Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Very nice article...well articulated and thought out....and I think you're right. They basically want everyone in BS's for ratting/mission running. Which would be fine if the missile boats didn't blow nuts at it. I've got a Navy Issue Scorpion and the problem is elite frigates take FOREVER to kill with Cruise missiles....and the range on torpedo's blow *not like those would be better anyway* and I'm not going to alpha any frigate like a mach would simply because the ship is burning towards me. But, as they say...it's not our game...it's theirs....we just pay to play it their way....

I agree generally in fixing the ships but it's more complex than just that. I'll respond to your points with numbers as well:

1. Targeting range is easy to resolve, but it requires a slot. The Drake has 3 additional slots (if you count rig slots as a slot, otherwise it's 2 + Drake still has a tanking bonus) in a fit with the same range. The Hurricane loses a slot getting out to the Drake's targeting range.

2. Sure it reaches 77km, but do you know how much DPS you do at optimal + falloff? Hint: it's less than 50% of what EFT shows your DPS to be in optimal. A rule of thumb I use with projectiles is I consider their range to be approximately optimal + 1/2 falloff because damage drops off sharply beyond that point. At 77km, without TE's, your Hurricane is doing something like 115 DPS.

3. How do you figure a Hurricane loses nothing? Is it perhaps because it can't even fit a tank with 720mm's? The Drake can fit a healthy shield tank and still hit out to ~80km, while the Hurricane is basically going to be nothing but gun mods and a sensor booster. Add to that the Drake's resist bonus. I really want you to open EFT and try and fit a Hurricane out with 720mm's and come back with a number for its EHP.

4. A Hurricane with 3x gyro and a rack of 720's does 278 DPS at optimal with tremor - which is 54km + 22km falloff. A Drake with 3x BCUs and Navy Scourge does 414 paper DPS at beyond its lock range of 75km. 414 - 278 = 136 DPS difference. I'm not counting Fury here because its DPS is harder to apply.

5. They could. That is one way to force the Drake to give up one of its extra slots. It would be equally effective to give heavy missiles a range nerf and force the drake to fit one "tracking computer". As an aside, one of the balance factors CCP uses is targeting range vs scan resolution, and the Hurricane DOES lock a lot faster than the Drake. It's definitely an important point though.

6. "See, the only thing the drake has going for it over the hurricane is range and ehp." -> The only thing the Drake has going for it is 50% higher DPS at its max range and DOUBLE the tank, because you need to spend slots in the Hurricane to get its targeting and optimal range up. It's not a matter of what ship gets the upper hand, if a HML Drake meets a 720mm Hurricane (and both of them happen to be tackled), the 'Cane is dead any day of the week. Heck, the Drake can probably fit tackle and still have a better DPS:tank ratio than an artillery Hurricane without. Remember, Hurricanes don't fly around sporting both autocannons and artillery at the same time... and the debate here is at longer ranges. It's a more equal fight when in HAM range, and CCP isn't talking about a HAM nerf.



Again, CCPs changes WOULD fix the Drake, but unfortunately they break every other missile ship in the game, and that's why I'm opposed to them - not because there isn't something seriously wrong with the Drake in the 30-75km range bracket.

The Drake could lose its resist bonus and would still be out of line with the other battlecruisers at 30km+ because heavy missiles coupled with the Drake's damage bonus are quite potent, and require the Drake to sacrifice zero slots of its tank.

There's a reason heavy missiles are rarely used on anything but Drakes and Tengus, but I feel that a base range nerf + adding missiles to the effect of tracking modules wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, especially if they gave tracking enhancers a bonus to explosion velocity as well.

it's not a matter of the drake and tengu going on the shelf for me. I don't care about that.

However, as a mission runner the tengu is the be all end all of missile boats.

So, when my tengu goes up on the shelf, it's going to be how long before I get a missile boat battleship that can compete with the tengu?

Or am I just gonna have the dps of a cruise launcher raven (maybe less) in a billion dollar package?

That's my only concern is how long I'm going to have to wait for them to rebalance a missile boat that I can use effectively for missioning, and when I say effectively, I'm not talking about a 500 dps battleship.
I'm talking the quality ship of a machariel or vindicator. (p.s. the golem sucks)

But you keep stepping in it, I don't need to assume. There isn't anything wrong with the picture.

Fury against frigates? of course it will do less damage. Fury is specifically for large targets that you want to nuke. Precision is what you should be shooting at small targets. But a cruise missile, even a precision cruise missile is not made for frigates, it's made for cruisers.

