These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#4321 - 2012-10-07 00:57:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Unseen Spectre
Hi
Earlier in this thread there were some discussions related to the statistics from EVE Kill about the most used weapon systems, including heavy missiles compared to other weapon systems as well as drakes/tengus compared to other ships.
I was just curious about what a more in depth analysis of the results would show.
This is just a general analysis of the data from EVE Kill, not a specific analysis of the medium long range weapon systems.
If you cannot use the data, just ignore them.

Addition: I just presented the data, how you want to use them is entirely up to you Big smile
Khamalaa
Doomheim
#4322 - 2012-10-07 01:07:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Khamalaa
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Unseen Spectre wrote:
Some stats:

Sorry, that did not come out well the first time. Here is another go. "," is used as separator.

I was just curious of the results. Maybe you can use them. Please note that the data my not be representative since the data change over time. Please note that these data do not tell the entire truth.

Eve Kill Top 20
Period: 01.10.2012-06.10.2012
Date of extraction. 07.10.2012
Link: http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20

Ships:

Rank, Ships, Kills, Race*, Type*
1, Zealot, 37.900, Amarr, Gun
2, Drake, 18.835, Caldari, Missile
3, Naga, 12.417, Caldari, Gun
4, Hurricane, 12.164, Minmatar, Gun
5, Loki, 9.886, Minmatar, Gun
6, Tornado, 9.236, Minmatar, Gun
7, Tengu, 8.362, Caldari, Missile
8, Apocalypse Navy Issue, 6.915, Amarr, Gun
9, Stabber Fleet Issue, 5.923, Minmatar, Gun
10, Maelstrom, 5.402, Minmatar, Gun
11, Thrasher, 4.684, Minmatar, Gun
12, Huginn, 4.671, Minmatar, Gun
13, Sabre, 4.670, Minmatar, Gun
14, Rokh, 4.467, Caldari, Gun
15, Oracle, 4.371, Amarr, Gun
16, Apocalypse, 4.163 Amarr, Gun
17, Talos, 4.109, Gallente, Gun
18, Legion, 3.890, Amarr, Gun
19, Cynabal, 3.851, Minmatar, Gun
20, Proteus, 3.519, Gallente, Gun
Total 169.435

* my assumptions.

Analysis:

Race, Gun, Missile, Total
Amarr, 57.239, 0, 57.239
Caldari, 16.884, 27.197, 44.081
Minmatar, 60.487, 0, 60.487
Gallente, 7.628, 0, 7.628
Total, 142.238, 27.197, 169.435

Race, Gun, Missile, Total
Amarr, 34%, 0%, 34%
Caldari, 10%, 16%, 26%
Minmatar, 36%, 0%, 36%
Gallente, 5%, 0%, 5%
Total, 84%, 16%, 100%

Rank In category
1, Minmatar gun, 36%
2, Amarr gun, 34%
3, Caldari missile, 16%

Rank Overall
1, Minmatar, 36%
2, Amarr, 34%
3, Caldari, 26%

Weapons:

Rank, Weapons, Kills, Type*, Size*,
1, Heavy Pulse Laser II, 9.517, Laser, Medium
2, Heavy Missile Launcher II, 8.854, Missile, Medium
3, 425mm AutoCannon II, 5.984, Projectile, Medium
4, Mega Pulse Laser II, 5.280, Laser, Large
5, 200mm AutoCannon II, 3.947, Projectile, Small
6, 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, 3.513, Projectile, Medium
7, 425mm Railgun II, 3.370, Hybrid, Large
8, 150mm Light AutoCannon II, 3.323, Projectile, Small
9, 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, 3.163, Projectile, Small
10, 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, 3.023, Projectile, Medium
11, Light Neutron Blaster II, 2.424, Hybrid, Small
12, Prototype 'Arbalest' Torp.Launcher, 2.400, Missile, Large
13, Neutron Blaster Cannon II, 2.318, Hybrid, Large
14, 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, 2.219, Projectile, Large
15, 800mm Repeating Artillery II, 1.560, Projectile, Large
16, Light Ion Blaster II, 1.426, Hybrid, Small
17, Heavy Neutron Blaster II, 1.382, Hybrid, Medium
18, Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, 1.279, Projectile, Medium
19, Medium Pulse Laser II, 1.114, Laser, Small
20, 250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, 1.103, Projectile, Small
Total 67.199

* my assumptions.

