These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2461 - 2012-09-21 19:12:06 UTC
@ CCP Fozzie
Kudos to you sir, still participating in the discussion with us scrubs on a Friday night, restoring my faith in CCP.
Lord Ryan
True Xero
#2462 - 2012-09-21 19:13:54 UTC
Response to another thread, locked by useless Goon alt. No offense to Goons, you can't control all your member's alts.


Quote:
I don't see HMLs as OP, I see HMLs as the only missiles that has a chance to compete with guns. You can use post all the EFT warrior stats you want, I've faught and flown enough of them enough to know the reality. Destroying HMLs will not make the other Caldari ships any better. Destroying HMLs will not make Gallenete worth flying.

This is how I see the races. I'm trained to fly and fit all 4, minus titans. I've killed hundreds of Drakes and Tengus, and lost hundreds of Canes.

Gallente sexiest ship. Worst ships! Ranis tackles. Comet, Ishkur can do small and medium plex with the abilty to PVP some other ships within that size restrictions.

Amarr second best looking ships. Most useful in fleets and blobs. Works well in PVE.

Minmatar pretty damn ugly minus a few. Cane worked well in solo organgs prenerf. Few other good fleet ships. Some good PVE ships.

Caldari generally ugly and useless outside of a couple PVE ships.The only OP ship in the game Falcon. Drake and tengu were useful prenerf.

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.
Avila Cracko
#2463 - 2012-09-21 19:16:07 UTC
Severian Carnifex wrote:
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!!!



Signed.
Make logical pattern in missile stats through missile tree progression.

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2464 - 2012-09-21 19:18:23 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/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.




Better long range damage. The question i ask is, will that damage be enough so that real people will use the ship or is it another nice " Hey guy! On paper ... It works " thing ?

When you test, or try to balance. Do you try to balance for all size of engagements ? 1 vs 1 . 10 vs 10 ? Alot VS 1 ?
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2465 - 2012-09-21 19:19:28 UTC
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie
Kudos to you sir, still participating in the discussion with us scrubs on a Friday night, restoring my faith in CCP.



I will go with a +1 on this :)

+1
Col Callahan
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#2466 - 2012-09-21 19:20:40 UTC
I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.

Sad really.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2467 - 2012-09-21 19:21:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
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:
-> 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:
-> 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.

Actually looking at a T2 cruise Fury raven it can do over 700 dps which seems fine to me the only issue is the long flight time
HAMS definitely have too long a range at least the Rage/T1 ammo anyway.
But please keep the TD option defenders dont work cos you sacrifice turret slots IF you even have one and they arent very good anyway.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
#2468 - 2012-09-21 19:22:53 UTC
I think this is all overblown. Just like with radiation, most often the fear is more harmful than the actual effects.

In their current form Drakes are pretty OP. Just sitting in place and targeting, launching, targeting, launching, targeting launching is almost like being a miner. I am surprised the goons and griefers are not all over the change. Where are all those antisocials with their "risk v reward" nonsense. In a T2 fitted Drake the risk is managed so well as to be all but nonexistant.

I am not worried at all. Although if CCP abandoned this whole design by numbers concept there would not be mass whining every 6 months. Can you imagine if a god said to humans every 6 months something like:

- gravity's effect has been reduced by 5% so that space exploration is easier.
- The electron has had its voltage increased to make solar power more competitive with petroleum
- Addiction to crack is now impossible when malnourished

It makes more sense to just adapt around fixed rules than to change the rules all the time.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#2469 - 2012-09-21 19:24:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
i just wanted to stop by one more time to express my gratitude for the fact that you CCP guys actually maintain a dialog with us. affinity and you have done a lot more to calm peoples minds than any other drama-ridden MMOs dev team i ever heard of.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2470 - 2012-09-21 19:25:01 UTC
Fozzie, I challenge you:

If you were to poll all the haters of the drake:

A choice between this nerf you propose

or:

removing the training requirements of smaller turrents before you can train the larger T2 variants."

aside from those that would be upset that already trained it, I believe you'd be hard pressed for those that would choose the former....and the new people starting Eve wouldn't be told "well, you can get tech II version of missiles with less training time" then you'd see an increase in noobies flying other ships as opposed to drakes....

