These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3041 - 2012-09-26 09:15:36 UTC
Sigras wrote:

Three arguments here,
1. The drake CAN switch damage types even though it loses DPS, the harbinger and brutix are stuck with what they got.
2. CCP seems to be changing the kinetic missile damage bonus to a ROF bonus, so this probably wont be an argument for long.
3. This could be said with basically any weapon system at long range not just the drake, no disadvantage here.


1) the Harbinger deals EM/Therm with its lasers, and up to 129 DPS Exp damage (Valk II) or 144 DPS Kin damage (Vespa II). I agree the Harbinger is maybe a bit behind the Drake and Cane, but is it as far behind as for example a Raven is behind any Amarr BS? For sure not ..

Brutix is, as others said, a tier 1, but still can play in the big league if conditions work for it. Stuck to Kin/Therm with its bonused weapons, yes, but also with a decent dronebay.

The Drake has half the dronebay, and it loses 25% of its DPS if not using kinetic ammo.

2) I have yet to see this, and if it will be we can see how this will impact in battle.

3) For the Drake its true on any range, thats the difference to especially Winmatar.

For the records: I never said the Myrm and Brutix are OP (they are not, but still they can beat the sh*t our of a Drake if the fight is taking place under their rules), and I also didnt say that about the Cane (although its the king of BC PvP with all those options, and esp. Slave sets for armor if you really want to go for EHP - nothing like that there for shield tanks!!). But I object to that stupid statement the Drake is OP. It may be in null sec, but its NOT in small scale/med scale PvP like you will find in lowsec.

I have yet to find someone here to claim the Drake is OP in lowsec, and bring solid facts for that statement.
Dani Lizardov
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#3042 - 2012-09-26 09:19:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dani Lizardov
Short Range :
Heavy Assault Missile Luncher II - PG: 126 CPU: 50
Heavy Pulse Laser II - PG: 231 CPU: 35
425mm Auto Cannon II - PG: 154 CPU: 25
Heavy Neutron Blaster II - PG: 187 CPU: 33

Long Range:
Heavy Missile Luncher II - PG: 105 CPU: 55
Heavy Beam Laser II - PG: 275 CPU: 37
720 mm II - PG: 275 CPU: 32
250 mm Rail Gun II - PG: 208 CPU: 42


So lets compare Long Range vs Short Range.

CCP here is a question: Why the Short Range Medium Missile Platform is the only one in the game, that has more fiting reqiermets, then the Long Range one?

Scourge Assault Missile I Ex.V : 101 m/s Ex.R: 125 m
Scourge Heavy Missile I Ex.V: 81 m/s Ex. R: 125m

So CCP... Why the Sort Range Medium Missile is wors at hitting smaller targets then the Long range one?
For all the turrests, we have better tracking for the short range wepons!

I find that the argument that HM made other missiles unusable, to be invalide. CCP you made the other Missile types unusable....
And to anwser the question, why People compare Short range turrents with the HM platform, that suppose to be Long range.
Well Read above!

I support the Nerf on HM, but I also want Buff on the HAMs.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3043 - 2012-09-26 09:38:54 UTC
Fozzie, quoting you here.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

I'm going to cover a few of the themes I'm seeing in the feedback so far in a Q&A format. I don't have any adjustments to the proposal to announce at this time, but there are a few tweaks I'm mulling over at the moment.

[list]
  • The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?
    • I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.


    HMLs are compared to short range turrets mainly because HAMs suck in damage projection. And yes, HML deal solid DPS, but if actual fittings of ships for gangs in low sec (example) are compared, a HML Drake will not deal more DPS than the counterparts on *every* range. There will be ranges where the Drake is in front, and others where the other ships are in front, and after max range (which is in reality much shorter than on paper) there is no damage at all for a Drake.

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
    • It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.


    Its just wrong what you say here :) there are no other HML ships of importance atm, just because HML are not overpowered in itself, the problem is null sec blob mechanics. If HMLs would be overpowered, they would be used by other ships too in real combat, but they are not. Unlike Autocannons, which are fitted on ships with no bonus for them or even on ships with a bonus for other weapons! And the main reason for those many Drakes is not that they are OP - its there is no tech 1 alternative for Caldari missile users! Fix the Raven, and we gladly fly BS instead. But right now the Raven just sucks for PvP, so no other choice for missile users in Caldari ships, than fly the Drake. Btw, the NH needs to be adressed too - its not on par with a Sleipnir or Absolution. Why do you first plan to nerf one of its 2 weapon systems, and the only one which can actually be fitted due to stupid tight grid on NH - nerf the NH even more, then buff a bit so its as bad as it was before and claim you "done something"?