Analysis:

Weapon, Small, Medium, Large, Total
Laser, 1.114, 9.517, 5.280, 15.911
Missile, 0, 8.854, 2.400, 11.254
Projectile, 11.536, 13.799, 3.779, 29.114
Hybrid, 3.850, 1.382, 5.688, 10.920
Total, 16.500, 33.552, 17.147, 67.199

Weapon, Small, Medium, Large, Total
Laser, 2%, 14%, 8%, 24%
Missile, 0%, 13%, 4%, 17%
Projectile, 17%, 21%, 6%, 43%
Hybrid, 6%, 2%, 8%, 16%
Total, 25%, 50%, 26%, 100%


Rank In category
1, Projectile medium, 21%
2, Projectile small, 17%
3, Laser medium, 14%

Rank Overall
1, Projectile, 43%
2, Laser, 24%
3, Missile, 17%


If they were meant to be relevant for this argument then pull the stats for heavy missiles, arties, rails and beams of medium size only. Ur stats are comparing high dps short ranged weapons with long ranged weapons and of varying sizes.

edit, or i could just quickly do it...
weapons

Rank, Weapons, Kills, Type*, Size*,
1, Heavy Missile Launcher II, 8.854, Missile, Medium
2, 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, 3.023, Projectile, Medium

and the rest dont even show up...



Your simplification is full of bias.

The thing that stands out about the list posted is that the weapon systems with low fitting requirements are the most commonly used, baring hybrids due to issues relating to the hulls in a large part.

This becomes even more obvious when you consider that the only limiting factor on most hulls in terms of Damage, Taking and Speed capability is the fitting limitations.

I can easily imagine a frigate with Mega Beams, BS sized prop mods, BS sized active tanks, and heavy neuts. OP right? The reason it does not happen is fitting requirements.

All considerations of damage and range comparisons seem to fail because the Missile systems are backwards, with close range missiles having larger cpu and grid requirements. If one was to compare the relative damage, range, etc in a fitting efficiency comparison, I would not be surprised to see the top used weapons with the highest ratios (in the same classes, ie. HML vs HAM, Pulse vs Beam, etc). IF you have 100 dps for 100cpu, or 200 dps for 50 cpu, it becomes obvious that one can make a more powerful ship with the later if they can compensate for any drawbacks like range, tracking, etc.

If you swap missile fittings, then the long range setups loose tank, or props, or other additions that help make them a more powerful ship.

This fact is readily identifiable for anyone who has bothered to fit caldari ships with missiles.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#4323 - 2012-10-07 01:25:34 UTC
Unseen Spectre wrote:
Some stats:

Sorry, that did not come out well the first time. Here is another go. "," is used as separator.

I was just curious of the results. Maybe you can use them. Please note that the data my not be representative since the data change over time. Please note that these data do not tell the entire truth.

Eve Kill Top 20
Period: 01.10.2012-06.10.2012
Date of extraction. 07.10.2012
Link: http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20

Ships:

Rank, Ships, Kills, Race*, Type*
1, Zealot, 37.900, Amarr, Gun
2, Drake, 18.835, Caldari, Missile
3, Naga, 12.417, Caldari, Gun
4, Hurricane, 12.164, Minmatar, Gun
5, Loki, 9.886, Minmatar, Gun
6, Tornado, 9.236, Minmatar, Gun
7, Tengu, 8.362, Caldari, Missile
8, Apocalypse Navy Issue, 6.915, Amarr, Gun
9, Stabber Fleet Issue, 5.923, Minmatar, Gun
10, Maelstrom, 5.402, Minmatar, Gun
11, Thrasher, 4.684, Minmatar, Gun
12, Huginn, 4.671, Minmatar, Gun
13, Sabre, 4.670, Minmatar, Gun
14, Rokh, 4.467, Caldari, Gun
15, Oracle, 4.371, Amarr, Gun
16, Apocalypse, 4.163 Amarr, Gun
17, Talos, 4.109, Gallente, Gun
18, Legion, 3.890, Amarr, Gun
19, Cynabal, 3.851, Minmatar, Gun
20, Proteus, 3.519, Gallente, Gun
Total 169.435

* my assumptions.

