These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#2421 - 2012-09-21 18:09:20 UTC
James1122 wrote:
Hi CCP Fozzie

Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.

However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.

James



Caracal:
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s

Stabber:
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2)

Balance ? Really ?

I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2422 - 2012-09-21 18:10:04 UTC
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
@ Bluotok and @Mirple.

Thanks for that fit, I seem to be having some issues quoting here. I'd never considered rigs other than extenders or em/therm (brainwashed into more tank, more tank). I could see how these would be annoying.

@Mirple
But my point is I've always preferred HML over HAM because of the guided missile precision skill. HAM's being not that good against frigs etc I'd assume other people would have this perception as well and would this not be adding to the imbalance between HAM and HML use?


Yes, I agree that the close ranged weapon system should be better at hitting smaller faster targets. I hope with all the posts the DEVS take a look at this and adjust as needed either by changing the missiles themselves or allowing the skills and rigs to effect both types of missile systems. You also do realize that after these changes that the TE and TC will also give you a bonus to your explosion radius/explosion velocity so this will help the unguided missile greatly.

I have said this before until we can get actual numbers on the other changes that will also go along with the HML nerf we cannot give solid accurate feedback on the entire idea.

I do feel that there should be a change to the fitting of HAMS and HML so it goes more in line with the rest of the weapon systems and there should also be a change in how Rage and Precision Missiles work. Also a slight buff to HAM damage would also not be that far out of line.

With these small changes I think that after people get out of the brainwashed mindset of HML are the only launches I can fit to a Drake or Tengue. This will be a great balancing undertaking. If you want to see proof of this just look at the new Caracal and see how well it works with the changes.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2423 - 2012-09-21 18:10:10 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Onictus wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:


I supposed I could train for a Machariel... Do we armor or shield tank those?



Either or.

...and there is nothing in this game more fun then an AC mach hotdrop.

I suppose its armor tank if you want more tank but shield if you want more gank?


Shield means you have a 1000dps hurricane with an 85k tank. You think canes and Drakes are OP, ne glad macks cost a fortune.
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2424 - 2012-09-21 18:11:46 UTC
Aprudena Gist wrote:
You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever.

You could hit a tower it aint moving Lol
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2425 - 2012-09-21 18:13:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloutok
Aprudena Gist wrote:
You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever.


The reason why i would not hit is because the target would warp out........ Yes, i would not hit at 109, but near enough, maybe 100 ?

And then, it depends. if the target is moving toward me or away or no change .........

I just realized you are a goon..... You got me. Troll.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2426 - 2012-09-21 18:16:30 UTC
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Well yeah but,... three years of ratting and they still don't have enough ISK to get that pvp ship? lol


So you want them to grind longer to get their next pvp ship, that's the point.......



Let me clue you in on a little secret, as a Tengu and Drake pilot, if you think you are maxing your isk with either hull you are dead wrong.

Try a Machariel, damn near twice the DPS with T1 ammo, as fast as a Tengu with about the same sig.


Oh and it doesn't need pith A gear to work quickly, realatively cheap deadspace works fine.


But skill wise for noobies, it's easier to get into a drake. For older players, may not be maximizing isk with Drake, but as most have already trained as their first ship, they already have the skills and everything else are their fun ships

And also, you enforce the point that HM's are NOT as OP as everyone says they are. The people crying that the nerf is necessary, for the most part, don't believe that HML's are op...they don't like the missioning/ratting advantage that drakes have over most ships.

And you're right....they tend to have pimp fits in order to solo all the sites. Most are slow boats since they do have the range...now they will not only need to sacrifice a tank slot for a prop mod to get in range, but also a take or damage mod for te's....I'd love to see this on sisi and have people fly it...but as sisi is worthless because people can't test what they can't fly, it's pointless.


I don't care about noobies, I was running level 4s in a myrm at 5 months old. Noobies cam ski up like everyone else, because even at my 45mil SP (I think) I would rather PvP in my Dram, or Ceptor, or any of the 8 AFs I can fly.

