These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cornette
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2661 - 2012-09-23 09:00:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Cornette
I approve of these missile changes (nerfs). Without them I fear the comming buffs to Tech 1 cruisers will be for nuffing. Don't listen to the whiners, people will adapt and move on. I do miss one nerf, the Drake's 5% resistance boni, does it stay or does it go?

I also approve of the powergrid nerf to the Cane. Right now I can choose 425MM AC's + shield tank + dual medium neuts + Gyros/TE's in low, and that makes it stupidly OP. After I will have to choose 2 out of 3. That will be good for making people fit more diverse setups.


After the T1 line of cruisers had its buffs, the Tech 2 line may need some adjustments. Within reason of course. Cerberus should have its current ROF of 5% upped to 7,5%, if the Caracal gets it, and maybe, just maybe, one more launcher.

The Eagle, yeah what about it... I really don't know, because it's not working in its niche as a sniper...


Im sure there is more that could be said but I leave it at there for now. Overall, I feel there is great changes to the ships comming this winter.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#2662 - 2012-09-23 09:14:29 UTC
I'm slightly worried about the HML damage drop, but from a different standpoint to most (and one which I concede, no-one is going to care about). PVE damage application in missions, I did angel Ex (level 3) for fun last night and realised even now it took a LONG time to drop the BS at the end.

I'm talking about people without perfect skills just progressing naturally along the race line. As I say I don't expect many people to bother but it should be mentioned.


In related news, unless I misread/misinterpreted this ... the SNI is going to become a beast.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#2663 - 2012-09-23 09:31:41 UTC
Gungankllr wrote:
Everybody keeps talking about missiles doing their full DPS at max range- the problem is that there is the "X" factor of flight time, which isn't something that is easy to toss into a straight across the board comparison of different DPS platforms.

The whole missile system needs to get scrapped and redone. The idea of small ships getting less damage done to them is both ridiculous and flies in the face of common sense and basic physics from the start.

Sure, it's a game, but it's a game that has quite a base of science and fact, in addition to the science fiction fluff added.

The explosive velocity of TNT on earth, in an atmosphere is 6,900 meters a second. It's about 15,000 miles per hour.

The explosion velocity of a standard Scourge Heavy Missile is 81 meters a second, or about 178 miles per hour.

The fastest pitcher in baseball had a fastball that was clocked at 108 MPH, which is about 48 m/s.

China just made a TRAIN that can travel at 574 miles per hour, which equates to about 258 m/s.

The missile travels at 3750 m/s before skills, which means that the missile itself travels roughly 46 times faster than the explosive charge it is carrying when it explodes.

The math and science don't add up whatsoever, unless explosives in the far, far future (some of which are titled as being nuclear) are like throwing oatmeal against a wall.

I completely understand that the designers were trying to keep Torpedos from one shotting frigates and whatnot, but I think that honestly- that's kind of the point?

If you drop a 2000 pound JDAM on a bicycle it tends to turn very quickly into things you would see on the periodic table.

The whole missile system itself was overhauled to make absolutely zero sense, and is now being considered to be changed to something which makes even less sense.

I really wish somebody would sit down in a group and brainstorm a way to make missiles viable without making them make sense in the realm of physics


its meant to represent the smaller ships ability to evade incoming missiles. try hitting a speed boat with an un guided torpedo, or a fighter with a cruise missile (considering some missiles used in the opening of the aghan war missed their stationary target buildings by up to 100metres :S)

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Sigras
Conglomo
#2664 - 2012-09-23 09:56:54 UTC
Javius Rong wrote:
I am not against rebalancing. The issue I have is they are rebalancing a major weapons platforms before addressing any of the effected ship platforms. This is out of order!! the HM changes effects Drakes, Tengus and Rooks is major ways and essentially diminishing their value to the player while those ships will not be addressed for 1 to 2 to 3 patches at least later.

I would rather see the HM changes delayed till they deal with the ships that are effected and rebalance medium hybrids (blaster and rails) way before this as that would make both Gallente and Caldair gun boats viable vs. Minmatar (winmatar as it is now).

The problem is that either way you do it, someone is left out in the cold for a while.

