These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6121 - 2012-11-21 05:19:06 UTC
Why not train other weapon systems?

If you only train missiles and Caldari ships you will run out of useful stuff after 2 or 3 years.
If you don't care about pvp you're not going to get podded often. So there's no reason to stop training because of clone prices.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6122 - 2012-11-21 07:05:29 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Why not train other weapon systems?

If you only train missiles and Caldari ships you will run out of useful stuff after 2 or 3 years.
If you don't care about pvp you're not going to get podded often. So there's no reason to stop training because of clone prices.


if thats best you can come up that people dont train other weapon systems and thus other weapon systems shouldnt be changed or nerfed due to sp and clones dont pvp.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6123 - 2012-11-21 08:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
serras bang wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Why not train other weapon systems?

If you only train missiles and Caldari ships you will run out of useful stuff after 2 or 3 years.
If you don't care about pvp you're not going to get podded often. So there's no reason to stop training because of clone prices.


if thats best you can come up that people dont train other weapon systems and thus other weapon systems shouldnt be changed or nerfed due to sp and clones dont pvp.


What exactly you want to be changed in other weapons?

Only thing I can think of is damage of blasters.
But of course blasters should have highest dps (exactly like they do now).
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6124 - 2012-11-21 08:49:38 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
serras bang wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Why not train other weapon systems?

If you only train missiles and Caldari ships you will run out of useful stuff after 2 or 3 years.
If you don't care about pvp you're not going to get podded often. So there's no reason to stop training because of clone prices.


if thats best you can come up that people dont train other weapon systems and thus other weapon systems shouldnt be changed or nerfed due to sp and clones dont pvp.


What exactly you want to be changed in other weapons?

Only thing I can think of is damage of blasters.
But of course blasters should have highest dps (exactly like they do now).


hows about the alpha on projectiles to begins with ? reduce charge dmg increase rof half the alpha same dps ?
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6125 - 2012-11-21 09:20:37 UTC
OldWolf69 wrote:
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


Well said
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#6126 - 2012-11-21 09:45:59 UTC
Here a fleet Raven :
[Raven, test_cruise]

6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile)
Heavy Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Energy Neutralizer II

100MN Microwarpdrive II
2x Large Shield Extender II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

3x Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Signal Amplifier II

Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs?
First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?

And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha.

Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet.

@serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS.

As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem).

With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6127 - 2012-11-21 10:15:25 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Here a fleet Raven :
[Raven, test_cruise]

6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile)
Heavy Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Energy Neutralizer II

100MN Microwarpdrive II
2x Large Shield Extender II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

3x Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Signal Amplifier II

Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs?
First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?

And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha.

Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet.

@serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS.

As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem).

With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right.


you also gotta think about the explosive radius witch cant hit the broad side of a criuser or bc properly (not to sure about the broad side of a bs) but im guessing seing you aint useing tigor rigs anything bellow a buffer shield tanked bc this raven or any others will not lay full dmg on it.

you have also got the fact that caldari ships are now the slowest and heaviest of all the ships so it can no longer kite properly pulling it so itll have a further disatvantage into gun range on a faster ship is bad why i bet you ask ?

well every caldari pilot learns after shield are gone your screwd witch means a blaster, pulse, artie fit ship is on to of you your screwd as your shields plumet witch also heppend very very quickly if your webbed.

thinking of all of the above i think anyone can work out why missle users have been fighting tooth and nail to keep as much range as possible on there ships.
Skahd Hii
Redhogs
Fraternity.
#6128 - 2012-11-21 11:15:31 UTC
Should you not introduce a new module that improves the flight-time and/or max-velocity and/or explosion-radius and/or explosion-velocity of missile based weapons? Somewhat the missile equivalent of a tracking enhancer.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6129 - 2012-11-21 11:24:34 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
Skahd Hii wrote:
Should you not introduce a new module that improves the flight-time and/or max-velocity and/or explosion-radius and/or explosion-velocity of missile based weapons? Somewhat the missile equivalent of a tracking enhancer.


no and niether should td's be applied to em we have rigs that can be applied to em just like guns witch give little boost but enough and we do not have to further break our tank because a guranteed hit interferance on something that dosent rely on tracing in the first place
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#6130 - 2012-11-21 11:55:36 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Here a fleet Raven :
[Raven, test_cruise]

6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile)
Heavy Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Energy Neutralizer II

100MN Microwarpdrive II
2x Large Shield Extender II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

3x Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Signal Amplifier II

Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs?
First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?

And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha.

Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet.

@serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS.

As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem).

