These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rose Honey
Small Holdings Inc.
#2521 - 2012-09-22 00:05:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rose Honey
*Post assumes I can do maths in my head at 1am.

I have a a thing,

Has anyone done the math of how the TE and TC will effect other missiles?

Are the ranges going to be improved by 30% from a TE(*TE gives 15% opts 30% Fall Off) Same from a TC(30% with range script). I'm unsure if they stack together or not, but assume they don't. That's 60% more range from torps.

With a T1 Range rig, a Raven gets 55km with Javelins, and 743DPS 60% of that is 33km making that 88km minus the weird EFT getting the math some 5ishkm over what TQ actually does. Sure its Torps but still. 80KM on a short range weapons system seems kinda broken. Remove the rig and its still 72km. Navy's around 45km and Rage 43km.

Of course its assuming missiles get the same 30% range as guns, and that the TC and TE don't stack together. Its still only torps so your 743dps on a moving target is more 200 but still.

It half reminds me of the Short range Blaster Shield Talos, which happily blaps frigs from 45km away.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#2522 - 2012-09-22 00:06:33 UTC
Tracking disruptors should be chance based too. Might even throw sensor dampners in with the aforementioned...

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2523 - 2012-09-22 00:13:25 UTC
Major Killz wrote:
Tracking disruptors should be chance based too. Might even throw sensor dampners in with the aforementioned...


I once asked why damps and disrupt do not have longer range like ecm, someone pointed to me that they are not chance based.

I would like chance based damps and disrupt, like 150 km Big smile Tornado range. Yes .......
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2524 - 2012-09-22 00:17:14 UTC
Would be interesting if short range weapon systems increased your agility and top speed while long range weapon systems decreased your agility and top speed. Not my a lot, but maybe a 5-10% variation.
Doddy
Excidium.
#2525 - 2012-09-22 00:20:51 UTC
Bloutok wrote:
Major Killz wrote:
Tracking disruptors should be chance based too. Might even throw sensor dampners in with the aforementioned...


I once asked why damps and disrupt do not have longer range like ecm, someone pointed to me that they are not chance based.

I would like chance based damps and disrupt, like 150 km Big smile Tornado range. Yes .......


Disruptors have a longer range than ecm, damps have only slightly less than racial ecm and is more than multispecs. So what are you on about? The range bonus on the scorp?
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2526 - 2012-09-22 00:29:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikolai Dostoyevski
Am I the only one who's kind of feeling let down by these missile changes? Most nerfs don't bother me - not even nerfs to ships I fly. I can just switch to other ships or deal with it. But for some reason these proposed missile changes have really dampened my interest in Eve.. can't explain it. Not rational.. I just feel like there's some misunderstandings of #s and killboards that are being relied upon to make poor changes to the game and that they're going way too far. Just leaves me feeling kinda meh, like certain people at CCP got it in their minds and they're going to push this through no matter what.. so why even bother to argue...

I can live with range nerfs.. makes sense. Not a huge fan of making a one-for-all EWAR platform out of TDs.. but hell, I could even live with that (and fit appropriately).. but there's not much you can do to counter the major damage nerf to HMLs that impacts not only drakes and tengus, but caracals and other HML using fits.. and the 20% damage nerf is multiplied many times over when you take into account the BCUs, skills that increase dmg, etc. When you nerf the base missile dmg by 20%, you're really reducing total damage by a MUCH more significant #.
Leslie Hero
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2527 - 2012-09-22 00:32:53 UTC
I'm ruined. Iv only skilled Caldary ships and missiles nothing else... how should i play after this patch?
Gavin Anthar
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2528 - 2012-09-22 00:35:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Gavin Anthar
So ... really the issue is that Drakes and Tengus need nerfs ... not HML. I think we've cleared that up. My suggestion:

1) Nerf HML range per current plan, maybe 10-15%
2) Reduce drake dmg bonus to ~2.5-3.5%
3) Nerf the Tengu bonus on the Accelerated Ejection Bay by reducing the ROF (to ~3.5-5.5%/lvl) and the range bonuses (to ~5-7%/lvl)
4) Buff HML dmg by ~2-3.5%
5) Buff HAM dmg by ~3.5-5%

This will buff other caldari ships (which need it) but will nerf the 2 ships which everyone knows need it. We can then tweek those numbers as needed in further iterations but it addresses the overpowered tengu/drake and the underpowered remaining caldari fleet. Also please keep in mind ... drakes are terrible solo so we don't want to nerf them too much.

