Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I find it funny you think 1v1's, 5v5's and 20v20's happen in this game or something.

Id like to know just what they smoke over in Iceland because of all the stuff they need to fix...they choose to mess about with this stuff.

That PI CCP fixed - still broken
The Hybrid buff - was ok but railguns are still poor
Wardec mechanic - big corps/alliances are almost impossible to wardec.

Morale of this rant is this:

CCP stop trying to fix things, your like a normal man who tries to fix everything but fails then his wife rings a professional to get it done properly..

Your priorities are just.......1000AU away from what they should be..

You are doing it wrong and its guaranteed that you will lose subs by doing this nerf because its so dumb and uncalled for.

I'd bet 20 plex on it.

Well, it also doesn't help that a certain coalition has a drake fleet doctrine, but if you look at their numbers, they are losing the ship vs ship battles....but winning on pure size of fleets. Now, they are smart in the fact that it makes a logical choice as I can get bigger blobs because many people fly the drake for their mission runners. Which in turn just further grows the popularity. But if the main fleets don't include drakes or missile boats for that matter....most are actually gun fleets

as far as that other dude's response....I've seen a buffer Cane pop a vexor and almost get a drake that were on it....but missiles are over-powered??

frankly, i do not agree with you there fozzie. not only do most 'unbonused' ships have no launcher hardpoints in the first place, there is also hardly any reason to go for heavies, unless you explicitly need to project damage to stupid ranges. I agree that the range of HMLs is over the top but the applied damage in any situation aside from 0.0 blobbing is just about where it should be to make them viable but not overpowered.
many people keep comparing HMLs to medium rails but why would you use this argument to nerf HMLs when clearly, after the nerf both weapon systems would be equally outclassed by their close combat counterparts as well as larger guns (T3 BCs in particular).

I also understand the broader picture; you want a solid base balance of weapon systems so you can THEN balance the ships around them. The idea is good; the execution not so much imho and here is why:
- turret and missile ships have different fitting philosophies right now: for turrets the damage application mods go either in low or mid slots (depending on the tank) and for missile ships they are either mid slots or rig slots. this is a very important distinction between missiles and guns and has deep implications on ship roles, fleet comps etc. removing it would take away game depth and make the distinction between missiles and projectiles more cosmetic than functional.
- the whole balancing process is long and convoluted and while i understand that it has to be this way to produce decent results, it is still pretty unfair to those players who prefer caldari ships that they get their missile nerf several months (years?) before they get the corresponding ship hull changes (i'm talking nighthawk mostly, the poor poor thing).

please think about the proposed changes such as staggering the missile ranges similarly to turret ammo and switching fitting requirements before you punish caldari with a flat 20% dps nerf and a tracking homogenization.

You mean like damage reduction with sig reduction, damage reduction with speed increase, damage reduction with firewalling, delayed damage, very specific damage bonus, etc.

man, all those sound like great ideas... oh wait, they're already being used.

nerf the range, leave the damage.

That I'd be down with.

whoosh pew

Just popping in to say that this thread is hilarious. I follow the forums for quite some time now and i haven't seen such amounts of whining and tears yet :) This is even more entertaining than the titan nerf.

Thanks guys :)

LOL no, a whole lot of butthurt and 3+ year old characters that never progressed past a drake it seems

Here is a point I would like to make.

Do not let the age of my account fool you I have only like 3 months worth of training and play time (it was kind of hard for me to get into this game I love it now).

I have 3.5 mill sp 1 mill of it in missiles. If the proposed changes “break” missiles I am screwed. So I ask for smaller changes or implementation of changes in steps to ensure that these changes do not break missiles. Furthermore I have read many threads when deciding what weapons system I wanted to train first that said the Missiles are not great but they are good for newbs. If this is really the case why nerf missiles when lots of people in the community think they suck already?

I am a newbe so I know that I have little knowledge about the game in general so I could be just way wrong but please be careful when making changes. A 20% damage reduction = 4 levels of skill training, that is a lot of training time that is used just to overcome a nerf. So with that line of thinking would a tech 1 launcher and missile setup at level 5 before the nerf do the same about of damage as the same setup with a level 1 version of this skill after the nerf?

+1