    How about fixing an entire race first (I know, Gallente need also some help ...), and *then* nerf the things which would still seem to be OP?

    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps?
    • The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.


    Missiles already HAVE a tracking mechanic. And viable fittings so far had no room for TCs/TEs, unlike their turret cousins. So how is it balanced to just give a potential weakpoint of turrets to missile-users without giving also benefits like instant damage, falloff and wrecking hits?

    And as a last question to you Fozzie, in which environment do you consider the Drake to be overpowered? Which conditions, null sec fights or small scale, 1on1 or what exactly? From my experience I can assure you there are many Myrm pilots, Brutix pilots, Harbinger pilots and ofc also Cane pilots who 1on1d vs Drakes and won. And a fair number too who lost. Same in small gangs. Consensus is that BC class is pretty balanced as it is, in small and medium scale. So, when you nerf the Drake, this will obviously no longer be true, right?
    Onictus
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #3044 - 2012-09-26 09:53:47 UTC
    Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:
    Sigras wrote:
    I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.

    As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine.


    By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship.

    And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't.


    Lol no, only in optimal, you do 50% at optimal+ falloff.
    Gypsio III
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #3045 - 2012-09-26 10:06:54 UTC
    Onictus wrote:
    Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:
    Sigras wrote:
    I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.

    As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine.


    By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship.

    And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't.


    Lol no, only in optimal, you do 50% at optimal+ falloff.



    38%-ish isn't it?
    Onictus
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #3046 - 2012-09-26 10:18:00 UTC
    Gypsio III wrote:
    Onictus wrote:
    Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:
    Sigras wrote:
    I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.

    As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine.


    By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship.

    And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't.


    Lol no, only in optimal, you do 50% at optimal+ falloff.



    38%-ish isn't it?


    Varies with Sig differences last I looked, BS turret vs a 300m Sig certainly. 50% is everything that can go right being right.
    Lallante
    Blue Republic
    RvB - BLUE Republic
    #3047 - 2012-09-26 10:27:59 UTC
    Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
    Just stop nerfing and make people learn to be clever. EVE is unforgiving, nerfing everything because people complain is just BS and that's the truth. NOTHING needs nerfed, nothing. Just buff the faction frigs a little so Assault Frigates don't rock them so easily and "tweak" the ASBs and let EVE be EVE. Some new ship types and classses be sweet though. You all can same they need nerfed or whatever but that is BS and that's just life. but keep complaining till everything is the same and EVE looses the factor that not ALL ships are the same and it becomes like every other MMO. That would be a sad sad day. LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!!!



    This is so stupid it actually hurts my head. Have you heard of "power creep"?
    Noemi Nagano
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #3048 - 2012-09-26 10:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Noemi Nagano
    Something I found a few pages before.. and which shows perfectly what I meant with this "look at this stats, its so broken!!" ...

    Eli Green wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Aliventi wrote:


    For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


    Takeshi Yamato wrote:
    Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

    250mm Railgun II with Spike:
    DPS: 20
    Alpha: 92
    Optimal: 65 km
    Falloff: 15 km
    Cap/sec: -1.1
    PG: 187.2
    CPU: 31.5

    Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
    DPS: 21
    Alpha: 91
    Optimal: 54 km
    Falloff: 10 km
    Cap/sec: -3.8
    PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
    CPU: 27.8

    720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
    DPS: 17
    Alpha: 242
    Optimal: 54 km
    Falloff: 22 km
    Cap/sec: 0
    PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
    CPU: 24

    Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
    DPS: 23 (previously 29)
    Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
    Range: 63 km (previously 84)
    Cap/sec: 0
    PG: 94.5
    CPU: 41.3

    This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.





    do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?


    The range for HMLs is wrong here, thats just the theoretical range which is never reached in game, for sure not vs a moving target. As you can see HML deal more damage at their maximum range, and beyond they deal 0 (unlike other platforms) - a fact which is not standing in this posting.