Also ... Torps are crap. Please think about how underpowered the Marauders are in PVE compared to the more PVP focused Faction BSs. The Golem, imho, should be the premeir L4 mish ship .... it's not .... we need to buff the Golem (and Marauders in general ... for PVE only) . Please keep this in mind.

Lastly, CAP missiles suck .... lets not nerf those either, eh?
Lili Lu
#2529 - 2012-09-22 00:39:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Bloutok wrote:
I once asked why damps and disrupt do not have longer range like ecm, someone pointed to me that they are not chance based.

I would like chance based damps and disrupt, like 150 km Big smile Tornado range. Yes .......

Max skills on tech II Damps gives you 45km optimal and 90km falloff.
No ship bonus, mod, or rig to range exist yet on non-ecm ewar.
Ecm does have ship bonuses and mods to increase range.
There is a gang link to increase all ewar range.

TDs ditto as per damps. and the range on tech II TD is 72 optimal and 36 falloff.

All the non chance based (non ecm) ewars should be skeewed toward falloff imo because they are not chance based. Falloff introduces a chance mechanic. Ecm has a long optimal in exchange for the chance based mechanic.

I would have no problem with putting all the non-ecm ewar into an even shorter optimal but a longer falloff. Say 30km optimal and 120km falloff.
Guillaume Conquerant
#2530 - 2012-09-22 00:45:32 UTC
Gavin Anthar wrote:
We can then tweek those numbers as needed in further iterations but it addresses the overpowered tengu/drake and the underpowered remaining caldari fleet.



^^ this!
T Baggens
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2531 - 2012-09-22 01:06:43 UTC
Really more nurffs

Manybe it's time for me to Tweek my game play with no accounts. Really tired of the game being screwed up over and over again. From speed to missle damage to this STupid New interface..




Have a good one.

There are better game comming out soon and it's not dust.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2532 - 2012-09-22 01:07:57 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Bloutok wrote:
I once asked why damps and disrupt do not have longer range like ecm, someone pointed to me that they are not chance based.

I would like chance based damps and disrupt, like 150 km Big smile Tornado range. Yes .......

Max skills on tech II Damps gives you 45km optimal and 90km falloff.
No ship bonus, mod, or rig to range exist yet on non-ecm ewar.
Ecm does have ship bonuses and mods to increase range.
There is a gang link to increase all ewar range.

TDs ditto as per damps. and the range on tech II TD is 72 optimal and 36 falloff.

All the non chance based (non ecm) ewars should be skeewed toward falloff imo because they are not chance based. Falloff introduces a chance mechanic. Ecm has a long optimal in exchange for the chance based mechanic.

I would have no problem with putting all the non-ecm ewar into an even shorter optimal but a longer falloff. Say 30km optimal and 120km falloff.


My immediate thought is. Arazu / Lachesis for the win, and i like it Big smile

I will add a gratuitous comment in saying that it hurts a lot to agree with you.....
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#2533 - 2012-09-22 01:39:48 UTC
I still want to know if TDs effect missiles where are our missile medium slot mods to increase missle range like turrets get huh?

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2534 - 2012-09-22 01:40:34 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
I still want to know if TDs effect missiles where are our missile medium slot mods to increase missle range like turrets get huh?

Please reread the first post of the thread more carefully.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2535 - 2012-09-22 01:42:04 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


A) The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?
I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.

B) Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.


Let's break this down real simple for you:

A) We aren't comparing HML's to autocannon's and blasters. We are comparing them to Arty's, Hybrids and Beams, albet with short range ammo...but the fact of the matter remains, HML's don't have a short range ammo.....HAM's are worthless....ask the eve population....Do the math...close range, people want volley damage, and frankly, that's what the hams are.