Analysis:

Race, Gun, Missile, Total
Amarr, 57.239, 0, 57.239
Caldari, 16.884, 27.197, 44.081
Minmatar, 60.487, 0, 60.487
Gallente, 7.628, 0, 7.628
Total, 142.238, 27.197, 169.435

Race, Gun, Missile, Total
Amarr, 34%, 0%, 34%
Caldari, 10%, 16%, 26%
Minmatar, 36%, 0%, 36%
Gallente, 5%, 0%, 5%
Total, 84%, 16%, 100%

Rank In category
1, Minmatar gun, 36%
2, Amarr gun, 34%
3, Caldari missile, 16%

Rank Overall
1, Minmatar, 36%
2, Amarr, 34%
3, Caldari, 26%

Weapons:

Rank, Weapons, Kills, Type*, Size*,
1, Heavy Pulse Laser II, 9.517, Laser, Medium
2, Heavy Missile Launcher II, 8.854, Missile, Medium
3, 425mm AutoCannon II, 5.984, Projectile, Medium
4, Mega Pulse Laser II, 5.280, Laser, Large
5, 200mm AutoCannon II, 3.947, Projectile, Small
6, 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, 3.513, Projectile, Medium
7, 425mm Railgun II, 3.370, Hybrid, Large
8, 150mm Light AutoCannon II, 3.323, Projectile, Small
9, 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, 3.163, Projectile, Small
10, 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, 3.023, Projectile, Medium
11, Light Neutron Blaster II, 2.424, Hybrid, Small
12, Prototype 'Arbalest' Torp.Launcher, 2.400, Missile, Large
13, Neutron Blaster Cannon II, 2.318, Hybrid, Large
14, 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, 2.219, Projectile, Large
15, 800mm Repeating Artillery II, 1.560, Projectile, Large
16, Light Ion Blaster II, 1.426, Hybrid, Small
17, Heavy Neutron Blaster II, 1.382, Hybrid, Medium
18, Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, 1.279, Projectile, Medium
19, Medium Pulse Laser II, 1.114, Laser, Small
20, 250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, 1.103, Projectile, Small
Total 67.199

* my assumptions.

Analysis:

Weapon, Small, Medium, Large, Total
Laser, 1.114, 9.517, 5.280, 15.911
Missile, 0, 8.854, 2.400, 11.254
Projectile, 11.536, 13.799, 3.779, 29.114
Hybrid, 3.850, 1.382, 5.688, 10.920
Total, 16.500, 33.552, 17.147, 67.199

Weapon, Small, Medium, Large, Total
Laser, 2%, 14%, 8%, 24%
Missile, 0%, 13%, 4%, 17%
Projectile, 17%, 21%, 6%, 43%
Hybrid, 6%, 2%, 8%, 16%
Total, 25%, 50%, 26%, 100%


Rank In category
1, Projectile medium, 21%
2, Projectile small, 17%
3, Laser medium, 14%

Rank Overall
1, Projectile, 43%
2, Laser, 24%
3, Missile, 17%


Completely irrelevant.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
#4324 - 2012-10-07 01:25:57 UTC
Please note that the "Ship" list and the "Weapon" list are two separate lists with no direct link. SO do not assume a direct link.
As noted, the data was copied from the EVE Kill Top 20 web page, and I am not 100% sure how they extract the data. Again, the data do also not tell the entire truth only a part of it.
Please note that the number of is taken from EVE Kill, whereas my assumptions can always be discussed and you are right that these may be wrong. It was just what made sense to me.
In ships I took what I thought was most logical (you have ships with split weapon systems which I counted as guns). I assumed that Drake and Tengu were the only ships in the list dedicated to missiles. This may not be entirely true for the Tengu since it can fit guns.
With respect to weapons, I did not split it into short range vs. long range (which I could have done). I just used the rough size classification of the weapons from EVE.
I just wanted to present the data. I have tried to show for right or wrong how I got to the result. You may disagree, fair enough, I am OK with that. Anyway use them as you see fit. Or ignore them. That is entirely up to you.
And remember the graduation of lying: Lying, more lying, satistics - depending on ones intentions/perspective you can almost always prove anything with statistics :D. SO always be critical of presented statistics.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#4325 - 2012-10-07 01:52:34 UTC
Quick nerf the Zealot. Clearly its op....

