Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Buffing missile ships like Drake and Tengu without even a little nerf isn't a good idea to start...

If you looked the Caracal got a CPU buff and 2 additional low slots on it to add the BCU to bring it back to the current lvl of DPS and the other to add a TE. So yes they are infact balancing missile ships around the proposed nerf.

If you look at the 4 attack cruisers the Caracal and the Thorax will be the 2 ships that shine after the changes. The stabber will likely be a heavy tackler and the omen is still up in the air.

Except of course if drake was worse people would use nighthawk, it is flat out better, just more expensive. Everyone knows cerb is broken. Nobody uses t1 cruisers (yet), navy cara is soley not used because a drake is flat out better. So of the three other ships that actually use hmls 2 are not used purely becasue the drake is a better platform for the isk while the third has been broken since the missile nerf.

Drakes resist bonus is not that big a deal, if it lost it would simply fit another resist mod in one of its utility meds. 100Mn tengus is a one trick pony, most are 10 Mn (thunderbirds) and the tengus is far superior than drake in buffer fleet or permamwd fits as well. Drake and Tengu are used simply because they are the best platform for the best (most adaptable) weapon. Drake because its cheap, tengu because it is highly surviveable (mainly due to its engagement range). Everyone who can fly a nighthawk can fly a drake, not so the other way round, and why would you do all that training just for a 10% better ship that costs you 200mil each time your fleet welps. If you want to spend isk you can train for a tengu, its quicker. Nighthawk is not used because its a command ship with the cost and sp limitations that imposes.

Posting on page 177 of the thread-ageddon.


I think that the main issue with TD's affecting missiles is that they will become the main all-in-one reliable solution for EWAR options on the average ship. Multiply this by the fact that the TD bonused ships from the amarr really don't get THAT big an advantage (25% on 30% TD is a wopping 35% bonus, woot). Compared to ECM, you don't really need a tracking disrupting ship to have an effective tracking disruption capability.

I think you need a separate module called a Ballistic Control Disruptor to make it a choice you make in the fitting screen and makes it stand out. As well, there is a possibility there... bear with me...

To give the missile disruption module as the bonused EWAR for Amarr disruption ships, and then give the current TD's to the Minmatar ships. And that would give the minmatar a real EWAR system to play with, while on a story level explaining why Minmatar swap between missiles and turrets (because of the ballistic disruption capability of the amarr).

Just throwing that out there...

After thinking over these changes for a few days.

Personally I know a overall damage reduction of 15% is enough. Which translates into 70 -90 damage per second less comparatively to other long range weapon systems with navy ammunition @ 15,000 - 20,000m. The Drakes advantage of consistent damage appilcation all over 50,000m is still intact.

With that said. Range was one of the Drakes biggest advantage.

Personally, I believe tier 2 battlecruisers and tech 1 ships below (cruisers, destroyers, frigates) effectiveness should be limited to 40,000m (40km) and less. The relm beyond that should be held by heavy assault cruisers, tier 3 battlecruisers, recons, strategic cruisers, heavy interdictors, Command ships and battleships etc (so, tech 2 ships , tier 3 battlecruisers or higher class ships).
Even with a 20% damage reduction the heavy missile-Drake will still be viable, but more so in groups (not to sure about solo). Anyway, the range reduction brings them closer to battleship damage projection which is also a hidden NERF.

The tracking enhancer and computer crowd seems some what deluded with regard to those proposed modules effectiveness, though. Tech 2 long range ammunition will always be a better (unless you want gimp) choice in terms of the player versus player enviroment and I've looked @ putting tracking ehancers and computers on every missile ship; command ship and below (Sacrilege, Crow and Hawk were somewhat interesting).

I hope to GAWD ccp does not do this effect missile thing because it's r3t@rded... Also BERF TD's... Never looked @ the PVE implications of these changes because I know next to nothing about PVE...
Anyway.

So, there's nothing but a hard NERF to heavy missiles and they SHOULD be NERFED back inline with the other long range weapon systems. Instead of being on par with close range weapon systems and also having the damage projection of long range weapon systems.

Anyway, nano /heavy assault missile-drakes using javlins seems like the future v0v @ least in small gangs and solo. Unless CCP nerfs the range on those that is...

Also increase light missiles damage by 20% = /

because most other faction battleships do.

To be honest people already use caracal gangs pre buff and basically they have a couple of good dictor pilots to keep the enemy bubbled and then they just kite away (thats at half the range sure enough, but missiles are getting a velocity buff as well) basically like a poor mans tengu. The dps is minimal (though enough to kill any random straggler) but the alpha from 10-15 caras is enough to kill any support stone dead all while the enemy can do nothing to fight back. Very effective though only a harassing tool. In many ways it is superior to sniper hacs, which tells you all you need to know about the current situation with the weapon systems.

10-15 of anything can alpha any support. notice how your strategy of making the caracal useful relies on the caracals being carried by other hulls and the enemy being unable to exploit any of its obvious weak spots.

Its not worse than an arty sleipnir any more than drake is worse than cane. And i see nothing wrong with a destroyer at close range using a close range weapon system having the dps of a bc (even t2) at long range using a long range weapon system.

I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else. Its the same with the other weapon systems, people find the best weapon system for a given tactic, then they look for the best platform. there is no point nerfing the platform, they will just pick the next best. Nerf navy geddon everyone goes back to abaddons for heavy pulse, nerf maelstroms evryone just uses tempests for 1400 arty. Balance the weapon systems though and its easy to fine tune ship bonuses.

Balancing nighthawk with drake is relativelty straightforward - reduce the training requirements (in the works), add some fitting (so it can fit hams), change the hml only bonuses so they effect hams, and make it omni damage if they do so with the drake. Currently while NH is a little better than drake using hmls if you have the skills and the isk, it is not so with hams.

With cerb there is not much wrong with the bonuses, its its puny frame that is the issue.