With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right.


Not to take away from your points. You made several but the issue with Caldari battle ships goes beyond the raven and the crippled dps aplication of Torps and cruisers. While when you compare them along side each other, lets compare your ship to my ship

Your theoretic Ship
My theoretic Ship

Those are our Signature radius numbers.

You are in a Raven Battleship,
I'm in an Archon Carrier.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6131 - 2012-11-21 12:00:43 UTC
Ioci wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Here a fleet Raven :
[Raven, test_cruise]

6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile)
Heavy Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Energy Neutralizer II

100MN Microwarpdrive II
2x Large Shield Extender II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

3x Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Signal Amplifier II

Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:
If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs?
First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?

And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha.

Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet.

@serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS.

As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem).

With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right.


Not to take away from your points. You made several but the issue with Caldari battle ships goes beyond the raven and the crippled dps aplication of Torps and cruisers. While when you compare them along side each other, lets compare your ship to my ship

Your theoretic Ship
My theoretic Ship

Those are our Signature radius numbers.

You are in a Raven Battleship,
I'm in an Archon Carrier.


dunno were or how you got a 3k sig radius on a raven from.
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#6132 - 2012-11-21 12:11:41 UTC
MWD = 500% sig rad penalty

R.I.P. Vile Rat
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6133 - 2012-11-21 12:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
-
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#6134 - 2012-11-21 12:38:53 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
...And I'm finally caught up again.

TKL HUN wrote:

I'm really happy that you are satisfied, but I'm not, and I think I'm not alone with this.

Anyway I asked CCP, but I think I won't get an answer.

If you want to stop using your missile sp after Retri that's well within your rights, although I would not recommend it. Either way I'll be the guy over there continuing to own people with my Drake.


Ludiah wrote:

Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG.

By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by.

I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho.

The Hurricane was initially designed as an Arty ship, and all that extra powergrid is part of why it's so overpowered when used with autocannons. So we're reducing the disparity between Auto and Arty PG and dropping the PG of the Hurricane so that Hurricane pilots have to make some choices about their fitting. Hurricane is still going to be a great ship. I advise trying it out after Retri and see what you think.


OldWolf69 wrote:
This all is rly fun. Single thing for me to ask is WHEN we do get NEW content. Nope, i don't mean shady role ships noone will fly. No, i also don't mean nerfs. I mean palpable new content. Like what WH's were once back in time. Balance? ImBalance? Just have a look at the aggresion mechanics, or the risks for gankers, and you begin to laugh, like i did, and most of us also do.
***"We cannot match the GREATNESS of our ancestors"***
This could be the today's CCP motto. Because what we get is cheap nerf instead of new content.Big smile

You may want to check out this dev blog for the changes being made to aggression and ganking in Retribution.


Desert Ice78 wrote:
CCP Foozie,

Just to let you know, every time I come back to this thread I feel like I have died just a little bit more.

This is an incredibly deep statement. It is true that every day we inch closer that that one basic inevitability. Our mortality colours every action, every thought of our adult lives and every day we die a little bit more.
I find playing video games is a great way to take your mind off it though.


Faora Zod wrote:
What amazes me about these changes is that

1. after trying them out on the test server they are crap, no more buying GTCs to turn into plexes to put up for sale to replace lost drakes and tengu,. Yeah for lost revenue for CCP!
2. One of the best things about the Drake is how quickly new players can train to use one, it is a simple good ship to use and actually helps draw new people into the game, before they have to train into something more complicated to fly. I see more and more people being turned off from Eve, less new players means more lost revenue!

I am sure that if these changes go into effect that I will not be the only one to let my accounts lapse and just move on to another game.

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.

Buy the GTC! it is worth 2 months game time, a 30 dollar value for 35 dollars! Oh but you can split it into single months and sale them in game for ISK! oh wait or you can convert it in to another form of currency and buy pants! Lost a billion isk ship? That's okay buy a GTC and sale the plexes!

It is getting ridicules CCP, quit screwing **** up

Wait, are these changes supposed to increase or decrease our profits? You lost me there and I want to make sure I'm part of the correct shadowy conspiracy.
In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?!


[quote=OT Smithers]One thing this alliance tournament has made perfectly clear....

Out of the 350 or so ships featured in this alliance tournament, there have been precisely zero Drakes, zero Tengus, zero Caracals, zero Cerbs. We've seen damn near every...

