These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arya Greywolf
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6101 - 2012-11-19 19:57:57 UTC
Faora Zod wrote:


Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.

There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.

Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.



You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#6102 - 2012-11-19 21:42:20 UTC
Arya Greywolf wrote:
Faora Zod wrote:


Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.

There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.

Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.



You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.




Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
#6103 - 2012-11-19 23:41:14 UTC
Arya Greywolf wrote:
Faora Zod wrote:


Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.

There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.

Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.



You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.




Lol nope not overdosing on anything, just frustrated with the direction this game is going, but i assume you must have been ready for a nap since you only quoted part of what i said
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
#6104 - 2012-11-19 23:46:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Faora Zod
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Arya Greywolf wrote:
Faora Zod wrote:


Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.

There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.

Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.



You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.




Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up.


Did you just read what this person said or my full post? Try and look beyond the HML nerf, look at the whole picture people. People bitched and moaned about how the pants money was going to be a way for EVE to be a pay to win game, when it has already been for years. Real Life money buys GTCs, you convert them to plexes, put them up for sale buy the universe. It isn't to hard to see if you look at it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6105 - 2012-11-19 23:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Faora Zod wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Arya Greywolf wrote:
Faora Zod wrote:


Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.

There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.

Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.



You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.




Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up.


Did you just read what this person said or my full post? Try and look beyond the HML nerf, look at the whole picture people. People bitched and moaned about how the pants money was going to be a way for EVE to be a pay to win game, when it has already been for years. Real Life money buys GTCs, you convert them to plexes, put them up for sale buy the universe. It isn't to hard to see if you look at it.

The issue is that plex are useless without buyers. Buyers need to earn isk. Nerfing people's ability to earn isk nerfs plex buyers and causes plex prices to fall which entices fewer GTC buyers to buy and convert to plex to sell.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6106 - 2012-11-20 01:59:18 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
serras bang wrote:
simply put the stregnth of a missle systems was it long range as caldari shield generaly dosent fair to well. amd missle even its tech 2 varients have always produced less dps than its gunnery counterparts. want prof ?

kestral 50 - 60 km 100 dps there or there about (with close to max skills)
galenty drone boat (the 5 drone one) 150 dps near enough

this is with my mear 1.5 mill sp in guns compaired to 6.6 in missles and i wasnt even useing tech 2 hybrids in this

torp raven around 1k dps (with rage)
vindicator 1600 dps

see the numbers speack for it self guns prodice more dps than missle yes over a shorter range but heh that why missles have its range all you guys gotta do is get close.

Lol comparison between pirate BS and tier2 BS. xD
Why don't you compare a machariel to a drake while you are at this kind of funny comparisons ?

And the drones... lol.

Alliance tournament now : there was tengus in it, some fleets. Fun fact : in the Open Tournament, tengus have been banned MANY times. You cannot see a banned ship in the Open Tournament.

Second thing about the tournament : the buble of death : go too far, and your ship explode. A ship relying on kiting is at huge disadvantage. ECM ? The teams relying ONLY on them indeed died ; the teams who bring some dps to actually kill their ennemies with ECM support did very well. Anyway, the tournament's rules hugely favour gallente and minmatar, exactly like blob warfare hugely favor amarr and caldari.

For the skills we don't care, "we" refer to those people who care about balancing ships between themselves. If skills mattered, we would need titans back to blapping everything.

And finaly, as already said, the only fact that the drake can compete at "close" range with HML, and moreover, that HML are often prefered over HAM brawling duty clearly show there is a problem. And as HML are sometimes even better than some Large LR weapon systems, then you cannot denny there is a problem. We could indeed buff everything, though we would call this powercreep, and it's bad.

Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ?


well tbh what would you like me to comapr the raven to ? as there is no pirate ship the relys on missles however im beating that counterpart gun boat produce over the 1k dps and the reason i compair them is for the fact there used or shall we compair em to the mach as that is also a mission running bs ? witch produces over the 1k dps and has a nice flight of drones ?
OldWolf69
EVE-RO
Goonswarm Federation
#6107 - 2012-11-20 11:17:15 UTC
Why is there noone claiming Matari boats speed is OP? If a caldari should not be able to shoot at 100km, why should a Matari be able to run away like he does? Big smile Imbalance, such a....tendentious word...Big smile
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#6108 - 2012-11-20 11:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
serras bang wrote:
well tbh what would you like me to comapr the raven to ? as there is no pirate ship the relys on missles however im beating that counterpart gun boat produce over the 1k dps and the reason i compair them is for the fact there used or shall we compair em to the mach as that is also a mission running bs ? witch produces over the 1k dps and has a nice flight of drones ?

And you are now gone back to pve concerns...

I don't have anything against pve, though you cannot balance ships between themselves for pve, because that would cause massive imbalance for pvp. I already explain it, but I'm afraid this thread memory is not more than 20 pages.