Totally messing, but come on someone will say it.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#4326 - 2012-10-07 04:07:57 UTC
Unseen Spectre wrote:
Please note that the "Ship" list and the "Weapon" list are two separate lists with no direct link. SO do not assume a direct link.
As noted, the data was copied from the EVE Kill Top 20 web page, and I am not 100% sure how they extract the data. Again, the data do also not tell the entire truth only a part of it.
Please note that the number of is taken from EVE Kill, whereas my assumptions can always be discussed and you are right that these may be wrong. It was just what made sense to me.
In ships I took what I thought was most logical (you have ships with split weapon systems which I counted as guns). I assumed that Drake and Tengu were the only ships in the list dedicated to missiles. This may not be entirely true for the Tengu since it can fit guns.
With respect to weapons, I did not split it into short range vs. long range (which I could have done). I just used the rough size classification of the weapons from EVE.
I just wanted to present the data. I have tried to show for right or wrong how I got to the result. You may disagree, fair enough, I am OK with that. Anyway use them as you see fit. Or ignore them. That is entirely up to you.
And remember the graduation of lying: Lying, more lying, satistics - depending on ones intentions/perspective you can almost always prove anything with statistics :D. SO always be critical of presented statistics.



These statistics simply aren't relevant.

The statistics that matter are the effectiveness of the weapon systems.

If any metric like the one you showed was to be used it would be to compare hml's to medium arty/beam/rail use,,, and i think you know what those numbers would say

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#4327 - 2012-10-07 04:20:26 UTC
How do statistics tell you a weapon system is OP?

Anyone who's FC'd or even used a Drake or a Tengu can tell you that the tengu just has a silly good bonus, and the drake is win b/c of it's tank and range.

Nobody every says **** about the HMLs being too high of damage....

but it's a typical dev response to show their cluelessness about the game rather than any knowledgeable reaction to a problem.

I really wish Fozzie would back off the heavy handed changes, Just do the range nerf, and patch more in later after seeing the results. The issue with such a heavy handed response to missiles is that when you go so far overboard, you don't know how to bring it back to life properly. Small nerfs and witnessing reactions to those nerfs are strategically better solutions to a problem than huge nerfs potentially breaking something in the other direction. Eve history has show devs who have done this right and done this wrong.
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
#4328 - 2012-10-07 04:33:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Vizvig
sYnc Vir wrote:
Quick nerf the Zealot. Clearly its op....

Totally messing, but come on someone will say it.

Compare zealot with other ahacs.

Munnin = useles
Zealot = OP

Zealot use to destroy navy apocs of goonswarm and navy apocs use to destroy tengu fleets of AAA.


A entire fleet of tengu's.

Very sad about what CCP do.

1st edition: -20% HM damage, missile track dis. close missile buff, LR guns buff
2nd edition(carebears whine): -10% HM damage, close missile buff, no track dis for missiles, LR guns buff
3rd edition (carebears whine again): close missile buff, LR guns buff

ima carebear, please dont buff LR guns.Twisted
Lili Lu
#4329 - 2012-10-07 04:57:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
No, the eve-kill stats can be relevant. Well as relevant as we can get. But what the drake apologist that posted them is overlooking is that that is ten days out of a month. The month isn't over. So a lot could change by the end of the month, or not.

Additionally, the explanation for the sudden reemergence of the Zealot and Navy Apoc is the new tech II 1600 plates. All the prior months for the last two years or so it has been Drakes and Tengus. Nothing about the new emergence of these zealots and napocs negates the medium weapon rebalance that CCP is doing. It is not making medium beams any better in relation to HMLs (especially since those Zealots are using pulses).

Also, the real thing to notice about this months emerging top 20 is that it is not Harbingers. If suddenly Harbinger fleets started popping up all over the place, ok, drake whiners can call for a nerf. Because then we would have another teir 2 tech I BC outperforming (in a cost/benefit regard) ships that take much more sp and isk to get into.

Also, regardless, as others are replying, if this months stats really were the result of something having to do with weapons, there would still be a weapon performance disparity amongst the long range medium weapon systems. HML just have too many advantages in the current eve environment. That is being brought into line.

So, this is more like the kind of discussion that should be happening. Not someone saying that they see more Hurricanes in lowsec and therefore the Cane is op and not the Drake. An argument like that means **** all. But one also has to more closely analyze what the eve-kill top 20 is showing.