    There is nothing about sigsize/speed interaction with applied HML damage, still its in game .. wrecking hits are ignored too.

    Interesting would be to also use other Ammotypes (RF EMP/PP/Fusion for Arti and so on) for the turrets to for closer range, to see how *much* the turrets outperform HML there. And like he said, its not taking into account the bonuses of ships, and the rest of all fittings.

    Thats how you create statistics - pick something which seems to proove your theory and ignore the rest ... *sigh*
    Lallante
    Blue Republic
    RvB - BLUE Republic
    #3049 - 2012-09-26 10:41:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
    Noemi Nagano wrote:
    Fozzie, quoting you here.

    HMLs are compared to short range turrets mainly because HAMs suck in damage projection. And yes, HML deal solid DPS, but if actual fittings of ships for gangs in low sec (example) are compared, a HML Drake will not deal more DPS than the counterparts on *every* range. There will be ranges where the Drake is in front, and others where the other ships are in front, and after max range (which is in reality much shorter than on paper) there is no damage at all for a Drake.


    This is no longer correct post changes - The introduction of TEs and TCs for missles means HAMs will project damage much more effectively (in fact, my prediction is they will be heavily OP as they will project to longpoint range and hit HACs for full dmg with a single TE).

    HMLs should only be compared to other long range medium weapons, ie its counterparts. Primary balancing should then consider how they perform in the situation for which they are designed, e.g. long range. comparing long range weapons at short range is extemely disingenuous.
    Quote:

    Its just wrong what you say here :) there are no other HML ships of importance atm, just because HML are not overpowered in itself, the problem is null sec blob mechanics. If HMLs would be overpowered, they would be used by other ships too in real combat, but they are not. Unlike Autocannons, which are fitted on ships with no bonus for them or even on ships with a bonus for other weapons! And the main reason for those many Drakes is not that they are OP - its there is no tech 1 alternative for Caldari missile users! Fix the Raven, and we gladly fly BS instead. But right now the Raven just sucks for PvP, so no other choice for missile users in Caldari ships, than fly the Drake. Btw, the NH needs to be adressed too - its not on par with a Sleipnir or Absolution. Why do you first plan to nerf one of its 2 weapon systems, and the only one which can actually be fitted due to stupid tight grid on NH - nerf the NH even more, then buff a bit so its as bad as it was before and claim you "done something"?

    This is incorrect. HMLs are overpowered in both range and damage - this is proveable from the DPS numbers (unbonused HMLs are ~30% greater DPS and ~50% greater range than any long range turret, and the situation looks even worse when factoring in ship bonuses and actual setups).

    The reason they are not used by "other ships" is that there are no other good ships that can fit HMLs. The "other ships" that -could- fit HMLs dont get used at all, because the actual hulls are bad. Case in point Cerb, Nighthawk etc. Fozzie has already said these ships will be rebalanced next, so there is no problem there. Almost noone currently flies the Nighthawk or Cerb - that the HML changes makes them even worse is fairly irrelevant.

    The "no alternative" line is also false. There are no real t1 alternatives to a Myrm for drone carriers, so why are there less than 1/6 of the number of Myrms used than Drakes?

    Quote:

    How about fixing an entire race first (I know, Gallente need also some help ...), and *then* nerf the things which would still seem to be OP?

    No. Currently the entire game revolves around Tengus and Drakes. This is one of the most important balance issues to fix.

    Quote:


    Missiles already HAVE a tracking mechanic. And viable fittings so far had no room for TCs/TEs, unlike their turret cousins. So how is it balanced to just give a potential weakpoint of turrets to missile-users without giving also benefits like instant damage, falloff and wrecking hits?


    This is again, nonsense. You just refuse to adapt. We have dozens of pretty amazing TE/TC fits planned internally already (including HAMdrake TE fits we are pretty sure will be the next FOTM because they are so damn good). TEs are pretty easy to fit. Missles have many of their own advantages that turrets do not have. The most significant two (which entirely counteract the points you raise) are - you can't get "under" missles as there is no minimum effective range (unlike turrets) AND missles have complete damage type selection (NOTE: all the balance changes to ships with kinetic bonuses so far have changed these to all damage type bonuses - it stands to reason this will also be done to the drake etc) . Not to mention advantages like no cap use, etc.