PS : and again, if a ship is underperforming, whine for it to be buffed instead of whining for your OP weapon system to still be OP.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#6109 - 2012-11-20 14:38:58 UTC
Apteko wrote:
And if you can't kill HM drake with Harb or Cane at "close" range...then...

OPness is not invulnerability. Maybe you want some definitions ? Fact that HML *obsolete* ALL the weapons we can compare it to is meaningful. Medium arties are not dead yet, but it's only because of their alpha, allowing to blap frigates and larger targets if you have enough people, though that take you lokis to do it, and HML can too blap target if you have enough people. missiles are the second best alpha weapon, with between 2 and 3 times the alpha of beams and railguns.

Apteko wrote:

Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ?


Ah...ofc. There is no PVP Ravens because no one tried them ever. :)
It's too fat, to be serious, really.

Anyway. You feel, that you're competent enough to have such opinion. So please tell us, what is main problem with "delayed damage"?

Again no arguments, but a question. It's easy to ask questions. It's a bit more disdainful when you know the answer.

As for the delayed damage, if you had read what I've written, you would know that I think there is NO problem with delayed damage in the current metagame. Drake and Tengus use HM which have the same or less speed than cruise missiles, and they use them at the range everyone fight : 50 to 80 km. So, if Tengu and Drake don't have problems with delayed damage at these range, why would it be different for the Raven ?

No one ever answered this question, and all I had was "train for a Raven, and test it", which basicaly translate to "GTFO, leave us alone with your ambarassing questions".
Matzumisi
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#6110 - 2012-11-20 16:59:19 UTC
Making TD affect missiles might be a tricky idea, because unlike turrets, for which it does matter in which direction the target and attacker are going (e.g. angular velocity) missiles don't care about the direction. So in a case when attacker is "chasing" the target, when angular velocities are relatively low compared to the speed of the ships, missiles won't do much damage, whereas turrets are not affected by speed in general but by angular component of it. L-size turrets can hit even a frig if it's angular velocity is 0 rad and deal full damage, no matter how fast the frig goes, no matter how small it's signature is; missiles won't get a full hit even on a stationary target if it's signature is low enough. On the other hand, the user of missiles doesn't have to think about the component of angular velocity brought by his ship and can go in whatever direction he wants to, as his movements do not affect the dps landed on the target (except for range and chase-down parts).
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6111 - 2012-11-20 18:02:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
serras bang wrote:
well tbh what would you like me to comapr the raven to ? as there is no pirate ship the relys on missles however im beating that counterpart gun boat produce over the 1k dps and the reason i compair them is for the fact there used or shall we compair em to the mach as that is also a mission running bs ? witch produces over the 1k dps and has a nice flight of drones ?


In case you didn't know:
T1 < Navy < Pirate

So there's nothing new about the fact that pirate BSs are better than T1.

Yes, Mach does 1,1k dps... at 3,69 km with bad tracking.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#6112 - 2012-11-20 18:23:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ?


HMLs do obsolete cruise to a certain degree, but it's undeniable that cruise is bad. But it's also a problem with the Raven hull.

In solo/small-gang where delayed missile damage is of little consequence, the Raven is fat and slow, unsuitable for environments where mobility is important, while cruise damage is difficult to apply to BS-light opponents. Tier 3 BCs and HML Drake have a much more useful combination of ranged DPS and survivability here.

In fleet, Cruise Raven DPS, ease of DPS application and tank are generally inferior to other weapons in the important range zones. The extra range of Cruise beyond 150 km is basically unusable because of instant probing and on-grid warping.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#6113 - 2012-11-20 18:25:57 UTC
Faora Zod wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Arya Greywolf wrote:
Faora Zod wrote:


Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.

There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.

Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.



You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.




Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up.


Did you just read what this person said or my full post? Try and look beyond the HML nerf, look at the whole picture people. People bitched and moaned about how the pants money was going to be a way for EVE to be a pay to win game, when it has already been for years. Real Life money buys GTCs, you convert them to plexes, put them up for sale buy the universe. It isn't to hard to see if you look at it.


Sigh, I have read every post in this thread from post #1 and I understand your argument, I am however free to disagree...

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#6114 - 2012-11-20 18:46:01 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
HMLs do obsolete cruise to a certain degree, but it's undeniable that cruise is bad. But it's also a problem with the Raven hull.

In solo/small-gang where delayed missile damage is of little consequence, the Raven is fat and slow, unsuitable for environments where mobility is important, while cruise damage is difficult to apply to BS-light opponents. Tier 3 BCs and HML Drake have a much more useful combination of ranged DPS and survivability here.

In fleet, Cruise Raven DPS, ease of DPS application and tank are generally inferior to other weapons in the important range zones. The extra range of Cruise beyond 150 km is basically unusable because of instant probing and on-grid warping.