B) it has more to do with skill requirements and the and the fact that I can fit a better tank while maximizing DPS as damage mods go in lows, shield mods go in mediums.....versus armor mods go in close as well as needing tracking. If I could've trained Large Arty Specialization without all the ridiculous requirements necessary to get there....it's not rocket science, it's common sense....every corp/alliance/coalition member I talk to all says the same thing....it's the ability to maximize tank while having ok dps and the fact you don't have to do all the extra training to use T2 weapons that makes them hate the drake. It's easier to get a fleet cross-trained into a drake with T2 weapons then any other.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#2536 - 2012-09-22 01:48:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Seranova Farreach wrote:
" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"

your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350


The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.



I would ask that you please don't forget the 'other' missile ships when you are playing with balance numbers (khanid Amarrs, etc). Smile

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#2537 - 2012-09-22 02:09:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Garviel Tarrant
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:

Let's break this down real simple for you:

A) We aren't comparing HML's to autocannon's and blasters. We are comparing them to Arty's, Hybrids and Beams, albet with short range ammo...but the fact of the matter remains, HML's don't have a short range ammo.....HAM's are worthless....ask the eve population....Do the math...close range, people want volley damage, and frankly, that's what the hams are.

B) it has more to do with skill requirements and the and the fact that I can fit a better tank while maximizing DPS as damage mods go in lows, shield mods go in mediums.....versus armor mods go in close as well as needing tracking. If I could've trained Large Arty Specialization without all the ridiculous requirements necessary to get there....it's not rocket science, it's common sense....every corp/alliance/coalition member I talk to all says the same thing....it's the ability to maximize tank while having ok dps and the fact you don't have to do all the extra training to use T2 weapons that makes them hate the drake. It's easier to get a fleet cross-trained into a drake with T2 weapons then any other.



First its late so i'm prolly going to be making minor errors, over all point still stands.
A)
First you're ignoring the fact that HML's are quite good at dealing with small fast moving targets unlike the other long range weapons, a HML drake with webs generally has a very easy time taking down tackle. Thats a huge plus.

Lets do a slight comparison as things are now

Heavy beam laser: PG: 275 CPU: 37 cap use -3.61 Using Gleam 36.9 dps (gleam is terrible though) Aurora (Shockingly bad ammo) 21 dps at 54km (due to HORRIBLE tracking final dps will be way worse (a frig moving at 800 m/s with a 90° transversal will be getting hit for about .0002dps.. That is epicly bad tracking)

250mm rails: PG 208 CPU 42 cap use -1.1 using javelin 35 dps. With spike 20 dps at around 70km with even WORSE tracking than aurora.

720mm Howitzer artillery PG 275 CPU 32 cap use naught. Using quake 29,4 dps. With Tremor 16,8 dps with the worst tracking yet.

HML PG 105!! CPU 55 using any faction ammo 28.6 dps at 81km

And lets not forget that those numbers above from the long range weapons are ON paper numbers, The real numbers in a fight would be significantly worse due to those ammo types being really ******* bad at everything else than dps numbers.

In a fight at 0 on paper the HML's have a slight disadvantage to the other long range weapons but in practice it outdpses them easily. And even if it didn't it so highly outdpses those weapon types at long range that it isn't even a comparison. After a 20% dps nerf this weapon system will still be one of the HIGHEST damaging ones at any range in terms of applied dps.

If anything HML's should be further nerfed because they are still WAY to good at killing frigates. And now if you add TE's into the mix? a frig orbiting at 0 will go down in flames in moments, something the other long range weapons can't do AT THEIR MAXIMUM range

B) is stupid so i won't bother replying to it.

This is a long range weapon with the damage output of a short range weapon, now its being brought in line. Now is it to much to ask for people to just stop being bad in here?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2538 - 2012-09-22 02:29:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Terik Deatharbingr
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:

Let's break this down real simple for you:

A) We aren't comparing HML's to autocannon's and blasters. We are comparing them to Arty's, Hybrids and Beams, albet with short range ammo...but the fact of the matter remains, HML's don't have a short range ammo.....HAM's are worthless....ask the eve population....Do the math...close range, people want volley damage, and frankly, that's what the hams are.

