These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lili Lu
#3641 - 2012-09-30 18:14:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Harvey James wrote:
Nah the prophecy is going to be drone boat and harbinger will be mini abbadon plus you cant have 2 caldari bc's with resist bonus and they arent going to remove the ferox's if they want people to use it

Well, it certainly will be interesting when they get to BCs. As for the not two resist bonused Caldari BCs, couldn't the same be said for not having two range bonused Caldari BCs?

One of Fozzie's followup posts hinted that the resist bonus on the Drake is not necessarily on the chopping block (even as nebulous as that chopping block is atm since they are still working on frigs and cruisers atm).

A mini Abaddon out of the Harby is a possibility. But it could just as easily be a mini Apoc/Abaddon (optimal and damage bonus) and the prophecy with drone damage and resist bonus. Loads of possibilities exist for all the races. Regardless I sure hope they manage to make the Gallente ships somehow relevant. And anyway, the BCs will not be getting the overall buffing that frigs and cruisers are getting. In fact I would argue they will still need some overall nerfing so as to not once again negate the combat cruisers and continue the training rush to BC.Smile
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3642 - 2012-09-30 18:16:34 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
bc's are meant to be close range so why would they give it a missile velocity bonus?
Tier3's do all the sniping we need otherwise look at the cerb or caracal/ raven for missile sniping .. as much as missiles can snipe anyway


I wouldn't say that tier 3s are meant to be snipers.

They're more like destroyers in that they're glass cannons.

Now, no one ever said that tier 2s are only supposed to be close range boats either.

If this were the case than all their bonuses would only be specifically to short range weapons.

CCP would never limit a ship to be just a ranged boat, or just a short range boat.

Sure, some may have bonuses that suggest long range weapons, and some may have bonuses that suggest short range weapons (i.e. tracking/optimal bonuses) but they can still be effective with the opposing weapons.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3643 - 2012-09-30 18:18:10 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Onictus wrote:

Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far.

I guess missiles users will need some time to get used to TE/TC and their T2 ammo...


basic drake without implats can break 80k
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3644 - 2012-09-30 18:19:52 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Nah the prophecy is going to be drone boat and harbinger will be mini abbadon plus you cant have 2 caldari bc's with resist bonus and they arent going to remove the ferox's if they want people to use it

Well, it certainly will be interesting when they get to BCs. As for the not two resist bonused Caldari BCs, couldn't the same be said for not having two range bonused Caldari BCs?

One of Fozzie's followup posts hinted that the resist bonus on the Drake is not necessarily on the chopping block (even as nebulous as that chopping block is atm since they are still working on frigs and cruisers atm).

A mini Abaddon out of the Harby is a possibility. But it could just as easily be a mini Apoc/Abaddon (optimal and damage bonus) and the prophecy with drone damage and resist bonus. Loads of possibilities exist for all the races. Regardless I sure hope they manage to make the Gallente ships somehow relevant. And anyway, the BCs will not be getting the overall buffing that frigs and cruisers are getting. In fact I would argue they will still need some overall nerfing so as to not once again negate the combat cruisers and continue the training rush to BC.Smile



Well, I think they'll try to leave the battlecruisers along the same lines they are now.

The reason why I say this is because they're buffing cruisers quite a bit, so to nerf bcs may bring them too close together and end up leaving a cap between cruiser and bs...
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#3645 - 2012-09-30 18:21:50 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
bc's are meant to be close range so why would they give it a missile velocity bonus?
Tier3's do all the sniping we need otherwise look at the cerb or caracal/ raven for missile sniping .. as much as missiles can snipe anyway


I wouldn't say that tier 3s are meant to be snipers.

They're more like destroyers in that they're glass cannons.

Now, no one ever said that tier 2s are only supposed to be close range boats either.

If this were the case than all their bonuses would only be specifically to short range weapons.

CCP would never limit a ship to be just a ranged boat, or just a short range boat.

