, let alone T2 cruisers and T2 battlecruisers won't make it into [Winter Expansion's name here].

    As I can see it, you want to get away from the whole 'Caldari - best PVE race' thing. I don't mind. But as it stands Caldari is apart from Ewar, Logistics (not really) and Drake-blobs, the race that only really excells in PVE. Please don't take that away from them, without 'bringing them in line' , which you would do, if you don't balance the system together with it's platforms. ( I like to use Caldari at least for something, before all the missile platforms get a look at.) Of course I do exaggerate and be biased here, I am human after all.

    So in short, please take a step back, balance everything else - and when you are happy with that, feel free to thresh the missile apparatus (again system and ships together) with the 'nerf hammer' as some might call it. I wouldn't, because how would I know?


    Regards,

    Savira Terrant

    .
    bornaa
    GRiD.
    #2316 - 2012-09-21 13:51:55 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
    @ CCP Fozzie:

    Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?
    Like making 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...

    Please think about it and give me an answer... Blink
    [Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
    Bloutok
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #2317 - 2012-09-21 13:58:35 UTC
    Why is almost no one adding the ship speed to balancing ?

    Why is the nerfing of other ships abilities, like shield resist, not included in the overall math ?

    Why is the question : After all is done, would anyone still use it ? asked ?
    Benny Ohu
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #2318 - 2012-09-21 14:00:34 UTC
    Katharina B wrote:
    Can you give an ultimate statement that TD from NPC's NEVER will affect my missiles in my normal missions? Or ist it just so that CCP is unable to bring such changes within the next patch but work on it till it is ready? I am an 100% PvE player with Cruise missiles. I will NOT accept any changes concerning TD disturbing my missiles in my missions!
    Can you answer to my question and dispel my concerns?
    Subscription pending!

    Is this a joke? What?
    Onictus
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #2319 - 2012-09-21 14:03:31 UTC
    Seranova Farreach wrote:
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
    Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
    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.


    most armor boats don't need pimp fits to be effective in pve.

    They can rock t2 fits and be just as capable as a pimped out shied boat.

    A domi can fit t2 and out perform a raven in pve even if the raven is pimp fitted.



    sad but true. t2 domi (normal not navy) with sentrys and 4/5 rails can easly get like 950 dps with t1 guns. while raven gets barley 700ish to 800ish iirc


    With a shield tank and cap issues sure, Ndomi does that way better with the extra mid.
    Lev Arturis
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #2320 - 2012-09-21 14:05:24 UTC
    Bloutok wrote:
    Why is almost no one adding the ship speed to balancing ?

    Why is the nerfing of other ships abilities, like shield resist, not included in the overall math ?

    Why is the question : After all is done, would anyone still use it ? asked ?



    Sure they do (see Caracal rework) but battlecruisers or any other hulls are not yet done.

    How about you press the little "DEV POSTS" button on the very top of the forum and look for
    CCP Fozzie's statements. Read them carefuly and if that isn't helping do it a 2nd time but
    don't waste our time anymore.