These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3841 - 2012-10-01 19:59:27 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what?


35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either.

Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values.


Can Missiles Please get either damage specific resistance or more structure to make firewalling less easy to remove most damage.


The velocity buff already makes firewalls a little less powerful, I wouldn't want to nerf them further at this time considering how difficult a really good firewall is to pull off today.



You don't apparently know how to firewall then.

6 - 8 smartbombs means a smartbomb cycling every 1 second or less

With 12km diameter, the chance of a missile making it through the gap even with 15,000 m/s speed is slim to none. On a non velocity boosted ship, it's even more severe.

And saying a "little less powerful" when a Firewall is about 90-95% effective already, is not a promising statement.

What other fleet doctrine takes that kind of hit?

Just a natural Resistance of 90% on one damage type would make it much harder to firewall.

Is there something wrong with webbing the fire wall and moving around it?? Firewalls are fine. Sure they can be challenging to deal with for pilots who only know how to align, lock and shoot one target.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3842 - 2012-10-01 19:59:33 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Spc One wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Innominate wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit


In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them."

this really pisses me off...

ccp fozzie please explain this change which was needed was scrapped?

Because TD would become overpowered?

There were a number of potential counter proposals presented to lessen if not prevent this. I'm going to take the optimistic approach here and guess they want to finish working with large missile systems during the BS rebalance before adding a mechanic that affects all missile systems.


yeah fingers crossed here buddy...

i think the perfect solution would be make it so only specialised e-war ships could use scripts and then add a tech II scripts that incease the bonus to 125%...

this would make it so using a td on a condor would not be that great and would not kill pvp as its doing today. but having a bud in a amarr ewar frig with a td with a tech II optimal range script would sevearly reduce range...

i am still hopefull that perhaps the affects for both te/tc/td will make it into the missiles sooner then later.. like version 1.1 or something like that in january...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3843 - 2012-10-01 20:00:18 UTC
Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3844 - 2012-10-01 20:02:58 UTC
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated.


expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs.

That's more waisted ammo for us
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#3845 - 2012-10-01 20:08:51 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated.


expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs.

That's more waisted ammo for us

And more server lag ?
Lol
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3846 - 2012-10-01 20:11:26 UTC
Spc One wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated.


expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs.

That's more waisted ammo for us

And more server lag ?
Lol



and more isk sinks..

more ammo used means more isk used to use that ammo...

now only if heat made it so your lenzes burn out...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3847 - 2012-10-01 20:12:41 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Spc One wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated.


expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs.

That's more waisted ammo for us

And more server lag ?
Lol



and more isk sinks..

more ammo used means more isk used to use that ammo...

now only if heat made it so your lenzes burn out...

That's not an isk sink.


Although it would be awesome if all missile sizes were... halved?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#3848 - 2012-10-01 20:14:24 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated.


expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs.

That's more waisted[sic] ammo for us


Gets a superior damage bonus. Complains about ammo consumption.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3849 - 2012-10-01 20:15:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
Another solution instead of increasing launcher capacity aor halving missile size could be reducing reload time. Currently missiles spend more time than any weapon system to reloads.
Milton Middleson wrote:

Gets a superior damage bonus. Complains about ammo consumption.

Well it's different from Matars who can load 120 shots into a turret and have 20000 spare ammo in cargo.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3850 - 2012-10-01 20:16:19 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated.


expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs.

That's more waisted[sic] ammo for us


Gets a superior damage bonus. Complains about ammo consumption.


I've never complained about the ammo we were doing.

But I have complained many times about the waisted volleys
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3851 - 2012-10-01 20:17:29 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
Spc One wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Innominate wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit


In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them."

this really pisses me off...

ccp fozzie please explain this change which was needed was scrapped?

Because TD would become overpowered?



what do you mean by would?

they already are...

the fact that you can put two tracking disrupters with optimal range scripts in a condor means that the other 3 attack frigs are useless...

by making it so td's affect missiles and turrets and then making it so only specialsed e-war ships can use scripts would offset this and i would not have to shame myself by having to fly condors all the damn time...

moreover light missiles are getting a damn damage boost... so fotm condor here we come... ffs... What?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3852 - 2012-10-01 20:20:59 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:
Another solution instead of increasing launcher capacity aor halving missile size could be reducing reload time. Currently missiles spend more time than any weapon system to reloads.

Projectiles also take 10 seconds to reload, and until fairly recently so did hybrids.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#3853 - 2012-10-01 20:25:59 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what?