Here it is showing that the new improved tech II 1600 plates are actually providing a benefit to armor configurations. Which is a good thing because the adaptive armor hardener was a bomb, while the shield ships got (too) wonderful ancilliary shield boosters. But, indeed, none of this answers the HML medium long range weapons disparity, which is still alive and kicking and still in need of a nerf.

edit - and congrats people calling for a Zealot nerf. You now get to wait a bunch of months for something to be done on that score if CCP deems it worthy. Just be thankfull you will not have to wait for years, which has been the case for HMLs and Drakes.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#4330 - 2012-10-07 08:50:49 UTC
Those who critisise this new stat in october funnily enough are the same who used the stats before to show how OP the Drake is.

Guys, no one disagrees on the fact, the Drake is strong in medium long range fights, if ranges are above turrets optimal+half falloff for their HIGH DPS AMMO, and below the end of missile range.

Thats where the Drake is good.

It will however not be so good if used outside these ranges.

So the ship is at it is BALANCED. It has strong ranges, and weaker ones. It has things it can do well, and others it cant do well.

As long as you dont balance every ship to be the same in every aspect you will not have complete balance. You will have a strongest and weakest in every class and role. As long as there is a role for more than one ship of each race (and not one which is completely niche) for ME there is no need to pull the nerfbat.

The nerfbat was needed for Falcons, no question.

But for the Drake and HML its stupid to nerf them.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#4331 - 2012-10-07 08:56:23 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:


Here it is showing that the new improved tech II 1600 plates are actually providing a benefit to armor configurations. Which is a good thing because the adaptive armor hardener was a bomb, while the shield ships got (too) wonderful ancilliary shield boosters. But, indeed, none of this answers the HML medium long range weapons disparity, which is still alive and kicking and still in need of a nerf.


You are so biased its really fun to read what you say :)

Read again: HAMs are not there at all. Caldari medium sized ships have to use HML (or rails, but .. heh.) except the Naga, which uses large rails. Medium weapons are like this: most used are med projectile, second most are medium lasers, third are medium missiles ... now I clearly see why HML needed to be nerfed .. NOT.

Guys, you dont like missiles, and most probably CCP will give in to your complaints. But you do know you are just biased and thats why you dont like to lose to a missile ship :)
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#4332 - 2012-10-07 09:05:04 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
How do statistics tell you a weapon system is OP?

Anyone who's FC'd or even used a Drake or a Tengu can tell you that the tengu just has a silly good bonus, and the drake is win b/c of it's tank and range.

Nobody every says **** about the HMLs being too high of damage....

but it's a typical dev response to show their cluelessness about the game rather than any knowledgeable reaction to a problem.

I really wish Fozzie would back off the heavy handed changes, Just do the range nerf, and patch more in later after seeing the results. The issue with such a heavy handed response to missiles is that when you go so far overboard, you don't know how to bring it back to life properly. Small nerfs and witnessing reactions to those nerfs are strategically better solutions to a problem than huge nerfs potentially breaking something in the other direction. Eve history has show devs who have done this right and done this wrong.


Your posting shows a calm and sophisticated approach to what should be done. Thumbs up to you.

I got only one question for you - do you think it could help to buff the natural counter for HML (CMs on battleshiphulls) for PvP so they could kill HML blobs?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#4333 - 2012-10-07 09:35:27 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:

You are so biased its really fun to read what you say :)

Read again: HAMs are not there at all. Caldari medium sized ships have to use HML (or rails, but .. heh.) except the Naga, which uses large rails. Medium weapons are like this: most used are med projectile, second most are medium lasers, third are medium missiles ... now I clearly see why HML needed to be nerfed .. NOT.

Guys, you dont like missiles, and most probably CCP will give in to your complaints. But you do know you are just biased and thats why you dont like to lose to a missile ship :)


asdfgjhagdfkasdfhsld;fghjlk;gjlha\sdfioauyglkdghafshgjldkfjg; (this was my head rolling on the keyboard at ur cluelessness)

why dont YOU read again. medium artillery, rail and beams hardly get any use because HML's completely dominate the long range field. This is why they are getting nerfed, to be more fair compared to artillery, rails and beams. not auto-cannons, nor blasters, nor pulses.

who are u sleeping with? cause they've clearly bummed ur brains out and i wanna be next.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#4334 - 2012-10-07 10:00:09 UTC
Khamalaa wrote:

Your simplification is full of bias.

The thing that stands out about the list posted is that the weapon systems with low fitting requirements are the most commonly used, baring hybrids due to issues relating to the hulls in a large part.

This becomes even more obvious when you consider that the only limiting factor on most hulls in terms of Damage, Taking and Speed capability is the fitting limitations.