None of which are more than a couple month train.
Aprudena Gist
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2427 - 2012-09-21 18:17:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Aprudena Gist
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
Aprudena Gist wrote:
You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever.

You could hit a tower it aint moving Lol

Not even talking about targets moving even standing still targets. You do not get the range listed out of the missiles period.

But yea there is a reason missles have way wacky numbers from guns its because your lose a ton of dps from moving targets, defenders, smartbombs etc etc etc.
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2428 - 2012-09-21 18:19:18 UTC
MIrple wrote:
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
@ Bluotok and @Mirple.

Thanks for that fit, I seem to be having some issues quoting here. I'd never considered rigs other than extenders or em/therm (brainwashed into more tank, more tank). I could see how these would be annoying.

@Mirple
But my point is I've always preferred HML over HAM because of the guided missile precision skill. HAM's being not that good against frigs etc I'd assume other people would have this perception as well and would this not be adding to the imbalance between HAM and HML use?


Yes, I agree that the close ranged weapon system should be better at hitting smaller faster targets. I hope with all the posts the DEVS take a look at this and adjust as needed either by changing the missiles themselves or allowing the skills and rigs to effect both types of missile systems. You also do realize that after these changes that the TE and TC will also give you a bonus to your explosion radius/explosion velocity so this will help the unguided missile greatly.

I have said this before until we can get actual numbers on the other changes that will also go along with the HML nerf we cannot give solid accurate feedback on the entire idea.

I do feel that there should be a change to the fitting of HAMS and HML so it goes more in line with the rest of the weapon systems and there should also be a change in how Rage and Precision Missiles work. Also a slight buff to HAM damage would also not be that far out of line.

With these small changes I think that after people get out of the brainwashed mindset of HML are the only launches I can fit to a Drake or Tengue. This will be a great balancing undertaking. If you want to see proof of this just look at the new Caracal and see how well it works with the changes.

yah, waiting to see what happens, me, I must admit am slightly pissed as I had two characters completing HML V yesterday. I'm guessing in the future it would pay to always watch the forums. Only came here recently as someone mentioned the proposed rebalancing, always preferred playing the game rather than discussing it.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#2429 - 2012-09-21 18:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Soon Shin
Regardless of the TD/TE/TC changes you refuse to ignore the fact that HAM's have worse damage application therefore worse effective dps than Heavy Missiles.

All the guided missiles receive a better damage application bonus through the Guided missile precision skill that lowers their explosion radius by 25%.

None of the unguided missiles get this bonus nor do they get any bonus from rigors.

Heavy Missiles and HAM's have the same Base explosive range, but once your apply GMP skill the Heavy Missile has a much lower explosion radius than HAM's. Giving it better "tracking" than HAMs.

This is as broken as having beaming having more absolute tracking that pulse lasers.

I don't care if the TE/TC changes makes it better the fact remains is that Unguided missiles have less damage application and effective dps than Guided missiles, TE and TC will NOT fix this issue.
Eckyy
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#2430 - 2012-09-21 18:20:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Eckyy
I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.

Small - Rockets (unguided)
Medium - Heavy
Large - Cruise
XL - Torps (unguided)

When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).

However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.

With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.



In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.

In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.


Some other info (approximated):

Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range
Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU

HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range
HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU

Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range
Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU

Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2431 - 2012-09-21 18:21:36 UTC
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
MIrple wrote:
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
@ Bluotok and @Mirple.

Thanks for that fit, I seem to be having some issues quoting here. I'd never considered rigs other than extenders or em/therm (brainwashed into more tank, more tank). I could see how these would be annoying.

@Mirple
But my point is I've always preferred HML over HAM because of the guided missile precision skill. HAM's being not that good against frigs etc I'd assume other people would have this perception as well and would this not be adding to the imbalance between HAM and HML use?