A drake has a drone bay. A Nighthawk has a drone bay. You can shoot precision heavys at frigates and it will take a while. But better to combine that with your 5 tech II light drones. Btw, it appears precisions are getting some small buffs.

I am officially shocked by your use of fury cruises against frigates

Didn't say I used them primarily. I've tested it out of curiousity....even explained it to many people that were clueless about the difference. To be honest, I don't even carry fury ammo for ratting anymore...just T1 and precision of all damage types and 3 different sets of T2 light drones. Again, you're assuming that I don't know what I'm doing. The point I'm attempting to make is the popularity of HML's isn't their "INSANE" dps....

quicker training time than T2 medium guns
decent dps with good range
while not great against frigates or BS's, it's a good balance of the 2.

but now if you factor the drawbacks of T2 versus faction, which is less damage to smaller/quicker targets *which is about to be even more* and less range....stock up on your faction missiles and sell off all your T2 as the difference in prices is going to increase even more.

True enough. The problem, however, is that Caldari Missile pilots are already largely screwed in that the Drake is really pretty much the only viable ship they have. Yes, they have the Tengu, but a billion isk ship is not something you use for casual PvP. They don't have a working Command Ship, they don't have working HACs, they don't have working Battleships. They have the Drake, which works, but not so well that small gang FCs are ordering their pilots to grab one.

I think that this is pretty much the one critical component of this debate. If CCP breaks the Drake, Caldari Missile pilots will have literally nothing left to fly. And let's be honest here: there is absolutely NO reason to believe that CCP will do anything quickly to fix these other broken ships. It might be years before these are looked at. And a missile pilot doesn't even have the fallback the general gunnery support skills provides. It's a big deal.

And I say this as someone who is unaffected by this change. Like everyone in Eve, I can fly a Drake, I just don't. The so-called overpowered Drake is nice enough, but I prefer speed, range control, and instant damage.

No where in there did I say it did max damage at 77km, nor did I even say it was effective.

I mearly stated that it reaches 77km.


P.S.
I love how that graphs shows the new HML staring at the bottom and ending at the bottom.

Basically that graph shows(from greatest to least value)

0-25km
Heavy beam laser
250mm railgun
720mm arty
Heavy missiles

30-65km
heavy missiles
heavy beam - 250mm rail
720mm arty

65-75km
250mm rails
720mm arty
heavy beam

75-95km
250mm rail
720mm arty

95-100km
720mm arty

(keep in mind I'm only factoring the NEW planned heavy missile changes)

Now, that shows that heavy missiles are the kings of about a 35km stretch out of 100km.

Heavy beam need some balancing because for some reason they only seem to be that effective at close range.

250mm rails seem to be the highest rated across the board

Arty may need some balance at close range or long range depending on which they would prefer.


The way I feel it should be(changes from the graph are underlined)

Beam lasers - best close range, worst mid range(nerf), moderate long range (buff)

Rails - worst short range(nerf), moderate mid range, best long range(good, but with some buff)

Arty - moderate short range(slight buff), best mid range(buff), worst long range(nerf, but not out of range)

heavy missiles - moderate short range(buff), moderate mid range(nerf), moderate long range(actually present/buff)

This means every weapon system has a range at which they are the king, but also a range at which they are the worst.

While missiles would never be the worst at any range, they'd never be the best at any range either.


Building each weapon system in this manner (including close range weapon systems) this would actually help to keep a check on combat so that no single weapon system would be the trump card.
This would also help to suggest a mixed fleet doctrine.

This puts all systems in check because if someone ever makes a pure fleet again, well then a mixed, or possibly pure fleet of another weapon type will be able to determine the range of combat, thus defeating the enemy by putting themselves at optimal, but not their target.

Now, it suggests to them mixed fleets because you'll be prepared for any type of fleet reguardless of what range they come in at, and you'll still be able to determine the range of battle when you attack someone else.

The thing is: HM's DO max damage at that range....and you were comparing arties to HM's. Also accordingto that logic 720's *reach* to 99k.

Where did the cruise missile buff go ... ?
I often heard people saying HMs are fair, but the other missiles are totally terrible. And now you're going to nerf the only viable missile system in the game?

I have spent alot of time training for a max skilled Nighthawk, perhaps not the best ship in the game but my favorite nonetheless. I have both an active and passive tanked one for various things. The dps on them have always been low compared to the other ships I fly (Amarr-Minmatar-Caldari cross trained). I think its a slap in the face to Caldari pilots to nerf the weapons system without balancing the ship at the same time. So now I am stuck with a ship that is skill point intensive that won't be able to fight its way out of a paper bag. This ship has always needed more dps, not less, why is it so hard to balance all the ships effected by the missile change at the same time?