I can easily imagine a frigate with Mega Beams, BS sized prop mods, BS sized active tanks, and heavy neuts. OP right? The reason it does not happen is fitting requirements.

All considerations of damage and range comparisons seem to fail because the Missile systems are backwards, with close range missiles having larger cpu and grid requirements. If one was to compare the relative damage, range, etc in a fitting efficiency comparison, I would not be surprised to see the top used weapons with the highest ratios (in the same classes, ie. HML vs HAM, Pulse vs Beam, etc). IF you have 100 dps for 100cpu, or 200 dps for 50 cpu, it becomes obvious that one can make a more powerful ship with the later if they can compensate for any drawbacks like range, tracking, etc.

If you swap missile fittings, then the long range setups loose tank, or props, or other additions that help make them a more powerful ship.

This fact is readily identifiable for anyone who has bothered to fit caldari ships with missiles.


i have said before in this post that if they put the scale of requirements of HAMs to HMLs to match that of Auto's to Arties, Blasters to Rails or Pulses to beams then that would also work.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4335 - 2012-10-07 10:11:48 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
How do statistics tell you a weapon system is OP?

Anyone who's FC'd or even used a Drake or a Tengu can tell you that the tengu just has a silly good bonus, and the drake is win b/c of it's tank and range.

Nobody every says **** about the HMLs being too high of damage....

but it's a typical dev response to show their cluelessness about the game rather than any knowledgeable reaction to a problem.

I really wish Fozzie would back off the heavy handed changes, Just do the range nerf, and patch more in later after seeing the results. The issue with such a heavy handed response to missiles is that when you go so far overboard, you don't know how to bring it back to life properly. Small nerfs and witnessing reactions to those nerfs are strategically better solutions to a problem than huge nerfs potentially breaking something in the other direction. Eve history has show devs who have done this right and done this wrong.


Your posting shows a calm and sophisticated approach to what should be done. Thumbs up to you.

I got only one question for you - do you think it could help to buff the natural counter for HML (CMs on battleshiphulls) for PvP so they could kill HML blobs?


Cruise missiles? Lol

All of the weapons in game you come up with cruise missiles?

Seriously, there are two ways to counter a drake fleet.

1) Get close enough to negate the tank advantage via DPS. Which requires CR battlecruisers and requires more logi.

2) Out range them, and you need tier 3 battlecruisers or battleships, no other t2 battlecruiser can outrange dedicated LR Drakes, and the few that can have the tank of an assault frigate.

You say cruise missiles? .....welcome to the LR argument. The fact is for all of your bleating, the best answer you have for a drake is battleships.

...and with the T2 weapon changes what keeps that drake fleet from rewarping and getting as close as possible and killing your ravens with rage ammo. That would be the PERFECT situation for it.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#4336 - 2012-10-07 10:39:46 UTC
Onictus wrote:


Seriously, there are two ways to counter a drake fleet.

1) Get close enough to negate the tank advantage via DPS. Which requires CR battlecruisers and requires more logi.

2) Out range them, and you need tier 3 battlecruisers or battleships, no other t2 battlecruiser can outrange dedicated LR Drakes, and the few that can have the tank of an assault frigate.

You say cruise missiles? .....welcome to the LR argument. The fact is for all of your bleating, the best answer you have for a drake is battleships.

...and with the T2 weapon changes what keeps that drake fleet from rewarping and getting as close as possible and killing your ravens with rage ammo. That would be the PERFECT situation for it.



The point with the OPness of Drake in nullsec is they do what normally BS should do there, although they need bigger numbers. The Drake is cheaper than BS, but BS have a hard time fighting it because its smaller and faster. If a BS could counter the Drake it would be the Raven - it would have more EHP and more DPS, and if they fix CM so they would work the Ravens could outrange the Drakes with ease.

For smaller scale Drakes can and will win long range fights, and will lose close range fights. So the Drake is the long range tier 2 BC, the others are stronger in close range. Where is the problem? Either make em all the same in all ranges, or let some be best in one role and others in another role.

Who objects to this statement? Hands up to show *you* are clueless ..
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#4337 - 2012-10-07 10:43:03 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:


why dont YOU read again. medium artillery, rail and beams hardly get any use because HML's completely dominate the long range field. This is why they are getting nerfed, to be more fair compared to artillery, rails and beams. not auto-cannons, nor blasters, nor pulses.



why dont YOU read again? Medium SR turrets completely dominate the field on short range, HAMs are non-existent there. So the Drake HAS to use HML to be competitive, and it is. Drake is best in a certain range, when fitted with HML. Other ships are better in other ranges when fitted with the best they have.

