These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
OlRotGut
#2441 - 2012-09-21 18:40:59 UTC
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.




I am thinking that they just need to redo the whole entire missile tree if they are going to rework HML's and change HAM fitting requirements.

for instance, who would ever take cruise missiles into PVP?

Avila Cracko
#2442 - 2012-09-21 18:43:26 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.


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.



Here are some more problems CCP!!!
Give some time to missiles and solve this problem, dont just push your head into the ground!!!

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
TriadSte
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2443 - 2012-09-21 18:47:17 UTC
CCP fozzie

You state and restate in your replies to these posts that your trying to essentially build a base to go forward from with the Heavy missile platform.

Massive restructuring is wrong, and has proved wrong everytime CCP implement this into the game. I am quite worried that you are with respect are going at this like a horse with blinkers on. Look straight ahead and not watching for danger from the sides.

Heavy missiles as stated previously by many are only used in a small amount of operations, they are used minimally so why the drastic change?

You stated that they're so powerful that you can use them on unbonused ships. That is far from true and I think you must have not thought about that properly before posting.

Heavy missiles without bonuses are very poor DPS.

Lastly, you stated the nighthawk died when the Drake was born, why not spend your time more thoughtfully and rebalance that ship division?

As they are right now HMLs and HAMs are fine on paper, OK so the PG usage on HAMs is stupid but thats about it.

You cannot build as base from missile stats, especially picking on HMLs which are infrequently used. Fix the ships themselves. That is the logical thing to do.
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2444 - 2012-09-21 18:49:18 UTC
Komen wrote:
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.

Yep the only thing I ever killed with HAM's was a AFK Hulk Roll during a wardec dropped right on top him Lol. He dropped from his corp and changed his sig after that (he started the war by smack talking my CEO in local).
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#2445 - 2012-09-21 18:50:58 UTC
Fozzie - can you provide more precise information on the proposed changes to T2 missiles? Specifically, for rage/fury, how big will the increases to damage and explosion radius/decreases to range and explosion velocity be?

Also, the change seems to make rapid light launchers strictly superior to HMLs as long as they're in range. Is this intentional given the very low fitting requirements of the former?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2446 - 2012-09-21 18:52:14 UTC
James1122 wrote:

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.


The problem here is a deeper issue around armor tanking. Ideally you would choose shield tanking for speed and damage and you would choose armor tanking for better HP and better utility through midslots. 1600mm plates requiring more PG than LSEs isn't inherently bad, but we need to make other changes to ensure that armor is a more viable option.

Errand Girl wrote:
Fozzie, I'm kind of impressed you're still reading this monster. To be honest, I'm fairly surprised that I'm still reading it....

Can you let us know if your position on the HML changes has moved at all after 120+ pages and counting, or is the current plan still to implement what is shown in the OP?


I have a few changes to the proposal we're considering and testing internally. Once we get past that stage I'll take them to the CSM, then to you all. We have plenty of time before the winter expansion, so we're not going to rush anything. I plan to do this right. Accordingly, this dialogue between us here at CCP and you all in the playerbase on this issue will be measured in weeks or months, not days.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2447 - 2012-09-21 18:52:45 UTC
OlRotGut wrote:
[quote=Eckyy]I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.


for instance, who would ever take cruise missiles into PVP?



LOL, I run two cruise fit navy ravens (and a HML drake) to do L4's at a reasonable rate, wouldn't even think about em for PvP.
bornaa
GRiD.
#2448 - 2012-09-21 18:53:22 UTC
Ill repost few of mine questions:

@ 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.


There are many many more questions asked on just last 10 pages...
Please give us answers!
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2449 - 2012-09-21 18:53:24 UTC
bornaa wrote:
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


So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too.
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2450 - 2012-09-21 18:53:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Terik Deatharbingr
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
Komen wrote:
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.

Yep the only thing I ever killed with HAM's was a AFK Hulk Roll during a wardec dropped right on top him Lol. He dropped from his corp and changed his sig after that (he started the war by smack talking my CEO in local).


What they need to do is revamp the entire missile system. You want to minimize drake use....make people train light missiles to lvl 4 specialization before they train heavies and then cruises....THAT would minimize the drake population....

OR......better yet...
If I want to be a BS pilot with tech II lasers....why do I need tech II smalls and mediums before I use tech II larges...it makes no sense. That in and of itself is what drives people to caldari. not the "elite" *laughable* dps of the drake and tengu. it's withs, everything else needed to train, people take the shortcut and since it's more difficult to cross train into guns, they stick with it.

You remove the necessary requirements so people don't have to specialize in the smaller versions...it would stop the hatred of caldari missile boats and the only complaints you'd get is the people who have already done the training.
bornaa
GRiD.
#2451 - 2012-09-21 18:58:07 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
Onictus wrote:
bornaa wrote:
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


So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too.



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???
In my logic: slower ship -> longer range weapon.

edit:
And you see in changes that they are not making caldari ships faster then the rest.
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2452 - 2012-09-21 19:01:11 UTC
bornaa wrote:
Onictus wrote:
bornaa wrote:
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


So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too.



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???
In my logic: slower ship -> longer range weapon.