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#6135 - 2012-11-21 12:45:17 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Here a fleet Raven :
[Raven, test_cruise]

6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile)
Heavy Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Energy Neutralizer II

100MN Microwarpdrive II
2x Large Shield Extender II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

3x Ballistic Control System II
Damage Control II
Signal Amplifier II

Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I
Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I


You'd probably want a cap booster on that to support the neuts and MWD. Still, let's assume that you can get away without it. The Flare rig is definitely stupid though.

Mobility isn't particularly important. In gang but without links your Raven has 110k EHP, tanks 365 DPS from a single best-named LST. 539 DPS to 134 km lock range with 3597 volley.

Compare an Abaddon. EHP is highly dependent on the exact fit, but something like the old PL type fit gives 143k EHP with a best-named LRAR giving a 377 DPS tank. 649 DPS to 58/16 km with 2995 volley, or 815 DPS Navy close up.

Compare Rokh. 144k EHP, tanks 466 DPS from a single best-named LST. 541 DPS to 62/39 km with 3031 volley, or 451 DPS at 93/39 km with 2525 volley.

So yeah, it has the lowest EHP and the lowest RR tank. Its raw DPS is vastly inferior to the Abaddon's close up and offers no advantage over the Rokhs until about 100 km, even before considering the greater difficulty of cruise damage application relative to rails at that range, particularly when everyone has sig-reduction links. Full damage type selectivity and delayed damage are more difficult to quantify, but I don't think they fundamentally change its inferiority.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#6136 - 2012-11-21 13:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Gypsio III wrote:
You'd probably want a cap booster on that to support the neuts and MWD. Still, let's assume that you can get away without it. The Flare rig is definitely stupid though.

Mobility isn't particularly important. In gang but without links your Raven has 110k EHP, tanks 365 DPS from a single best-named LST. 539 DPS to 134 km lock range with 3597 volley.

Compare an Abaddon. EHP is highly dependent on the exact fit, but something like the old PL type fit gives 143k EHP with a best-named LRAR giving a 377 DPS tank. 649 DPS to 58/16 km with 2995 volley, or 815 DPS Navy close up.

Compare Rokh. 144k EHP, tanks 466 DPS from a single best-named LST. 541 DPS to 62/39 km with 3031 volley, or 451 DPS at 93/39 km with 2525 volley.

So yeah, it has the lowest EHP and the lowest RR tank. Its raw DPS is vastly inferior to the Abaddon's close up and offers no advantage over the Rokhs until about 100 km, even before considering the greater difficulty of cruise damage application relative to rails at that range, particularly when everyone has sig-reduction links. Full damage type selectivity and delayed damage are more difficult to quantify, but I don't think they fundamentally change its inferiority.

I'm not pretending to be a specialist, and indeed you may have trouble using the neutra without a cap booster, though one heavy neut cycle will leave any cruiser or frigate dry. Now, if the missiles rigs are not optimals, replace them by something better. I didn't intend to artificially grow some stats and I was afraid of damage application to be a problem.

Your dps comparison with the Rokh is wrong though : navy antimatter at 70km have a little less dps than the Raven (25% falloff mean 95%dps), so dps is largely the same at this range, moreover if you consider damage selection. The Rokh though only lose dps as the range increase whereas the Raven don't. I persist : the Raven have a better dps than the fleet Rokh at 70km and beyond.

As for the tank, indeed it's worse than Abaddon and Rokh, though you ignored the Maelstrom which have the exact same tank than this one shield rig Raven.

In the end, the Raven trade tank for dps vs the Rokh, range vs the Abaddon, and trade alpha for dps versus the Maelstrom. It is also cheaper than all of these.

Maybe it's advantages are not enough for what it trade (tank (resist) or alpha), but that would mean that the meta exclude anything without either resist bonus or artillery bonus, not that the Raven is bad.

PS : and if you consider it's only a tier 2 BS, it's pretty good IMO.
PPS : I forgot an important thing : against a BS, you can use fury cruise missiles to reach 576dps and 4000 alpha damage.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#6137 - 2012-11-21 13:53:54 UTC
Faora Zod wrote:
What amazes me about these changes is that

1. after trying them out on the test server they are crap, no more buying GTCs to turn into plexes to put up for sale to replace lost drakes and tengu,. Yeah for lost revenue for CCP!
2. One of the best things about the Drake is how quickly new players can train to use one, it is a simple good ship to use and actually helps draw new people into the game, before they have to train into something more complicated to fly. I see more and more people being turned off from Eve, less new players means more lost revenue!

I am sure that if these changes go into effect that I will not be the only one to let my accounts lapse and just move on to another game.

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.