    Quote:

    And as a last question to you Fozzie, in which environment do you consider the Drake to be overpowered? Which conditions, null sec fights or small scale, 1on1 or what exactly? From my experience I can assure you there are many Myrm pilots, Brutix pilots, Harbinger pilots and ofc also Cane pilots who 1on1d vs Drakes and won. And a fair number too who lost. Same in small gangs. Consensus is that BC class is pretty balanced as it is, in small and medium scale. So, when you nerf the Drake, this will obviously no longer be true, right?

    Drake is overpowered as a PvE ship, and both in large and small scale PvP. Bascially all conditions other than 1v1. Drakes can sit at long range and do close range damage, while mounting a full tank.

    If BCs were balanced you wouldnt see approximately 6 times more drakes flown than Harbs
    Onictus
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #3050 - 2012-09-26 10:43:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
    Noemi Nagano wrote:
    Something I found a few pages before.. and which shows perfectly what I meant with this "look at this stats, its so broken!!" ...

    Eli Green wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Aliventi wrote:


    For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


    Takeshi Yamato wrote:
    Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

    250mm Railgun II with Spike:
    DPS: 20
    Alpha: 92
    Optimal: 65 km
    Falloff: 15 km
    Cap/sec: -1.1
    PG: 187.2
    CPU: 31.5

    Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
    DPS: 21
    Alpha: 91
    Optimal: 54 km
    Falloff: 10 km
    Cap/sec: -3.8
    PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
    CPU: 27.8

    720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
    DPS: 17
    Alpha: 242
    Optimal: 54 km
    Falloff: 22 km
    Cap/sec: 0
    PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
    CPU: 24

    Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
    DPS: 23 (previously 29)
    Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
    Range: 63 km (previously 84)
    Cap/sec: 0
    PG: 94.5
    CPU: 41.3

    This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.





    do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?


    The range for HMLs is wrong here, thats just the theoretical range which is never reached in game, for sure not vs a moving target. As you can see HML deal more damage at their maximum range, and beyond they deal 0 (unlike other platforms) - a fact which is not standing in this posting.

    There is nothing about sigsize/speed interaction with applied HML damage, still its in game .. wrecking hits are ignored too.

    Interesting would be to also use other Ammotypes (RF EMP/PP/Fusion for Arti and so on) for the turrets to for closer range, to see how *much* the turrets outperform HML there. And like he said, its not taking into account the bonuses of ships, and the rest of all fittings.

    Thats how you create statistics - pick something which seems to proove your theory and ignore the rest ... *sigh*


    And turrets never miss, or fight in fallofff.

    Oh and those T2 ammos listed all come with a tracking penalty.
    Lallante
    Blue Republic
    RvB - BLUE Republic
    #3051 - 2012-09-26 10:56:12 UTC
    People only tend to rail against the numbers when they have no real argument except "DONT NERF MY BACKYARD!"
    Noemi Nagano
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #3052 - 2012-09-26 11:05:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Noemi Nagano
    Lallante wrote:

    Drake is overpowered as a PvE ship, and both in large and small scale PvP. Bascially all conditions other than 1v1. Drakes can sit at long range and do close range damage, while mounting a full tank.

    If BCs were balanced you wouldnt see approximately 6 times more drakes flown than Harbs


    Just picking one aspect here, because I lack a bit the time to answer them all - how many more Drakes are there than Canes in your book? I agreed already on the Harbinger not being exactly on par with Drake and Cane, but there is no need to nerf the Drake to get the Harbinger completely in line. Its not so weak ppl say it sucks, its just maybe a bit weaker than the two others mentioned. And Amarr have many viable other ships, speaking of excellent BS-hulls ... so why do Caldari chose the Drake again? There is no missile BS which works!