So Amarr and Gallente should be king **** then....ever put armor rigs on anything?
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2453 - 2012-09-21 19:01:30 UTC
Onictus wrote:
bornaa wrote:
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


So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too.



People like you make threads like this longer to read for no reason.

Empty posting number .... hmm. well number something.
bornaa
GRiD.
#2454 - 2012-09-21 19:03:10 UTC
Onictus wrote:
bornaa wrote:
Onictus wrote:
bornaa wrote:
Bloutok wrote:


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


So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too.



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???
In my logic: slower ship -> longer range weapon.


So Amarr and Gallente should be king **** then....ever put armor rigs on anything?


I dont talk about speed after fittings... that you can change, ship in your race you can not.
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2455 - 2012-09-21 19:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
bornaa wrote:
-> 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!!!

Good point, and we are keeping that in mind. Heavy missiles will still have much better damage projection at long range than turrets, and with TE/TDs their max range will be even higher than they are currently (with a tradeoff of lows or mids).
Also keep in mind that the speed disadvantage of Caldari ships is often less than it appears on paper since they usually shield tank and armor tanking incurs speed and mass penalties.


bornaa wrote:
I dont talk about speed after fittings... that you can change, ship in your race you can not.

After fittings is all that ever matters.


bornaa wrote:
-> 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.

Yes indeed. It would be on a missile by missile basis instead of a blanket change, but this proposal for instance does include an increase to HM speed. Increasing that speed more is still on the table as an option.


bornaa wrote:
-> 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...

Interesting idea but it is beyond the scope of what we're working on here. Maybe someday.


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

Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff


bornaa wrote:
-> 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!!!

The danger of making TDs OP is something we're very aware of. Many people have shown their concern here in this thread on that issue and we are not taking anything regarding ewar for granted.


bornaa wrote:
-> 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!!!

Yup. It's something we are definitely taking into account, and will continue to do so as we refine the proposal.


bornaa wrote:
-> 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.

They need a lot of work, but to keep things manageable we're going to wait until we're closer to the BS rebalance before messing directly with them. We can only do so much so quickly.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2456 - 2012-09-21 19:05:36 UTC
TriadSte wrote:
CCP fozzie

You state and restate in your replies to these posts that your trying to essentially build a base to go forward from with the Heavy missile platform.

Massive restructuring is wrong, and has proved wrong everytime CCP implement this into the game. I am quite worried that you are with respect are going at this like a horse with blinkers on. Look straight ahead and not watching for danger from the sides.

Heavy missiles as stated previously by many are only used in a small amount of operations, they are used minimally so why the drastic change?

You stated that they're so powerful that you can use them on unbonused ships. That is far from true and I think you must have not thought about that properly before posting.

Heavy missiles without bonuses are very poor DPS.

Lastly, you stated the nighthawk died when the Drake was born, why not spend your time more thoughtfully and rebalance that ship division?

As they are right now HMLs and HAMs are fine on paper, OK so the PG usage on HAMs is stupid but thats about it.

You cannot build as base from missile stats, especially picking on HMLs which are infrequently used. Fix the ships themselves. That is the logical thing to do.





I was reading up to heavies are infrequently used.

......lol what?
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2457 - 2012-09-21 19:06:27 UTC
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:


What they need to do is revamp the entire missile system. You want to minimize drake use....make people train light missiles to lvl 4 specialization before they train heavies and then cruises....THAT would minimize the drake population....

OR......better yet...
If I want to be a BS pilot with tech II lasers....why do I need tech II smalls and mediums before I use tech II larges...it makes no sense. That in and of itself is what drives people to caldari. not the "elite" *laughable* dps of the drake and tengu. it's with everything else needed to train, people take the shortcut and since it's more difficult to cross train into guns, they stick with it.


Call me weird if you will, I went for the Drake as a noob, cause it looked so god-damn cool, didn't give a damn about stats etc.

I'd not be opposed to "equalisation" in training weapons systems, one reason that's put me off training for T2 guns relative to the ease of missile training, is that level IV specialisation requirement for turrets.
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
#2458 - 2012-09-21 19:07:30 UTC
CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles?
Severian Carnifex
#2459 - 2012-09-21 19:10:54 UTC
OlRotGut wrote:
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.




I am thinking that they just need to redo the whole entire missile tree if they are going to rework HML's and change HAM fitting requirements.

for instance, who would ever take cruise missiles into PVP?




THIS, THIS, THIS... soooo this!!!
CCP... start from the start... from rockets... and end on torps... and then look at capital missile weapons!!!
You cant fix something thats soooo broken.
You must re-do it from the start.
Make some pattern between types and classes and stick with it!!!
Give us weapon class that work and that we know what to expect from it!!!
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#2460 - 2012-09-21 19:10:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
bornaa wrote:
-> 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!!!

Good point, and we are keeping that in mind. Heavy missiles will still have much better damage projection at long range than turrets, and with TE/TCs their max range will be even higher than they are currently (with a tradeoff of lows or mids).
Also keep in mind that the speed disadvantage of Caldari ships is often less than it appears on paper since they usually shield tank and armor tanking incurs speed and mass penalties.


.


fyp...
td's dont extend range... bub...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.