Raven is not more fat than most other cruisers (I don't talk about the typhoon, it's special case and not representative of the majority of BS).

I already posted a Raven fit : the Raven have the same ehp than a Maelstrom, and more dps at 70km than Maelstrom, Rokh and Pulse Abaddon (hellcat). The Raven is the fastest of all these, and the most agile. Capacitor stability is the same than Maelstrom. The Raven have a heavy neutralizer. The Raven cannot be outtracked at close range, and with some TP on a support ship, they hit cruisers fine.

What I think is that HML Drake and Tengu obsolete the CML Raven. Drake is basically 70% of the Raven for a fraction of its price but is faster, and tengu is plain better.
ConranAntoni
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6115 - 2012-11-20 21:04:40 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
HMLs do obsolete cruise to a certain degree, but it's undeniable that cruise is bad. But it's also a problem with the Raven hull.

In solo/small-gang where delayed missile damage is of little consequence, the Raven is fat and slow, unsuitable for environments where mobility is important, while cruise damage is difficult to apply to BS-light opponents. Tier 3 BCs and HML Drake have a much more useful combination of ranged DPS and survivability here.

In fleet, Cruise Raven DPS, ease of DPS application and tank are generally inferior to other weapons in the important range zones. The extra range of Cruise beyond 150 km is basically unusable because of instant probing and on-grid warping.

Raven is not more fat than most other cruisers (I don't talk about the typhoon, it's special case and not representative of the majority of BS).

I already posted a Raven fit : the Raven have the same ehp than a Maelstrom, and more dps at 70km than Maelstrom, Rokh and Pulse Abaddon (hellcat). The Raven is the fastest of all these, and the most agile. Capacitor stability is the same than Maelstrom. The Raven have a heavy neutralizer. The Raven cannot be outtracked at close range, and with some TP on a support ship, they hit cruisers fine.

What I think is that HML Drake and Tengu obsolete the CML Raven. Drake is basically 70% of the Raven for a fraction of its price but is faster, and tengu is plain better.


You are literally ********. Ravens are bad and Drake's only get qq'ed about as their ease of use and freedom of range.


I mean I literally **** myself laughing when you tried to make a Raven sound good. Quit eve.

Empyrean Warriors - Recruiting now.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6116 - 2012-11-20 21:35:17 UTC
Funny how some missile users still think Ferox can alpha that Dramiel orbiting @ 5km.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#6117 - 2012-11-20 23:51:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
ConranAntoni wrote:
You are literally ********. Ravens are bad and Drake's only get qq'ed about as their ease of use and freedom of range.


I mean I literally **** myself laughing when you tried to make a Raven sound good. Quit eve.


Still less argumentative than my dog asking for food...

Either there is reason for the Raven to be bad, and they are so obvious they should have been explained ONCE in this whole threadnought, or caldari are so bad they don't even know why the Raven is bad and take it for granted, or the Raven is not that bad.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#6118 - 2012-11-21 01:30:08 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

I already posted a Raven fit..


Post it again.
CaptainFalcon07
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#6119 - 2012-11-21 02:34:29 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

I already posted a Raven fit..


Post it again.


Raven is poor for PVP due to missile flight time for the ranges it engages. You have a wait a good 10-15 seconds for the missiles to hit, while for turrets they hit instantly and deactivate the moment that the target is destroyed, therefore you don't waste vollies. Damage application of cruise missiles are poor without any rigs.

On Top of that Cruise missile DPS is poor especially compounded with that fact that the Raven can only fit 6 launchers while other battleships have 7-8 turrets.

If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs?

Oh and I have Caldari BS V and Cruise Missiles V, so I can tell you first hand why its only good for mission running.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6120 - 2012-11-21 03:52:01 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
serras bang wrote:
well tbh what would you like me to comapr the raven to ? as there is no pirate ship the relys on missles however im beating that counterpart gun boat produce over the 1k dps and the reason i compair them is for the fact there used or shall we compair em to the mach as that is also a mission running bs ? witch produces over the 1k dps and has a nice flight of drones ?

And you are now gone back to pve concerns...

I don't have anything against pve, though you cannot balance ships between themselves for pve, because that would cause massive imbalance for pvp. I already explain it, but I'm afraid this thread memory is not more than 20 pages.

PS : and again, if a ship is underperforming, whine for it to be buffed instead of whining for your OP weapon system to still be OP.


ok few things i dont care for pvp and why should all ships be balanced for pvp when it can quite easily upset pve and pve players find out they have to change there style completely and perhaps even change race of ships and possibly weapons ?

and secondly many people see minmatar weapons system being op especialy were alpha is concerned but all we see is a few ships getting nerfed not the entirerty of the weapons.