Yes, I agree that the close ranged weapon system should be better at hitting smaller faster targets. I hope with all the posts the DEVS take a look at this and adjust as needed either by changing the missiles themselves or allowing the skills and rigs to effect both types of missile systems. You also do realize that after these changes that the TE and TC will also give you a bonus to your explosion radius/explosion velocity so this will help the unguided missile greatly.

I have said this before until we can get actual numbers on the other changes that will also go along with the HML nerf we cannot give solid accurate feedback on the entire idea.

I do feel that there should be a change to the fitting of HAMS and HML so it goes more in line with the rest of the weapon systems and there should also be a change in how Rage and Precision Missiles work. Also a slight buff to HAM damage would also not be that far out of line.

With these small changes I think that after people get out of the brainwashed mindset of HML are the only launches I can fit to a Drake or Tengue. This will be a great balancing undertaking. If you want to see proof of this just look at the new Caracal and see how well it works with the changes.

yah, waiting to see what happens, me, I must admit am slightly pissed as I had two characters completing HML V yesterday. I'm guessing in the future it would pay to always watch the forums. Only came here recently as someone mentioned the proposed rebalancing, always preferred playing the game rather than discussing it.



+1
Eva Haiki
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2432 - 2012-09-21 18:23:25 UTC
Argh DPS decrease on my Drake Nooooooooooo plzzzz not :( , The other changes are good :)
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2433 - 2012-09-21 18:24:38 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Well yeah but,... three years of ratting and they still don't have enough ISK to get that pvp ship? lol


So you want them to grind longer to get their next pvp ship, that's the point.......



Let me clue you in on a little secret, as a Tengu and Drake pilot, if you think you are maxing your isk with either hull you are dead wrong.

Try a Machariel, damn near twice the DPS with T1 ammo, as fast as a Tengu with about the same sig.


Oh and it doesn't need pith A gear to work quickly, realatively cheap deadspace works fine.


But skill wise for noobies, it's easier to get into a drake. For older players, may not be maximizing isk with Drake, but as most have already trained as their first ship, they already have the skills and everything else are their fun ships

And also, you enforce the point that HM's are NOT as OP as everyone says they are. The people crying that the nerf is necessary, for the most part, don't believe that HML's are op...they don't like the missioning/ratting advantage that drakes have over most ships.

And you're right....they tend to have pimp fits in order to solo all the sites. Most are slow boats since they do have the range...now they will not only need to sacrifice a tank slot for a prop mod to get in range, but also a take or damage mod for te's....I'd love to see this on sisi and have people fly it...but as sisi is worthless because people can't test what they can't fly, it's pointless.


I don't care about noobies, I was running level 4s in a myrm at 5 months old. Noobies cam ski up like everyone else, because even at my 45mil SP (I think) I would rather PvP in my Dram, or Ceptor, or any of the 8 AFs I can fly.

None of which are more than a couple month train.


Ahhh, the elitest mentality...screw the noobies....even though noobies keep the game going. Just like the people that say, "SCREW THE CAREBEARS" yet, NONE of you understand what "cause and effect" are. If you remove all the carebears *which really, are mainly alts looking to make isk to support their pvp activities*, then the prices of minerals in HS go up, hence why the banning of bots made HS min prices skyrocket to the point it's more profitable to mine HS than LS or null *calculating risk into those figures*. Get rid of more carebears, production goes down, prices go up....even more reason to be a carebear as it will be even MORE PROFITABLE.

Screw the noobies, less noobies join...eventually Eve dies because there will always be people quitting the game for various reasons....eventually there won't be enough people left to keep the game going. Drop your "I'm the greatest" thought process and see THE BIGGER PICTURE. How many players that started back in 2004 still play the game?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2434 - 2012-09-21 18:27:29 UTC
Aprudena Gist wrote:
You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever.