Sure, some may have bonuses that suggest long range weapons, and some may have bonuses that suggest short range weapons (i.e. tracking/optimal bonuses) but they can still be effective with the opposing weapons.


why do you think they removed torps from naga?
the devs have already said that they were designed with sniping very much in mind

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

serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3646 - 2012-09-30 18:26:11 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
Lili Lu wrote:
You see this is why the Drake had to be nerfed (even if only indirectly through HMs) because all these supposed knowledgable Drake pilots posting their butthurt here couldn't even fathom how to construct a 100km + range oneRoll. They have got to be the most unimaginitive lot in the game. They've never had range considerations forced on them, or tradeoff considerations in general for that matter, and now they will. They will have to learn to be creative with fittings and sacrificing things they formerly couldn't see past like the brick tank or whatever, in order to make the ship perform in a specific desired way.

And the sad thing is even with these changes it will still be probably best in class by virtue of the resist bonus. But I'm going to dance the day that the ridiculous BC shield regen stat gets altered, even though that will only affect pve. The damn things have been imbalanced from the getgo. It has led a charmed life, while the Myrm's op'd original 125m3 bandwidth was overnerfed at warp speed.

Oh and someone's bound to say but but the regen time was already increased to 1400 from 1250. Yeah but at the same time it got purger rigs which essentially restored the regen tank to what it was. The regen on a BS is 2500, and a Cruiser 1250. Meanwhile the shield hp of a BC is much closer to a BS's than a Cruisers. So even if the regen was placed squarely between a BS and a Cruiser at 1875 it would still regen faster than the other two ships due to having the hp skewed toward a BS's. I doubt it will get nerfed to 1875, but there's plenty of room between 1400 and 1875.Blink

Drake/Tengu/HML addicts have ever only needed these three things to just about everything in this game, and usually quite well and even easier than any other race or class of ships. That is being taken away. Adjust fellas. There are plenty of aspects to this game you will have to discover the same way people who haven't followed the easy route have been doing for years. Yeah, I know what I'm talking about because I built an empire alt specifically into that easy route myself.Blink I'll be looking forward to a Nighthawk buff on that character, but I've also trained it into Gallente ships for the Domi since every character in this game should have two races trained. And on the off-chance that CCP finally fiures out how to fix Gallente "soon."P


lol your assumeing a nighthawk buff but all itll most likely be is 5% dmg with a flight time bonus so wont actualy buff anything maybe get an extra low if were lucky but thats it.
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#3647 - 2012-09-30 18:30:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?
  • Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control.



    Reduced fitting costs for HAMs is something I would very very much like. Do want.

    "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

    Lili Lu
    #3648 - 2012-09-30 18:44:49 UTC
    serras bang wrote:
    lol your assumeing a nighthawk buff but all itll most likely be is 5% dmg with a flight time bonus so wont actualy buff anything maybe get an extra low if were lucky but thats it.

    The tech II BC rebalancing is far off on the horizon. We really can't have any idea what they will look like til we see what is done with tech I BCs and BSs, and then in what order tech III cruisers, tech II Cruisers and tech II BCs will be addressed.

    But in general it appears safe to say the tech II BCs will get some level of buff in comparison to all those. At least safe to say the current Nighthawk, Abso, and Astarte since they are all are weak in comparison to the current Sleip.
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #3649 - 2012-09-30 18:52:16 UTC
    Lili Lu wrote:
    serras bang wrote:
    lol your assumeing a nighthawk buff but all itll most likely be is 5% dmg with a flight time bonus so wont actualy buff anything maybe get an extra low if were lucky but thats it.

    The tech II BC rebalancing is far off on the horizon. We really can't have any idea what they will look like til we see what is done with tech I BCs and BSs, and then in what order tech III cruisers, tech II Cruisers and tech II BCs will be addressed.

    But in general it appears safe to say the tech II BCs will get some level of buff in comparison to all those. At least safe to say the current Nighthawk, Abso, and Astarte since they are all are weak in comparison to the current Sleip.


    The sleip is very nice perhaps too good like a heavy vaga almost could use some tweaks i think but it also depends on what they plan to do with command links in terms of AOE/range of them as this would be a limiting factor in terms of weapon range personally i hope they bring them into Long point range so there tank bonus means something otherwise why give let them have such strong tank as they will surely buff their EHP and more slots.

    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

    Jorma Morkkis
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #3650 - 2012-09-30 19:32:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
    Lili Lu wrote:
    Oh and here's a fun eft exercize for Drake addicts. Try getting a mwd, 7 heavy beam II, and an 800 plate onto the current Harbinger and having it even with falloff touching 100km. Since one of the recent posts I read did not seem to understand the grid penalty cost of range rigs for guns, and seemed to think the 80% range bonus with tech II ammo was all that. Also, try giving it some tank, and oh note your dps at that range. Have fun.Lol


    Even though I'm not a Drake addict but I just had to... DPS isn't high especially so deep in falloff...
    All level 5, no implants.

