These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3481 - 2012-09-28 21:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Which is why they are rebalancing. TE/TC will help all those unused ships and their different missile platforms. Suddenly a bomber can go kill frigs with torps! So they can basically now compete with turrets, and they can be destroyed by a TD, just like turrets.


Well not really, it's not like they were overtanked to begin with.

It's asking them to make a sacrifice they will have a hard time juggling. It also creates a module which amounts to multispec ECM on steroids, there's NO-ONE it will be a bad move against. This will only serve to make TC/TE mandatory in order to retain todays (already iffy) DPS. At a cost of EHP, which they dont have to spare.

The TC/TE is a decent PvE buff, no mistake, but in PvP...it's a flat out nerf. There are no (non HML) hulls with slots to spare and (afaik) no hulls with stupid ass tanks - drake-gu aside again.

I mean, fair play if all missile boats were OTT, but they're NOT - Not right now. It's currently quite the opposite, so why not balance the hulls THEN bring the change in? I'm not adverse to the change when looking at the( very) long game, but now? Now makes NO sense to me and I've seen no material evidence that we need to drop missile boat power projection. So far the only debate seems to be "it also affects turrets" and that's pretty weak for a number of reasons I really shouldn't need to detail.



For what its worth: I keep saying ignore the HML platforms as that weapon system itself is specifically being nerfed directly, lets assume for ease that it is appropriate and brings those hulls into 'normal' lines.


Edit: @Jorma I already mentioned in this thread that the SNI has the potential to be a mission beast, not sure about he raven, don't think it can spare the slots too easily, maybe one low, I've not checked extensively.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#3482 - 2012-09-28 21:34:50 UTC
Yeah, sorry, I'll try to keep HML's out of it. But as stated by CCP, it's impossible to balance ships around a system that is going to get changed as a whole on a later date, because then you have to rebalance all over again. TD's will inevitably affect missiles. If we don't take that into account when balancing, then all hulls will be broken (underpowered) when that change hits, or they will all be overpowered until it's changed. Drakes and Tengus had their FOTY, now it's time they feel the pain for a while as balancing takes it's time.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3483 - 2012-09-28 21:41:21 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
The TC/TE is a decent PvE buff, no mistake, but in PvP...it's a flat out nerf. There are no (non HML) hulls with slots to spare and (afaik) no hulls with stupid ass tanks - drake-gu aside again.


For example Raven has 5 low slots. 4 for BCSs and one for suitcase? How about 3 for BCS, one for suitcase and one for TE?

Fitting compromises... It's not that difficult when you get used to it.

Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Edit: @Jorma I already mentioned in this thread that the SNI has the potential to be a mission beast, not sure about he raven, don't think it can spare the slots too easily, maybe one low, I've not checked extensively.


It needs one more mid slot...
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3484 - 2012-09-28 21:43:53 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Yeah, sorry, I'll try to keep HML's out of it. But as stated by CCP, it's impossible to balance ships around a system that is going to get changed as a whole on a later date, because then you have to rebalance all over again. TD's will inevitably affect missiles. If we don't take that into account when balancing, then all hulls will be broken (underpowered) when that change hits, or they will all be overpowered until it's changed. Drakes and Tengus had their FOTY, now it's time they feel the pain for a while as balancing takes it's time.


I agree, but can't work out why the TD needs doing now - unless its reaction to a backhanded PvE buff...which as I say would be a bit weird.

Of course, if its a separate module, then my concern can be considered addressed as we're back to rock, paper scissors modules and not "fit this or die"
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3485 - 2012-09-28 21:54:27 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I agree, but can't work out why the TD needs doing now - unless its reaction to a backhanded PvE buff...which as I say would be a bit weird.

Of course, if its a separate module, then my concern can be considered addressed as we're back to rock, paper scissors modules and not "fit this or die"


I (and probably others) have mentioned that not all ships have mid slots for TD because there's way too many useful modules like cap boosters, prop mods, you know.

Please, go and check bonuses for new Arbitrator.

For me it looks like they are going to nerf base stats for TD. And to get full potential you have to use Arbitrator or its T2 variants. You know, the hull that's not exactly #1 on dps list. To get a decent dps out of them you need very good drone skills.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#3486 - 2012-09-28 21:58:53 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

I agree, but can't work out why the TD needs doing now - unless its reaction to a backhanded PvE buff...which as I say would be a bit weird.

Of course, if its a separate module, then my concern can be considered addressed as we're back to rock, paper scissors modules and not "fit this or die"

It needs to be done now if it is going to be done at all. Reasons are stated in my prev post. It's a balancing and time issue. 2 modules would be bad imo, rather make 2 new scripts.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3487 - 2012-09-28 22:04:34 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

I agree, but can't work out why the TD needs doing now - unless its reaction to a backhanded PvE buff...which as I say would be a bit weird.

Of course, if its a separate module, then my concern can be considered addressed as we're back to rock, paper scissors modules and not "fit this or die"

It needs to be done now if it is going to be done at all. Reasons are stated in my prev post. It's a balancing and time issue. 2 modules would be bad imo, rather make 2 new scripts.