B) it has more to do with skill requirements and the and the fact that I can fit a better tank while maximizing DPS as damage mods go in lows, shield mods go in mediums.....versus armor mods go in close as well as needing tracking. If I could've trained Large Arty Specialization without all the ridiculous requirements necessary to get there....it's not rocket science, it's common sense....every corp/alliance/coalition member I talk to all says the same thing....it's the ability to maximize tank while having ok dps and the fact you don't have to do all the extra training to use T2 weapons that makes them hate the drake. It's easier to get a fleet cross-trained into a drake with T2 weapons then any other.



First its late so i'm prolly going to be making minor errors, over all point still stands.
A)
First you're ignoring the fact that HML's are quite good at dealing with small fast moving targets unlike the other long range weapons, a HML drake with webs generally has a very easy time taking down tackle. Thats a huge plus.

Lets do a slight comparison as things are now

Heavy beam laser: PG: 275 CPU: 37 cap use -3.61 Using Gleam 36.9 dps (gleam is terrible though) Aurora (Shockingly bad ammo) 21 dps at 54km (due to HORRIBLE tracking final dps will be way worse (a frig moving at 800 m/s with a 90° transversal will be getting hit for about .0002dps.. That is epicly bad tracking)

250mm rails: PG 208 CPU 42 cap use -1.1 using javelin 35 dps. With spike 20 dps at around 70km with even WORSE tracking than aurora.

720mm Howitzer artillery PG 275 CPU 32 cap use naught. Using quake 29,4 dps. With Tremor 16,8 dps with the worst tracking yet.

HML PG 105!! CPU 55 using any faction ammo 28.6 dps at 81km

And lets not forget that those numbers above from the long range weapons are ON paper numbers, The real numbers in a fight would be significantly worse due to those ammo types being really ******* bad at everything else than dps numbers.

In a fight at 0 on paper the HML's have a slight disadvantage to the other long range weapons but in practice it outdpses them easily. And even if it didn't it so highly outdpses those weapon types at long range that it isn't even a comparison. After a 20% dps nerf this weapon system will still be one of the HIGHEST damaging ones at any range in terms of applied dps.

If anything HML's should be further nerfed because they are still WAY to good at killing frigates. And now if you add TE's into the mix? a frig orbiting at 0 will go down in flames in moments, something the other long range weapons can't do AT THEIR MAXIMUM range

B) is stupid so i won't bother replying to it.

This is a long range weapon with the damage output of a short range weapon, now its being brought in line. Now is it to much to ask for people to just stop being bad in here?


A) first you point out the PG usage where the base PG of a drake is 500 less than a cane, 650 less than a harby...of course a missile boat has a lower PG, therefore their weapons would not use as much PG.

you still aren't accounting for the fact that HM can't change to short range ammo....if he proposes to nerf the fury damage, and change the precision into a higher dps short range missile, then FINE.

I challenge you to get on sisi with a perfect drake pilot versus a perfect Cane pilot....with just 2 damage mods and add a tracking mod if you wish....orbit each other at 60k and see who wins

B) it's only stupid because it's accurate and at this point useless because obviously, it means you already did the training and would be upset that future people wouldn't have to. I know tons of people that would cross train into other races if that wasn't such an issue.

For people to stop being bad, they have to actually see real situations to know that the numbers they throw out are inaccurate. therefore, if you stop replying, then the number of bad will be reduced.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2539 - 2012-09-22 02:37:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games.
.
..
...
Hmmm


Oh and in case you are wondering. You have our permission to nerf the ever living **** out of dock games. Blink
Kikusama
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2540 - 2012-09-22 02:49:24 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Would be interesting if short range weapon systems increased your agility and top speed while long range weapon systems decreased your agility and top speed. Not my a lot, but maybe a 5-10% variation.


And if you undock a Drake or a Cane your ship should automatically explode Roll

Guns make the news. Science doesn't.