Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There we go. This I like. I wouldn't have even minded sticking with the 20% HM damage reduction with these other outlined tweaks. At first glance at the newest changes I was annoyed by rage missiles getting their explosion velocity and radius nerfed a bit more, but with the guided missile precision bonus actually affecting them, it should even out nicely. Good setup.

I think what you are asking for is a graph. :) Everyone in EVE loves graphs please post one if you can.

quick before our minds explode with too many numbers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MY HEAD IS GETTING BIGGER!!!!

I see some of updates Fozzie made to the original post, but will submit my post anyway.

I've said plenty about it in game and figure I might as well get in on this forum. These are just ideas and I haven't done any math or testing to figure out what numbers would be appropriate. That's CCP's job.

RANGE
The HM range nerf is harsh and should be reduced or removed. A recurring argument is that no other weapon system does full damage at their extreme optimals. A few points on that.

- First, missiles only do full damage if the target is not moving and its sig radius is favorable to the missiles explosion radius. There will always be some damage mitigation due to the targets movement, and any large missile will never do full damage to smaller targets without TP.
- Second, while missiles can project reliable damage to extreme ranges, they do absolutely zero damage once you go just 1m out of their range. Turrets have falloff ranges and still maintain chances to hit, and missiles lack this entirely. To rephrase, missiles lose ALL of their damage after their 'optimal' whereas turrets loose a prot
- And finally, delayed damage. The farther out your target it, the longer it takes to apply damage. Targets could potentially warp out before your missiles arrive, or be killed by turrets before your missiles arrive. If you warp out while your missiles are in flight they do no damage.

DAMAGE
The HM damage nerf should be reduced. One point CCP Fozzie has brought up is that this arises when players compare HMs to short range weapon systems. I'm not comparing HMs to Blasters or Autocannons. When I started EVE and decided to use missiles, I looked at HAMs vs. HMs. The small amount of additional DPS from the HAMs doesn't make up for their much harder fitting requirements and much shorter range. Of course, HAMs are the short range version, so the fix that comes to mind is a smaller nerf to HM damage and slight buff to HAM damage, with easier fitting reqs.

TRACKING
I understand that CCP can do as they please with making up stats and having something effect various attributes, but I don't like the idea of tracking disruptors, enhancers, or computers effecting anything to do with missiles. There's no aspect of missiles that involves the launcher rotating in order to track a target. Creating new mods with same effect is fine. It doesn't make sense for it to be an all in one mod. If this change t the very minimum, these should be different mods.

On a semi related note to the tracking changes, from what I've heard from a number of Amarr pilots, it seems like this change was made so that Amarr racial EWAR could effect missiles. This would be in the same vein as making projectiles and launchers use capacitor so they could be neuted out. CCP could do it easily, but it wouldn't make sense.

DAMAGE BONUS
An "advantage" of missiles is that you get to choose your damage type. Being bonused for kinetic makes that advantage less appealing, especially at higher levels when you'll use kinetic over an NPC weakness because the bonused damage simply outweighs their weakness. Further, a 10 second reload time often means you won't be switching to a more effective damage type in the heat of a PvP battle. I see the new Caldari destroyer is getting a kinetic damage bonus. Caldari ships should be moved away from kinetic bonuses and towards general damage bonuses. That would maintain the neighborhood of volley damages that kinetic currently gets. An alternative would be a RoF bonus, lowering volley damage but maintaining bonused kinetic levels of DPS, while making counting volleys harder.

A reduction in reload time for all weapons would make switching ranges for turrets and damage types for projectiles and missiles a practical option. I remember reading in the skill discussion forum a suggestion for a skill that accomplishes that that was called Ordinance Handling. I would add to it that for lasers and mining crystals the skill could reduce damage and extend their lives.

Both precision and fury are closer range than T1 or faction.

Well, even range fury/precision sounds like a fair balance, but I think the range nerf of heavy missiles might need to be compensated by a bit.

I feel if you're going to nerf fury range (which was the problem to begin with) to javelin range, then I don't see the need for anymore than a 5-10% range nerf.

Ignore this part as it's already answered (((Also, as I asked, will t1/CN be our long range ammo?))))

If so, I might suggest leaving their numbers alone, but perhaps nerfing the range of faction missiles.

So, it would be

t1 - mod damage, long range, mod application
CN - higher damage, mid range, mod application
Precision - low damage, short range, high application
Fury- high damage, short range, low application

Like I said, if this is the goal I think you should consider taking away the direct hml range nerf and instead nerf the individual missiles.
perhaps t1 would retain the 70km range??

I agree I think more people would be happier if they just got rid of Fury and Precision and had Rage and Javelin. It would keep things more uniform and that way all missile launchers would have a short ranged hi damage, mid range mid damage, and long range low damage. Yes people will say you are dumbing down EVE but this would make people happy and very easy to understand.

we'd still have our long range ammo in the form of t1 and faction

However, as a missile boat pilot being honest, I feel the navy should have a range reduction to put it lower range than t1, but higher damage

After reading the first 10 pages of this "thread", here are the common complaints and possible fixes:

20% damage reduction is too much, start with 10%.
many complaints about the TD/TC/TE affects, but just as many like the new range/'tracking' bonus.

Possible solutions:

Switch the cpu/PG requirements for HAMs and HM's...so the long range weapons have the higher pg cost. THAT might be a better fix than anything else. Fitting a 6 HAM tengu requires fitting mods and/or a gimped tank, same for a Cerberus. either hams w/ tank, no tackle, or hams+tackle, no tank (though only a little experience in that realm). However, the nightwawk will definitly need a large PG boost, and the cerb will probably need a smallish-medium ish pg boost as well.

I think swapping the PG/CPU fitting for HAMs and HM's would be just as controversial, but more in-line with other weapon systems.

Also, target painters help out missile and turret ships, that's probably why CCP is applying the TD/TC/TE to missiles now. Thinking about it that way makes sense game-wise, if not common-sense wise.

I think the prevalent use of the drake+tengu is much more a problem of the Caldari race: they don't have any battlehips that are as good as a tengu. When cruise missiles and torps aren't just blatantly laughed at, then Caldari pilots will have more to rely on than just a tengu and drake

Also, 5% reduction in HM damage, 5-7% boost to HAM damage, possibly bonus to explosion velocity (better tracking, like close-range guns). Might actually see the sacrelige more than once a year that way.

TL;DR: swap PG/CPU req's for Hams and HM's, it might be a better way than just nerf-hammering a single weapon system. Not an end-all, be-all, but might work better than the large headache that's threatening to show up in December.