35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either.

Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values.


Can Missiles Please get either damage specific resistance or more structure to make firewalling less easy to remove most damage.


The velocity buff already makes firewalls a little less powerful, I wouldn't want to nerf them further at this time considering how difficult a really good firewall is to pull off today.



You don't apparently know how to firewall then.

6 - 8 smartbombs means a smartbomb cycling every 1 second or less

With 12km diameter, the chance of a missile making it through the gap even with 15,000 m/s speed is slim to none. On a non velocity boosted ship, it's even more severe.

And saying a "little less powerful" when a Firewall is about 90-95% effective already, is not a promising statement.

What other fleet doctrine takes that kind of hit?

Just a natural Resistance of 90% on one damage type would make it much harder to firewall.


I'm told from a reliable source that HML TD'ing Sacrilege fleet can nullify the damage from turrets.

Though I must say, if you actually believe 6 large smartbombs render missile fleets moot, why have Drake fleets been amongst the popular for half a decade?

~
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#3854 - 2012-10-01 20:28:49 UTC
Well i would hope e-war is going to be more centralized as it is too strong on unbonused ships

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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3855 - 2012-10-01 20:37:26 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Well i would hope e-war is going to be more centralized as it is too strong on unbonused ships



yes its simple...

step one remove e-war scripts from all ships

step two make the use of e-war scripts a role bonus for ewar ships

step three make tech II versions of e-war scripts that have a 125% bonus to thier specific enhancement i.e. optimal range disrution bonus 125%

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#3856 - 2012-10-01 20:40:26 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Well i would hope e-war is going to be more centralized as it is too strong on unbonused ships



yes its simple...

step one remove e-war scripts from all ships

step two make the use of e-war scripts a role bonus for ewar ships

step three make tech II versions of e-war scripts that have a 125% bonus to thier specific enhancement i.e. optimal range disrution bonus 125%



125% is excessive to say the least just halve the effectiveness of most of the e-war or thereabouts should do the trick maybe nerf scripts a little as-well.

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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#3857 - 2012-10-01 20:47:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
so by my calculations Rage HAM's will be able to do something in the region of 15km at lv5 skills thats before any mods/rigs buff them now to me that seems excessive for a supposed short range high damage ammo type even conflag can't reach that far and lasers usually have the best range its clearly way too much as the fact that torps have the same range tells you this.

Surely 9km is more reasonable considering all the guns are well into falloff at this point
Which by extension means javelin is also too far ranged.

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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#3858 - 2012-10-01 20:49:42 UTC
Harvey James wrote:


125% is excessive to say the least just halve the effectiveness of most of the e-war or thereabouts should do the trick maybe nerf scripts a little as-well.



i am thinking nerf all the ewar mods by a bunch

then increase the racial bonus on ewar ships

then introduce tech II scripts that will make them as usefull as they are today...

you would also have to increase the bonus for tp ships probs up to the level of ecm ships... but i would only nerf ecm and not boost ecm ewar ships...

so...

step one reduce all ewar mods by 10-15% in base effectivness...

step two increase the ewar bonus on ewar ships to compensate. (other then ecm ewar as ecm needs a nerf)

step three make the use of ewar scripts a role bonus for ewar ships...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#3859 - 2012-10-01 20:49:52 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
so by my calculations Rage HAM's will be able to do something in the region of 15km at lv5 skills thats before any mods/rigs buff them now to me that seems excessive for a supposed short range high damage ammo type even conflag can't reach that far and lasers usually have the best range its clearly way too much as the fact that torps have the same range tells you this.

Surely 9km is more reasonable considering all the guns are well into falloff at this point

You can't compare lasers with missiles.
If you do so you can say, make every weapon in eve same with same range and same falloff then you have perfect eve, all weapons are the same.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#3860 - 2012-10-01 20:52:57 UTC
Spc One wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
so by my calculations Rage HAM's will be able to do something in the region of 15km at lv5 skills thats before any mods/rigs buff them now to me that seems excessive for a supposed short range high damage ammo type even conflag can't reach that far and lasers usually have the best range its clearly way too much as the fact that torps have the same range tells you this.

Surely 9km is more reasonable considering all the guns are well into falloff at this point

You can't compare lasers with missiles.
If you do so you can say, make every weapon in eve same with same range and same falloff then you have perfect eve, all weapons are the same.


you're a right little troll aren't you? why do you think they are changing missiles? HM's are too good compared to guns thus they are getting nerfed do keep up :P

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