Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The above values are for T1 and Navy HML only

What does this mean for HML damage?
In the HML nerf version 2.0 the biggest improvement is that large and slow ships (BC's without AB and BS's) will be hit harder (-10% damage, instead of the earlier -20%), small and fast ships (cruisers and below with just basespeed) will still have a damage reduction closer to the first nerf suggestions (some cases down to -19.6% but mostly -16.7%, instead of the earlier -20%). It's an improvement from version 1.0, no secrets in it now serras.


Below is just to show where the numbers come from. No need to read it.

Brief number crunching and interpretation:
Using the missile damage formula and setting all skills to 5 I got these values for a +12% increase in explosion radius:
-Small (below 93.75m sig radius) and slow (below 222m/s for a 30m target and below 122m/s for a 93.75m target) ships will take -(100% - 1/1.12) = -10.7% damage.
-Ships larger than 105m will not have any extra damage reduction. Ships between 93.75m and 105m will see a gradual loss of damage from 0% down to -10.7%.
-Fast ships (complex case with lots of calculations, just giving example speeds of where speed tanking begin for a few different target sizes (also: MWD speeds do not count due to sig bloom, only base speed or AB speed): standard frig (40m) 181m/s+, standard cruiser (125m) 162m/s+ and standard BC (250m) 324m/s+) will take -(100% - (1/1.12)^0.6823) = -7.44% damage while speed tanking.

How to interpret this and how to include the overall -10% damage into these values:
-Small (less than 93.75m) and slow targets will take -19.6% damage ( =-(100% - 0.9*(1/1.12)) )
-Large (over 105m) and slow targets will take -10% damage ( =-(100% - 0.9*1) )
-Any target fast enough to speed tank will take -16.7% ( =-(100% - 0.9*(1/1.12)^0.6823)) )
(-19.6% and -16.7% are ratios and not actual damage, speed tanking is always better, but the damage reduction ratio just happen to be lower for speed tanks. What -16.7% means is very hard to interpret without really understanding the missile equation and it's graphs, an alternative but absolutely accurate interpretation is to think of the +12% to explosion radius as meaning +12% to the target speed instead, meaning that from the HML damage perspective all targets will be moving 12% faster and hence see more damage reduction from speed tanking as a result).

Cormorant IS a beast. You need to fly it properly.



Blackbird is one of the best(and cheapest) force multipliers in the game. Moa is quite strong if you play to its strengths. Caracal is going to become the FOTM after this patch.



Who does? Most of HAC's are made obsolote by tier2 and tier3 bc's.



Scorpion and Rokh have just made a sad face at you.



Condor's are very widely used after the patch. I've a few in my hangar too. You should try them.

....and what is the point of all this in the HEAVY MISSILE balancing thread.

Let me put this here again:

http://i.imgur.com/SJ357.png

(3xdamage mods. nonbonusedship. Best ammo type selected for given range. Assume 720's 15% stronger as matari ships come with double bonus-less turrets (1.33*6/7 = 1.15))

This is the relevant graph. Current HML is really outrageous. Other medium gun platforms need to use additional slots (te/tc) to be able to compete in range. Where as missile platforms can use those slots for tank/ewar. New one is more in line with other turrets.

Funny you say that, because if you read my postings and understood them you wouldnt come to a conclusion like this:



..... why do you think I compare those 2? I said one is efficient in one thing (unlike its pendant on the other ship) and vice versa.

HAM Drake loses grand time vs AC Cane (and HML Drake does too, btw ..). Arti Cane will most probably lose to HML Drake.

So where is the problem? If you want short range success (which is what meta favours anyway) go Cane. If you want the better chance long range, go Drake. How can this be NOT balanced???



you do not understand my point. I didnt *ever* deny, that overall usability of HML is *better* than their medium long range gunnery counterparts. BUT: same applies the other way round for HAMS - they are *worse* than their medium short range gunnery counterparts.

This leads to the situation we have. Drake being worst in CC, Drake being best in a range-window of 35+ to end of missile flight range in long range.

If you want to change the second, then adress the first too. If Drake should be "on par" with the others (and not just on par in EFT numbers like DPS/range/EHP) then this should be in long range AND in close range. We are far away from that. Drone bay and bandwith, speed, fitting versatility, utility highs all DONT favour the Drake.

People like you who ignore these facts make it so hard to get a solid discussion here - you claim things which are plain bullshit (like you said I would have compared ACs to HMLs , which I didnt do for combat, but for roles!) or dont get the whole picture (HML are just one part of the medium missile combat, and as long as the other is not working as intended *I* dont wonder only one of the 2 is used. Same applies to a certain degree to medium long range gunnery, although at least I do see med arty and med rails being used from time to time. Far more than HAMs for sure. (and before you dont get it again - no, I dont compare short range with long range. I compare working systems with other working systems, and not working systems with other not working systems. Changing just one and leave the rest like it is would not bring balance to med sized weapons.)

Lets study some of the most useful combat ships in game and consider why everyone flocks to them.... It's important for this thread, I promise.

Zealot.... resistance/tank
Abaddon.... resistance bonus/tank... then dps
Rohk .... resistance bonus/tank.... sure as hell isn't tracking or dps.
Drake.... resistance bonus/tank

All Tech 3s..... resistance bonus/tank... then dps.