    Drake is a bit OP as a PvE ship, yes, and maybe there are nul sec things where it is OP at. But in small scale its for sure not, and I still demand solid proof for this utter BS argument - there would be MUCH more Drakes in lowsec if it was OP, and there are not. Btw, a weakness of the Harbinger is its EM-damage dealing, and now think of which races tech 2 hulls have awesome EM-resis ... then you see what is *really* OP in EVE!
    Yuna Yee
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #3053 - 2012-09-26 11:10:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuna Yee
    -
    Yuna Yee
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #3054 - 2012-09-26 11:11:49 UTC
    not that a post on the forum would make an actualy change or even be read by ccp but hey at least i can get my 5 cents off:

    its always the same:

    You look for a powerful ship, a niche that makes good isk and train for it, invest your time and skillpoints in it to be able to fly the ship or do the job and what happens is:

    every time you trained for that stuff and find it cool and rewarding its gets nerfed!

    be it incursions, the dramiel, the tengu - you name it

    Its makes you tired and wondering whats next (factional warfare maybe) - you look for the next niche and hope ccp takes long enough to nerf it for it to be at least fun for a while ..
    well then

    I must say I enjoyed flying incursions, i loved the dramiel and my tengu as well ...

    I just wonder why all this nerfing is necessary - who cares if a ship or profession is somewhat better than another one - everyone is free to choose those so why this endless try to make everything average ???
    Connall Tara
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #3055 - 2012-09-26 11:16:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
    Yuna Yee wrote:
    not that a post on the forum would make an actualy change or even be read by ccp but hey at least i can get my 5 cents off:

    its always the same:

    You look for a powerful ship, a niche that makes good isk and train for it, invest your time and skillpoints in it to be able to fly the ship or do the job and what happens is:

    every time you trained for that stuff and find it cool and rewarding its gets nerfed!

    be it incursions, the dramiel, the tengu - you name it

    Its makes you tired and wondering whats next (factional warfare maybe) - you look for the next niche and hope ccp takes long enough to nerf it for it to be at least fun for a while ..
    well then

    I must say I enjoyed flying incursions, i loved the dramiel and my tengu as well ...

    I just wonder why all this nerfing is necessary - who cares if a ship or profession is somewhat better than another one - everyone is free to choose those so why this endless try to make everything average ???



    Because having to choose between either flying a dramiel or losing to dramiels every single time got pretty damn dull. the issue here isn't things which are a bit better than other things, its things which are better than ALL the things ^_^

    Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
    Zindale
    Spias Inc.
    #3056 - 2012-09-26 11:24:31 UTC
    In my honest opinion what this nerf will result in is instead of only two teir2 BC's being viable ship for PVP you will end up with ALL 4 teir2 BC's stored in stations and ignored by the null sec alliances, and CCP will end up having to 're-balance' them again as they are doing with cruisers cause no-one will use them.

    It's not just this change but every change CCP seem to do reduces and so called overpowered ship to an obsolete ship.

    Now i am not saying that HM did not need something doing to them, but to nerf HM's and the main ship that uses them at the same time is reactionary at best and just plain stupid at worse.

    Now this may work but it is a big gamble on CCP part when the simplest thing to do, if they wanted 'balance' in teir 2 BC's would of been to change the the harbie and the myrm in some way to make them more viable.
    Sinigr Shadowsong
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #3057 - 2012-09-26 11:32:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
    Lallante wrote:
    (in fact, my prediction is they will be heavily OP as they will project to longpoint range and hit HACs for full dmg with a single TE).

    Once again you don't know numbers for some reason. Sigle TE may give 5% of range, it's CCP after all. They don't want to give us numbers but you already make claims just like you know them. Most missile ships don't have free PG and slots to fits HAMLs with TE/TC and not gimping some stats.

    Lallante wrote:

    The "no alternative" line is also false. There are no real t1 alternatives to a Myrm for drone carriers, so why are there less than 1/6 of the number of Myrms used than Drakes?

    Ignorance. T1 alternatives for drone carriers are Vexor (which is much better than caracal) and Dominix (which is good and used pretty often). It's just the fact that drone boats don't work for 0.0 fleets.
    Lallante
    Blue Republic
    RvB - BLUE Republic
    #3058 - 2012-09-26 11:42:48 UTC
    Noemi Nagano wrote:
    Lallante wrote:

    Drake is overpowered as a PvE ship, and both in large and small scale PvP. Bascially all conditions other than 1v1. Drakes can sit at long range and do close range damage, while mounting a full tank.