There is no problem in balance when each ship has a role, and when for example an AC Cane will simply RIP a HML Drake, if its close enough. If the Drake manages to stay far enough out, the Drake wins. Thats *balance* ....

and about that sex thing, I dont share, thank you :)
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#4338 - 2012-10-07 10:47:14 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
How do statistics tell you a weapon system is OP?

Anyone who's FC'd or even used a Drake or a Tengu can tell you that the tengu just has a silly good bonus, and the drake is win b/c of it's tank and range.

Nobody every says **** about the HMLs being too high of damage....

but it's a typical dev response to show their cluelessness about the game rather than any knowledgeable reaction to a problem.

I really wish Fozzie would back off the heavy handed changes, Just do the range nerf, and patch more in later after seeing the results. The issue with such a heavy handed response to missiles is that when you go so far overboard, you don't know how to bring it back to life properly. Small nerfs and witnessing reactions to those nerfs are strategically better solutions to a problem than huge nerfs potentially breaking something in the other direction. Eve history has show devs who have done this right and done this wrong.


Your posting shows a calm and sophisticated approach to what should be done. Thumbs up to you.

I got only one question for you - do you think it could help to buff the natural counter for HML (CMs on battleshiphulls) for PvP so they could kill HML blobs?



Why do people think there need to be more counters when you nerf their range to hell? That alone is the counter b/c it limits the ability to kite out of most turret ranges.
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
#4339 - 2012-10-07 10:49:35 UTC
About cruise missiles.

DONT BUFF C.M. DAMAGE BECAUSE FARMERS CRUSH ECONOMY.

I think CCP should make high speed CMM to compete with artillery (damage 100% of t1 range 40% of t1, base sig 400m)
And high damage CM agains large targets (Fury CM). (damage 130% of t1 range 60% base sig 550m)

Noemi Nagano wrote:
So the ship is at it is BALANCED..

I believe everything you say, , now prove your competence and show your killboard.
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#4340 - 2012-10-07 12:15:45 UTC
Unseen Spectre wrote:

Rank, Ships, Kills, Race*, Type*
1, Zealot, 37.900, Amarr, Gun
2, Drake, 18.835, Caldari, Missile
3, Naga, 12.417, Caldari, Gun
4, Hurricane, 12.164, Minmatar, Gun
5, Loki, 9.886, Minmatar, Gun
6, Tornado, 9.236, Minmatar, Gun
7, Tengu, 8.362, Caldari, Missile
8, Apocalypse Navy Issue, 6.915, Amarr, Gun
9, Stabber Fleet Issue, 5.923, Minmatar, Gun
10, Maelstrom, 5.402, Minmatar, Gun
11, Thrasher, 4.684, Minmatar, Gun
12, Huginn, 4.671, Minmatar, Gun
13, Sabre, 4.670, Minmatar, Gun
14, Rokh, 4.467, Caldari, Gun
15, Oracle, 4.371, Amarr, Gun
16, Apocalypse, 4.163 Amarr, Gun
17, Talos, 4.109, Gallente, Gun
18, Legion, 3.890, Amarr, Gun
19, Cynabal, 3.851, Minmatar, Gun
20, Proteus, 3.519, Gallente, Gun


All the top ranking ships belong to fleet doctrines. The list is a fun piece of statistics. But it doesn't actually show if any particular weapon is overpowerd (by say +20% compared to the others). What it does show is that EVE has a rock, paper, scissor situation.

The fact that the Zealot is so dominant right now might look like it is OP. But neither the hull nor it's weapons or modules are clearly superior to other choices, it's just the sum that is. In my subjective opionion the Zealot is just a good counter to the shield/HML boats (lasers work good against shields and the AB fitted Zealots cut incoming HML damage in half from speedtanking). The reason why the Zealot can dominate the rankings is just another indication of how popular the shield/HML fits are.

I am going out on really deep water now: What we might see is 1) HML nerf 2) drake loose popularity, and then a lot of blame on how CCP overdid things once again. But maybe this ranking is also showing that there is a current shift in doctrines that will reduce the popularity of the Drake regardless of this nerf. But only maybe, it's harder to find Zealot pilots than Drake pilots after all, and Drakes might still be cost effective even if they die a bit more.