Minmitar... Alpha/capless/speed



Of the list, virtually none of those get used for dps as THE primary reason... baring alpha.

Which means this game has 2 problems.... Resistance bonuses being too good in conjunction with logistics, and alpha being the only counter...

now to missiles.... 2 ships.... drake/tengu... which categories do you really think they fall into that make them OP?

I agree with you on this point - resistance boni are a very strong thing in combination with logi. They are also helpful for other things, but really shine when you add the remote rep/remote shield stuff. Maybe this would be the way to solve things.

Ah and one more thing which many tend to forget - the t2 resistances of hulls are also not really balanced .. some are very useful and others simply are not.

Actually his list is complete rubbish.
People fly Rokhs for range and EHP
People fly Zealots for range, sig, and maneuvrability ("resistance??")
People fly Drakes for range and EHP and Dps-at-range
People fly Abaddons for dps, EHP and resistance bonus

Only the last one does his point hold, and really only as the secondary reason. The main reason people fly abbaddons is DPS.

Resistance bonuses are pretty good, certainly better than local tanking bonuses. The idea that "alpha is the only counter" is wrong however. Killing the logistics ships, neuting out the logis or the tanking ship, Ewar of any kind etc are all effective counters.

In a short term perspective, yes, Caldari's will have it a little rougher. But the ship balancing isn't ending with the HML nerf. The HML nerf is made just so that medium missile ships can be properly balanced and get the hardpoints and slot layout they need to be competitive (but not overpowered).
The alternative, when an intrinsically overpowered weapon system exists, is to make all ships that use them weaker. Perhaps by taking away a high and a medium slot (for a launcher and a TC respectively) during the rebalance. Would that be more acceptable? So that Amarr, Minmatar and Gallente ships have 15 slots and Caldari's have 13.

It's not fun to be an underdog, even if it is just during a transition period. The Caldari's has enough bad ships as it is. But lets not forget the aim of the rebalancing: to make all ships into viable choices. This includes the Caldari ships. Fozzie just needs some more time.

You are completely wrong.... zealots power comes from it's tank, not it's projected dps, which is pretty ****. Most of it's tank comes from super high resist combined with the logistical effect from it. Only secondary is the sig which is so easily countered it's not even funny.

Rokh/abaddon, both are used for resist...or as you called it, EHP.

The only reason the NAPOC is being used is b/c it's shear raw HP combined with it's still very solid resist build makes up for the slight resist decline when traded with the range projection that allows it to counter Tengu's...

Yes, tengu's have great range... and I've fought very hard to get Missile range nerfed and have said throughout this thread that range nerf is good for Missiles. So when you tell me that tengu's problem and drakes problem is range projection.... you're making my argument. Range alone is enough of a nerf to start. There's no need to do a triple nerf at the very beginning that isn't addressing the problem that 2 ships are causing with missiles.

But saying that tengu and drake don't benefit much more by their tanking abilities is idiotic. Even a **** build 100mn tengu still get's well over 120k ehp and silly good resist that make logistics awesome

No, i am not wrong. While in raw eft terms the zealot may have a better tank than other ahacs it is actually weaker against the things ahacs are actually used against. Deimos has far superior dps/tank against drakes/tengus/rokhs and vagas have far greater tanks against abaddons/napocs (especially as they are faster/smaller sig). Nobody uses them because of the poor damage projection making them basically useless while zealots with scorch have fantastic projection in comparison. Also if the sig and projection were not important you would be using absolutions which have far better dps/tank than zealots.

Anyone saying caldari have no option to pvp beside drake is a fool and don't pvp so much. That have been said plenty of times and is more wrong at each now line of ship revealed for rebalance.

For the point with the Ferox, Just look at range of new fury on bonused velocity hull, like the cerberus : oh ! 30km with fury ! When comparing something, use something comparable please. BTW, Ferox is a caldari hull, pretty ironic...

Like these statistics : a length of 5 days for statistics don't even cover a week. Who knows if there wasn't twice more drakes the two days after this selection ?

Statistics showing the overabundance of drake are stats based on SEVERAL YEARS of data. I could choose a set of data covering only 2h of a brawl between two huge drake fleet, and statistic would show than near 100% of ships flown are drakes, but that wouldn't be a proof. The statistics showing about the zealot are just that : a picture of the week. But I'm losing my time because you obviously don't have a clue of how to use statistics.

And anyway, statistics never have been the only proof of HML superiority : the fact that you compare them to AC or other ships is selfexplaining, but you don't even see it : if HML were in line with other LONG RANGE MEDIUM weapons, why aren't we seing more Ferox ? Or more arty cane fleets ? Alpha is supposed to be very powerful, and yet, we see Maelstrom or tornado or tempest fleet, but no alpha hurricane fleets. There is munin fleet though, and sometimes some loki fleets, but the most common is arty BS. But for any one of those ships, there is a drake or two flying...

The argument for this is that there is no other missile system to use. And besides the fact that a sub par weapon system don't make another one good (FC just go to another ship, or you would see fleets of blaster frigates), this is wrong. HAM drake would be very powerful, but they are completely outshined by HML. HML are better than HAM in most cases. Though it's not because HAM are bad, they are not, they only have the drawback of short range weapon systems. But HML are so much better in so many circumstances, you always have a better time fitting them.

For all the other missiles, and the large one above all the others, well, a fix would have came with TE/TC, but you don't even saw it...