Maybe, but the why do it at all is still a mystery.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3488 - 2012-09-28 22:41:17 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Maybe, but the why do it at all is still a mystery.


Think about what would be possible if there's no way to counter TE/TC.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3489 - 2012-09-28 22:44:54 UTC
I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;)
Doddy
Excidium.
#3490 - 2012-09-28 22:49:11 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;)


You realise fall-off is a bad thing right? Why would you want it?
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3491 - 2012-09-28 22:50:10 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;)


No TD for missiles = no TE/TC for missiles
It's as simple as that.

By your logic: to use TDs you don't need any gunnery skills so why would they affect turrets?
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3492 - 2012-09-28 22:57:10 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Maybe, but the why do it at all is still a mystery.


Think about what would be possible if there's no way to counter TE/TC.


Thats chicken & egg though - why introduce either?
Doddy
Excidium.
#3493 - 2012-09-28 23:03:36 UTC
They should just make eccm reduce the effect of tds, then the people who don't want to use eccm "becasue thats all its good for" but still cry about ecm and the people scared of omg omnitds could all have a big group hug.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3494 - 2012-09-28 23:12:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Thats chicken & egg though - why introduce either?


So you want them to buff base stats for missiles? That's actually a very bad idea.

Why? Because then missiles would be the only viable weapon system in the game.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#3495 - 2012-09-28 23:21:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Thats chicken & egg though - why introduce either?


So you want them to buff base stats for missiles? That's actually a very bad idea.

Why? Because then missiles would be the only viable weapon system in the game.


Doesn't need to be that specifically, get the hulls competitive first (however you do it), then add more dynamics to it.

Most missile boats are not great today, making them weaker today in anticpation of a balance patch/xpack 6/12/18 months away is not really the way to go, imo.

Imagine if, instead of buffing hybrids when they did, they instead made them worse with plans to buff the hulls a year later...
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3496 - 2012-09-28 23:47:20 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Doesn't need to be that specifically, get the hulls competitive first (however you do it), then add more dynamics to it.

Most missile boats are not great today, making them weaker today in anticpation of a balance patch/xpack 6/12/18 months away is not really the way to go, imo.

Imagine if, instead of buffing hybrids when they did, they instead made them worse with plans to buff the hulls a year later...


The problem is that it's not generally wise to rebalance all ships in one day. Real rebalancing takes time. A lot of it.

Of course there are many missile boats that need buffing but I've also seen in this thread very odd things like "cruise Raven is bad at killing frigs" and similar.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3497 - 2012-09-28 23:48:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Thats chicken & egg though - why introduce either?


So you want them to buff base stats for missiles? That's actually a very bad idea.

Why? Because then missiles would be the only viable weapon system in the game.


Doesn't need to be that specifically, get the hulls competitive first (however you do it), then add more dynamics to it.

Most missile boats are not great today, making them weaker today in anticpation of a balance patch/xpack 6/12/18 months away is not really the way to go, imo.

Imagine if, instead of buffing hybrids when they did, they instead made them worse with plans to buff the hulls a year later...

Due to the order that they are doing things there will be an overlap period where either some HML platforms will be rebalanced and have current HML's thus making observing them in their intended role and tweaking them impossible in the short term, or start missile changes as soon as the first HML ship is balanced. They choose the later, balancing HML with the caracal. Almost makes me wish they did all levels of a ship size (T1/T2/Faction/etc) at the same or similar times.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#3498 - 2012-09-29 00:32:09 UTC
To fit a TD and benefit from it, you need to be able to dictate range. To dictate range,you need a shield tank. Oh, that will be a problem, unless you want to fly with no tank... In fact, even with a spare mid slot, a TD won't be an obvious choice : cap injector ? web ? ECCM ? Tracking computer ? battery ? sensor booster ? more tank if shield tanked ? ASB (why not...) ?

BTW, TD will be useful only for frigates : missiles already have plenty of range, and TE/TC will give them even more ; explosion velocity/radius will probably not be so badly affected that you cannot hit BC/BS, and shield tank cruiser shouldn't see the difference either. No, I really think the only ship to benefit from TD affecting missiles will be frigates and maybe some very specific fits (and specialized ships of course).

Working TD fit are very specific, and this change will make them better, but not even fotm IMO.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3499 - 2012-09-29 00:40:45 UTC
Doddy wrote:
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;)


You realise fall-off is a bad thing right? Why would you want it?


Err, no its not, when TEs come there and have an effect more falloff is better than less. Ask Winmatar. I agree with you its not the best to always fight in falloff, but if you have more range like that than your enemy, falloff is far from being useful.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3500 - 2012-09-29 00:51:12 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;)


You realise fall-off is a bad thing right? Why would you want it?


Err, no its not, when TEs come there and have an effect more falloff is better than less. Ask Winmatar. I agree with you its not the best to always fight in falloff, but if you have more range like that than your enemy, falloff is far from being useful.

More falloff is still worse than more optimal and missiles have no falloff mechanic so they have all "optimal" out to and beyond optimal + falloff for other weapons systems.