    Pyfa stats:
    DPS (in optimal): 271
    EHP: 31,4k
    Range: 82,9km + 19,2km
    Scan res: 341mm
    Cap lasts: 2m25s

    [Harbinger, 100k Harby, kinda]

    800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
    Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
    Tracking Enhancer II
    Tracking Enhancer II
    Heat Sink II
    Heat Sink II

    Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
    Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
    Sensor Booster II
    Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script

    Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
    Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M
    [Empty High slot]

    Medium Energy Locus Coordinator II
    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    Medium Ancillary Current Router I
    HELLBOUNDMAN
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #3651 - 2012-09-30 20:01:39 UTC
    Harvey James wrote:
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    bc's are meant to be close range so why would they give it a missile velocity bonus?
    Tier3's do all the sniping we need otherwise look at the cerb or caracal/ raven for missile sniping .. as much as missiles can snipe anyway


    I wouldn't say that tier 3s are meant to be snipers.

    They're more like destroyers in that they're glass cannons.

    Now, no one ever said that tier 2s are only supposed to be close range boats either.

    If this were the case than all their bonuses would only be specifically to short range weapons.

    CCP would never limit a ship to be just a ranged boat, or just a short range boat.

    Sure, some may have bonuses that suggest long range weapons, and some may have bonuses that suggest short range weapons (i.e. tracking/optimal bonuses) but they can still be effective with the opposing weapons.


    why do you think they removed torps from naga?
    the devs have already said that they were designed with sniping very much in mind


    Actually, the naga originally had a bonus to torps.

    They removed it because torps couldnt compete with turrets on a glass cannon.

    Also, you can squeeze a lot of dps out of a close range tier 3.
    HELLBOUNDMAN
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #3652 - 2012-09-30 20:11:14 UTC  |  Edited by: HELLBOUNDMAN
    Is there any consideration that comes from the alliance tournament?

    To me it seems to be a good reference point on capability.

    Drakes and tengus did ok, but only if they use kiting with hmls..

    Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?

    And didnt that very same team use winmatar the whole way through?

    If hmls are so op, then how come they didnt pwn on a level playing field?

    Granted I will say that tengus did outperform other t3s, but it underperformed to sleips and clays by a lot.

    I would have to say that winmatar noticeably shined in the alliance tournament, and hmls underperformed in the alliance tournament.

    However, gallente was almost missing from the battlefield besides the kronos.

    I take that back, gallente was present, but mostly in the form of drone boats.
    serras bang
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #3653 - 2012-09-30 20:20:54 UTC
    Lili Lu wrote:
    serras bang wrote:
    lol your assumeing a nighthawk buff but all itll most likely be is 5% dmg with a flight time bonus so wont actualy buff anything maybe get an extra low if were lucky but thats it.

    The tech II BC rebalancing is far off on the horizon. We really can't have any idea what they will look like til we see what is done with tech I BCs and BSs, and then in what order tech III cruisers, tech II Cruisers and tech II BCs will be addressed.

    But in general it appears safe to say the tech II BCs will get some level of buff in comparison to all those. At least safe to say the current Nighthawk, Abso, and Astarte since they are all are weak in comparison to the current Sleip.


    we also have no idea if the resist profile will be staying with tech 2 ect it maybe that it dosent. however thats an interesting thing why bugger over the tengus subs ect and leave as is with a tech 1 initial resist profile and do the same with the rest of the t3's ? wouldnt that indead balance a lot of the issues out while stopping oversides abs and mwd's
    Jorma Morkkis
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #3654 - 2012-09-30 20:29:10 UTC
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
    Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?


    Yes, it was Minmatar rush setup.

    But you can't say ASBs didn't have anything to do with it. Sleipnirs with ASBs...
    HELLBOUNDMAN
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #3655 - 2012-09-30 20:36:17 UTC
    Jorma Morkkis wrote:
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
    Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?


    Yes, it was Minmatar rush setup.

    But you can't say ASBs didn't have anything to do with it. Sleipnirs with ASBs...