On the flip side....everyone here knows Minmatar would be the new FOTM. Projectiles are the preferred weapon of PVP's....no cap, high volley....gankers delight.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2471 - 2012-09-21 19:26:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloutok
Shizuken wrote:
I think this is all overblown. Just like with radiation, most often the fear is more harmful than the actual effects.

In their current form Drakes are pretty OP. Just sitting in place and targeting, launching, targeting, launching, targeting launching is almost like being a miner. I am surprised the goons and griefers are not all over the change. Where are all those antisocials with their "risk v reward" nonsense. In a T2 fitted Drake the risk is managed so well as to be all but nonexistant.

I am not worried at all. Although if CCP abandoned this whole design by numbers concept there would not be mass whining every 6 months. Can you imagine if a god said to humans every 6 months something like:

- gravity's effect has been reduced by 5% so that space exploration is easier.
- The electron has had its voltage increased to make solar power more competitive with petroleum
- Addiction to crack is now impossible when malnourished

It makes more sense to just adapt around fixed rules than to change the rules all the time.



Not in a game where the bottleneck is SP and SP only come with lots of time.

edit: Or did i get your comment wrong ? I have a doubt now hahahaha.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#2472 - 2012-09-21 19:35:45 UTC
Col Callahan wrote:
I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.

Sad really.


huh?

two years ago was 2010... and yes you saw lots of missiles back then...htfu

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Senarrius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2473 - 2012-09-21 19:48:27 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
[


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




This response must be a joke at best.

It makes no sense, it just nerfs assault missiles even more, they're already barely used as it is.
LtTrog
Perkone
Caldari State
#2474 - 2012-09-21 20:03:12 UTC
Ok so Ill admit I'm a drake pilot skilling toward a tengu so I feel strongly about this.

After reading this very long thread I agree with a lot of the points already made e.g.;

the dps nerf is too much. I would rather not see dps dropped at all

the range nerf is acceptable and understandable

if HML dps is dropped I would like to see new bonuses on the ships that use them to compensate

If TD are to work on missiles it should be a new mod or script similar to the way racial ECM works

HAMs need to be better and easier to fit . Making all missiles guided would be a good start.

If HML dps is nerfed HAMs should be bosted with a similar dps ratio to cruise/torps

TDs will need careful nerfing on non bonused ships to stop them being the win button like ECM was before their change

on a more whiny note please keep the drake as an excellent mission running ship. Not for myself as I'm skilling to bigger and better things, but for the sake of new players. The reason its so common is not because its the best pvp ship but because it's relatively cheap in terms of both isk and skill points and it how most players will start doing lvl4 missions.

Please keep the tengu's dps ability but yes cut its range I dont think its dps is op given how much it costs to hit 800dps in that ship but being able to do that damage at over 100km+ is op.
Lev Arturis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2475 - 2012-09-21 20:05:09 UTC
Senarrius wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
[


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




This response must be a joke at best.

It makes no sense, it just nerfs assault missiles even more, they're already barely used as it is.


Explain me the exact way how you jump from one star system into the next or how the clone system works.

If you manage that you might ask your question again.
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
#2476 - 2012-09-21 20:15:09 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
i just wanted to stop by one more time to express my gratitude for the fact that you CCP guys actually maintain a dialog with us. affinity and you have done a lot more to calm peoples minds than any other drama-ridden MMOs dev team i ever heard of.


Seriously? Have you checked the 'socket closed' problem forum thread at all?
Doddy
Excidium.
#2477 - 2012-09-21 20:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Doddy
Sigras wrote:
Doddy wrote:


No where near fast enough lol.