I can, and I have, that is a kiting fit you use against short range battle ships, it WILL hit at 100.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#2435 - 2012-09-21 18:34:17 UTC
Also we must make two different modules for weapon disruptors.

One for Turrets.

Another for Missiles.


This will ensure that players will have to think and choose.

Akin to having Racial ECM.

This will ensure that TD will not become overpowered and a module that everyone uses as a GOD module that affects all dps ships with a change of a script.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#2436 - 2012-09-21 18:34:50 UTC
I've got one last question. Why not promote damps as the counter to long range missiles instead of TD? Or at least make damps better at locking people out of range? With turrets you can still deal full damage if your range is reduced you just have a smaller % change to hit. Becuase your range or tracking goes down.

With missiles if you push someone under the range it's over 0 damage will be dealt. So how is that fair? To have TD have such an effect on missiles? You might want to make that reduce Explosion velocity and explosion radius instead of range if you don't want to ruin missiles forever...

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
bornaa
GRiD.
#2437 - 2012-09-21 18:35:32 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
Eckyy wrote:
I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.

Small - Rockets (unguided)
Medium - Heavy
Large - Cruise
XL - Torps (unguided)

When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).

However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.

With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.



In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.

In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.


Some other info (approximated):

Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range
Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU

HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range
HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU

Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range
Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU

Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage.



+1

Missiles need complete overhaul and not just quick (bad) fix (nerf) for one sub-type of missiles!!!
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
bornaa
GRiD.
#2438 - 2012-09-21 18:37:07 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
Bloutok wrote:
James1122 wrote:
Hi CCP Fozzie

Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.

However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.

James



Caracal:
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s

Stabber:
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2)

Balance ? Really ?

I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture.


Noone looks at stats of ships and then balance weapons... and thats so sad...Cry
Like noone understands this game at all... CCP? CryCryCry

I thought that range of (some) missiles is long to negate low speed of the caldari ships... but now CCP is removing that so i dont know what will compensate that??? Ugh
So... Caldari are dead race??? Cry
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2439 - 2012-09-21 18:39:31 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:
Also we must make two different modules for weapon disruptors.

One for Turrets.

Another for Missiles.


This will ensure that players will have to think and choose.

Akin to having Racial ECM.

This will ensure that TD will not become overpowered and a module that everyone uses as a GOD module that affects all dps ships with a change of a script.


Could we take this further and say make 4 TD they would essentially be tracking, optimal, falloff, flight time and then have an omni one that does all of this at a reduced amount. This would make it more like ECM and this could be a good thing as more thought is always better in a game.
Komen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2440 - 2012-09-21 18:39:38 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:
Regardless of the TD/TE/TC changes you refuse to ignore the fact that HAM's have worse damage application therefore worse effective dps than Heavy Missiles.

All the guided missiles receive a better damage application bonus through the Guided missile precision skill that lowers their explosion radius by 25%.

None of the unguided missiles get this bonus nor do they get any bonus from rigors.

Heavy Missiles and HAM's have the same Base explosive range, but once your apply GMP skill the Heavy Missile has a much lower explosion radius than HAM's. Giving it better "tracking" than HAMs.

This is as broken as having beaming having more absolute tracking that pulse lasers.

I don't care if the TE/TC changes makes it better the fact remains is that Unguided missiles have less damage application and effective dps than Guided missiles, TE and TC will NOT fix this issue.


This right here is the heart of the issue. We won't let a HAM ship in our gangs, and we have to demonstrate to new recruits how bad those ships are at DPS application, by live fire exercise. In fact I feel another such exercise oncoming.

The short of it is, HAMs only work against hulls BC and up. Since they are ridiculously referred to as 'unguided' weapons, certain skills don't apply. This is broken. With turret systems, ALL of your support skills affect both the short and long range versions. Gunnery tracking affects pulse and beams both.

If you're going to redo missile balance (again), how about you start from the ground up, and build the skill group properly.

I'm not even going to comment on TC/TD/TE affecting missiles. That's a whole OTHER can.