    I was gonna mention that, but a lot of fleets were using them as well.
    May Ke
    Maxxim Heavy Industries Inc.
    #3656 - 2012-09-30 20:37:55 UTC
    Thanks for ruining the cane. BC's should be able to fit the largest medium-sized guns, why else would they be developed? Why have a ship that is bigger than a cruiser, yet not able to fit battleship-size guns, and design it so that it cannot be used effectively? Not logical.

    Who? Me?

    Noemi Nagano
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #3657 - 2012-09-30 20:55:29 UTC
    Gypsio III wrote:
    Noemi Nagano wrote:
    Gypsio III wrote:
    Noemi Nagano wrote:
    Bottom line: atm the Tengu is considered to be worse in PvE than the Vargur (and Paladin in EM-missions), and the only missions where it really shines are kinetic-resist weak enemies anyway, means in all others its even more behind. Still its better than the current Golem or CNR. So if its getting a nerf, pls bring the others in line with Winmatar.


    Please post mission completion times in various factions' space to support this assertion.


    Its been done plenty of times, and common sense tells the same. I wont do your work, and your tendency to not answer most of my questions at all is not helping to motivate me more either.


    Actually I answered your questions, point by point. You just didn't like the answers so you ignored them.

    It's your job to provide evidence to support your assertions. Otherwise the signal-to-noise ratio of your posts will remain distressingly low. You'd still be be better than Hellboundman, though. Lol


    Sorry, but no. You didnt answer my questions point by point. You answered some, yes. And for others you gave indirect answers. I rarely heard a "yes" or "no" when in fact it was easy to give one or the other. You postponed this 1on1 test to another time, in fact stating I was right but not saying it, for example ... but I dont want to let this get off line - its ok, you decided to do it like you did. If you question common sense statements and try to look smart that way, go on.

    I know there are enough ppl who know the truth about those things, and so I will just stick to them. Its a bit too much of an effort to go on like this :)

    Matter of factly large ACs are far more out of line than HML, and Mach is more out of line than Tengu and Drake together. Since its highend/highprice content its a bit less of an issue for CCP though obviously .. still the fact remains, a so called OP BC for Caldari gets nerfed (which is decent in long range PvP and l4 missions), totally OP l4 masher AC-ships stay like they are, PvP in BS hulls is still a no-missile thing (apart from maybe the Typhoon, as its Winmatar thats maybe legit ..), and long range PvP in missiles works even worse than now. I dont like this kind of change, it makes the game even more boring than it is now.
    Noemi Nagano
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #3658 - 2012-09-30 21:05:31 UTC
    Onictus wrote:
    Ivian Khorn wrote:
    Onictus wrote:
    Crazy Nymphora wrote:
    20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right?



    Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far.



    At all 5 you have no more than 70 and effective range no more than 66. And with drake speed... you have a little chance to make it.


    Listed range is 115, and I most certainly have hit targets from 100 with it.


    He is right there, his ship is rigged for range though. Point is - with less DPS it would just not work anymore either. And those who say learn about tech 2 ammo should maybe check which t2 ammo is available for HML.
    Noemi Nagano
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #3659 - 2012-09-30 21:10:53 UTC
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
    Is there any consideration that comes from the alliance tournament?

    To me it seems to be a good reference point on capability.

    Drakes and tengus did ok, but only if they use kiting with hmls..

    Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?

    And didnt that very same team use winmatar the whole way through?

    If hmls are so op, then how come they didnt pwn on a level playing field?

    Granted I will say that tengus did outperform other t3s, but it underperformed to sleips and clays by a lot.

    I would have to say that winmatar noticeably shined in the alliance tournament, and hmls underperformed in the alliance tournament.

    However, gallente was almost missing from the battlefield besides the kronos.

    I take that back, gallente was present, but mostly in the form of drone boats.


    Well, thats my point too. Where else than in a tournament can you see which ships are considered to be top for PvP?

    And about PvE: if you go to missions hubs of corps with decent LP shops you will find those Machariels and Vargurs in dozens.
    HELLBOUNDMAN
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #3660 - 2012-09-30 21:19:55 UTC
    Jorma Morkkis wrote:
    HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
    Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?


    Yes, it was Minmatar rush setup.

    But you can't say ASBs didn't have anything to do with it. Sleipnirs with ASBs...


    Also, I could be wrong but I seem to remember minmatar performing quite well in at9 when there weren't any asbs.