    If BCs were balanced you wouldnt see approximately 6 times more drakes flown than Harbs


    Just picking one aspect here, because I lack a bit the time to answer them all - how many more Drakes are there than Canes in your book? I agreed already on the Harbinger not being exactly on par with Drake and Cane, but there is no need to nerf the Drake to get the Harbinger completely in line. Its not so weak ppl say it sucks, its just maybe a bit weaker than the two others mentioned. And Amarr have many viable other ships, speaking of excellent BS-hulls ... so why do Caldari chose the Drake again? There is no missile BS which works!


    Canes are being nerfed too (PG nerf), didn't you hear?

    The Harb is a great ship. The problem is not the harb its that the drake is overpowered in combination with very overpowered HMLs and the Hurricane is far too easy to fit a full rack of 425s, a tank AND 2 neuts.

    Ravens need a look, no doubt, but balancing hasnt got to them yet. I'm -absolutely certain- the Raven will be changed early next year. You cant make an argument against balancing one ship just because another, yet to be looked at, is also unbalanced.


    Quote:

    Drake is a bit OP as a PvE ship, yes, and maybe there are nul sec things where it is OP at. But in small scale its for sure not, and I still demand solid proof for this utter BS argument - there would be MUCH more Drakes in lowsec if it was OP, and there are not. Btw, a weakness of the Harbinger is its EM-damage dealing, and now think of which races tech 2 hulls have awesome EM-resis ... then you see what is *really* OP in EVE!


    Extensive statistics have been already posted in this thread. A drake has better tank and more DPS at longer range than anything else its size. In a small gang a drake can sit at 50km+, out of the range of most other small gang-fit ships and just hurl high dps into the fight with little risk in conjunction with some close range tackle ships or a bubble. In addition it has a huge tank without sacrificing DPS.

    The only reason there are less drakes in low sec (though there are still LOADS) is that they sit at range, and therefore need tackle support, and bubbles dont work in lowsec and small tackle ships tend to get popped by sentry guns.

    As I mentioned, the Cane is also overpowered. I dont think the PG nerf goes far enough but lets wait and see what happens at the BC rebalance next year.
    Morrigan LeSante
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #3059 - 2012-09-26 11:46:10 UTC
    Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
    Lallante wrote:
    (in fact, my prediction is they will be heavily OP as they will project to longpoint range and hit HACs for full dmg with a single TE).

    Once again you don't know numbers. Sigle TE may give 5% of range, it's CCP after all. They don't want to give us numbers but you already make claims just like you know them. Most missile ships don't have free PG and slots to fits HAMLs with TE/TC and not gimping some stats.

    Lallante wrote:

    The "no alternative" line is also false. There are no real t1 alternatives to a Myrm for drone carriers, so why are there less than 1/6 of the number of Myrms used than Drakes?

    Ignorance. T1 alternatives for drone carriers are Vexor (which is much better than caracal) and Dominix (which is good and used pretty often). It's just the fact that drone boats don't work for 0.0 fleets.


    Even if it's true, it doesn't address the fact that everyone and their shuttle will be packing TDs
    Lallante
    Blue Republic
    RvB - BLUE Republic
    #3060 - 2012-09-26 11:46:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
    Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
    Lallante wrote:
    (in fact, my prediction is they will be heavily OP as they will project to longpoint range and hit HACs for full dmg with a single TE).

    Once again you don't know numbers. Sigle TE may give 5% of range, it's CCP after all. They don't want to give us numbers but you already make claims just like you know them. Most missile ships don't have free PG and slots to fits HAMLs with TE/TC and not gimping some stats.


    I'm making an educated guess that it will be 10 or more. 5% would be pointless and would never be fit. As I said I have Drake HAM setups that work fine, and likewise for the new caracal. Tengu HAML fits already are popular. What ships dont have PG for HAMLs? Please tell me you arent referencing ships that have yet to be balanced (and that noone flies at present).
    Quote:

    Lallante wrote:

    The "no alternative" line is also false. There are no real t1 alternatives to a Myrm for drone carriers, so why are there less than 1/6 of the number of Myrms used than Drakes?

    Ignorance. T1 alternatives for drone carriers are Vexor (which is much better than caracal) and Dominix (which is good and used pretty often). It's just the fact that drone boats don't work for 0.0 fleets.


    By the same token (and used just as much), I note Caracal and Typhoon.

    The reason Drakes and Tengus "work" for 0.0 fleets is that they are overpowered - they can fit tank and gank AND range all at the same time with no compromises.