That is half the speed of current eve missiles. Mach 7 is 2.4k m/s, so it would take the rail gun projectile well over a minute to reach 200k. It could a bit faster in a vacuum and with more advanced tech but is a million miles away from being instant it. Modern missiles can reach not far off that speed even if you don't use the same to tech to launch them as you do to fire the rail gun (which you could do and one assumes that is how eve missiles are launched). Really there should be very little difference in missile and hybrid speeds and projectiles should be slower than either. lasers should be the only practically instant hit.


While that is true, I will point out that the article stated the railgun used was a "32-megajoule prototype railgun" by comparison, 425mm Raingun IIs take 21 GJ to fire thats 656.25 times the energy used to accelerate the projectile.


Using eves game stats to try to calculate real physics is a bit lol, what with 425mm projectiles having the same mass as smaller caliber projectiles and such like. Still its a good point. Also launchers do not use cap so one assumes they are entirely unpowered, but then that would be stupid, having the tech and not using it.

A missile that was launched by the same tech (hence "accelerated" ejection bays for example) would have more mass so its launch speed will be less but it will immediately fire its own motors and start accelerating unlike the hybrid charge that gets all its acceleration from launch. The missiles will continue accelerating till out of fuel. So the missile will happily overtake a rail gun projectile fired at the same time at longer ranges. The rail gun projectile cannot use fins to adjust its trajectory like it would on earth so would be way less accurate than the missile who can thrust vector or use rear fins powered by its own exhaust gasses. Both could carry thrusters but the missile being bigger would have more room for them. So for any remotely long range combat missiles would both strike quicker and much more accurately. Projectiles would be so slow and inaccurate that thier only real role would be in a sort of scatter gun effect probably mainly to take out incoming missiles (like modern day goalkeepers), or to seed areas of space you think an enemy might fly into with debris (projectiles not needing power means you could get an awful lot of them on a ship, the warhead or calibre wouldn't matter too much as most of the destructive force would come from the target flying into them).

But like i have said before in this thread eve is an mmo not a sim. Quibling over weapon physics when the ships are "flying through liquid" is faintly ridiculous. Turrets all act like lasers even when they aren't, missiles all act like guided missiles even when they aren't, spaceships act like submarines, deal with it. Big smile
bornaa
GRiD.
#2478 - 2012-09-21 20:24:35 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
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/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.






Thnx for answering...
But if... about that speed part... you cant answer then minmatar paradox (shields and best speed)...
You sometimes must look at bigger picture...
Again... don't kill the first born child of missiles in PvP because you are afraid of invasion from that one child...
You must give missiles some advantage to counter their disadvantages.
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
Eckyy
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#2479 - 2012-09-21 20:26:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


Fozzie, I appreciate your hard work so far.

One of my concerns is that midslot utility modules have been nerfed a little too hard on unbonused ships. Tracking disruptors are still decent options for a spare mid, but how many people say, "well, I'd love to fit a web but I just can't resist that unbonused ECM module", or damps, or even a painter? These are modules people look at when there is absolutely nothing else to fit in a slot.

My suggestion to improve armor tanking is to slightly buff ewar modules' base stats, and then reduce the bonus on ships. IE +10% to base effectiveness of damps/ecm/painters, and change dedicated ships to +5% per level (+25%) from +7.5% per level (+37.5%).

Just a thought.
Doddy
Excidium.
#2480 - 2012-09-21 20:27:02 UTC
Col Callahan wrote:
I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.

Sad really.


You mean like when they had to nerf missiles in thier entirity? Anyway 2 years ago drake was number 1 pvp ship used just like now, nothing has change in that time. Turret fads have changed constantly over that time but the only missile change has been some rich people use tengus with hmls instead of drakes with hmls.

Missiles stopped being automatically bad in pvp the day sniper bs went out of fashion, which was pretty much when AoE doomsdays were nerfed.