Buy the GTC! it is worth 2 months game time, a 30 dollar value for 35 dollars! Oh but you can split it into single months and sale them in game for ISK! oh wait or you can convert it in to another form of currency and buy pants! Lost a billion isk ship? That's okay buy a GTC and sale the plexes!

It is getting ridicules CCP, quit screwing **** up


Hahaha, this is so funny. Some people don't have any idea what they are talking about.
- 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.

Well sh't bro, guess what balancing is! Not having "the two best ships" is per definition balance.

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

Yes there is. And where there are two ships that dominate the game, they are clearly broken in one form or another.


Nice try tho, threatening CCP with decrease in profit. How do you get all this inside info from CCP? /sarcasm

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6138 - 2012-11-21 15:02:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Gypsio III wrote:
Mobility isn't particularly important. In gang but without links your Raven has 110k EHP, tanks 365 DPS from a single best-named LST. 539 DPS to 134 km lock range with 3597 volley.

Compare an Abaddon. EHP is highly dependent on the exact fit, but something like the old PL type fit gives 143k EHP with a best-named LRAR giving a 377 DPS tank. 649 DPS to 58/16 km with 2995 volley, or 815 DPS Navy close up.

Compare Rokh. 144k EHP, tanks 466 DPS from a single best-named LST. 541 DPS to 62/39 km with 3031 volley, or 451 DPS at 93/39 km with 2525 volley.

So yeah, it has the lowest EHP and the lowest RR tank. Its raw DPS is vastly inferior to the Abaddon's close up and offers no advantage over the Rokhs until about 100 km, even before considering the greater difficulty of cruise damage application relative to rails at that range, particularly when everyone has sig-reduction links. Full damage type selectivity and delayed damage are more difficult to quantify, but I don't think they fundamentally change its inferiority.


I wonder why especially Abaddon and Rokh have better tank than Raven... Roll

For those who think Raven is slow: I'd like to see Abaddon kiting Raven.
Karig'Ano Keikira
Tax Cheaters
#6139 - 2012-11-21 15:05:21 UTC
Well, rokh vs raven, i think problem is following:
- raven has a bit more paper DPS on long range, however it has significant delay to apply that damage and will most certainly do less real DPS vs anything smaller then battleship; combine them into a fleet and you have same problem as all missile fleets - damage delay becomes serious problem; drakes can battle this by having significant DPS and EHP advantage over other battlecruisers in fleet situation and long range, but raven hardly has (and it lacks EHP and mobility vs other battleships)
- therefore raven performs better at short range (where other battleships shred it) or ultra long range where it can outrange other ships, but in reality ultra long range battle are virtually nonexistant and even there sniper turret ships might be better due to lack of problem with high damage delay, volley counting and lost volleys
- similar problem applies to HMs - realistically speaking, they are OP atm and after nerf they will still be paper-better then comparable turrets, but in reality might becomes worse then turrets
Lili Lu
#6140 - 2012-11-21 15:21:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
CCP Fozzie wrote:
...And I'm finally caught up again. ...


Nice answers Fozzie, but really don't waste your time reading this thread anymore. It's all been whi . . uh, said hundreds of times and your efforts would be better spent working on the next set of ships.

Btw, in case you read this post even though I'd rather you continue on ship workP, here's my wish list

- nerf BC shield regen accross the board and then proceed from there.
- nerf unbonused tracking disrupters some more
- stand firm on introducing the TE/TC/TD change to affect missiles, but again make their effects less dramatic than for turrets.
- tweak probing or do away with the eccm + sig radius probing difficulty mechanic since it does not look like your fix vs the off-grid booster mechanic will be appearing anytime soon. And, btw, consider adding a (one) link slot for Destroyers or AF when you do get the fix. Small ship gangs will no longer have a loki flying with them. Some tanked up (as much as they can be, heh) and link providing destroyers, or AF, will be welcome for those gangs.
- please don't obsolete tech I cruisers again with the new medium fw plex ship restrictions. Tech II and III cruisers can go into majors fine like they do now.
- do something to reduce the armor and skirmish rig and module conflict self nerfing phenomenon. Otherwise shield tank kiting will remain dominant.

And lastly, thanks for the new sensor skills. People that whine about the skill training time are just whiners. This game frankly needs more skills. Especially skills like those that are adding something that people got along ok without for years but now that they are available will want. They are not mandatory for success, but they will be quite nifty.

Speaking as a 6 year old character that refuses to train supercaps, which are a scourge on the game imo, one begins to have to search too much for things to train. Skill loading the game some more is probably the best route to retaining people who have been in the game a long time.