If they nerf the missiles now, and balance the ships later people will be left out because theyre waiting on all the ships to get adjusted to the new missile stats

if they nerf the ships now and adjust the missiles later, people will be left out because now theyre waiting on the missiles to get adjusted to the new lowered ship stats

if they change both at the same time, theyre simultaneously changing two variables in a function simultaneously . . . this is how horrific changes and unexpected interactions happen.

TL;DR
Any way you do it, someone gets screwed.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#2665 - 2012-09-23 10:09:20 UTC
Sigras wrote:
if they change both at the same time, theyre simultaneously changing two variables in a function simultaneously . . . this is how horrific changes and unexpected interactions happen.

TL;DR
Any way you do it, someone gets screwed.


Agreed, however there might be an argument in (I hate the term but...) hotfixing the two problem hulls with the intent to revisit it later once missiles can be sorted out properly. This mitigates the issue temporarily without knackering everything other than the two problem hulls in the process and would allow more granular testing/iterations.



Also, Fozzie said defenders are a) crap and b) heavy on the [host?] CPU. Why not change it, as has been suggested before, to a phalanx type system? No extra objects like little missiles, less calculations and (if tuned properly) a cool anti missile system that works.
Sigras
Conglomo
#2666 - 2012-09-23 10:30:39 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Gungankllr wrote:
Everybody keeps talking about missiles doing their full DPS at max range- the problem is that there is the "X" factor of flight time, which isn't something that is easy to toss into a straight across the board comparison of different DPS platforms.

The whole missile system needs to get scrapped and redone. The idea of small ships getting less damage done to them is both ridiculous and flies in the face of common sense and basic physics from the start.

Sure, it's a game, but it's a game that has quite a base of science and fact, in addition to the science fiction fluff added.

The explosive velocity of TNT on earth, in an atmosphere is 6,900 meters a second. It's about 15,000 miles per hour.

The explosion velocity of a standard Scourge Heavy Missile is 81 meters a second, or about 178 miles per hour.

The fastest pitcher in baseball had a fastball that was clocked at 108 MPH, which is about 48 m/s.

China just made a TRAIN that can travel at 574 miles per hour, which equates to about 258 m/s.

The missile travels at 3750 m/s before skills, which means that the missile itself travels roughly 46 times faster than the explosive charge it is carrying when it explodes.

The math and science don't add up whatsoever, unless explosives in the far, far future (some of which are titled as being nuclear) are like throwing oatmeal against a wall.

I completely understand that the designers were trying to keep Torpedos from one shotting frigates and whatnot, but I think that honestly- that's kind of the point?

If you drop a 2000 pound JDAM on a bicycle it tends to turn very quickly into things you would see on the periodic table.

The whole missile system itself was overhauled to make absolutely zero sense, and is now being considered to be changed to something which makes even less sense.

I really wish somebody would sit down in a group and brainstorm a way to make missiles viable without making them make sense in the realm of physics


its meant to represent the smaller ships ability to evade incoming missiles. try hitting a speed boat with an un guided torpedo, or a fighter with a cruise missile (considering some missiles used in the opening of the aghan war missed their stationary target buildings by up to 100metres :S)

Basically this ^

Explosion velocity doesnt make any sense because a larger explosion like a torpedo should go faster than a small explosion like a rocket.

That being said, what would be ideal would be for missiles to act like drones and chase the target as it bobs and weaves. Giving large missiles like torpedoes a turning radius so that frigates could avoid them while small rockets could turn on a dime.
This idea while great in concept would cause even a small battle to quickly go into TiDi and large battles would be completely unplayable . . . explosion velocity is one of those things that doesnt make sense but is put in the game to make the mechanics work with limited processing power.

If that bugs you, consider that in outer space you:
Shouldnt have a top speed
Shouldnt have to bank to turn
Shouldnt be able to see lasers
Shouldnt be able to hear anything
Shouldnt experience "explosion" damage
Shouldnt have a maximum range

I could go on and on and on
Sigras
Conglomo
#2667 - 2012-09-23 10:44:25 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Also, Fozzie said defenders are a) crap and b) heavy on the [host?] CPU. Why not change it, as has been suggested before, to a phalanx type system? No extra objects like little missiles, less calculations and (if tuned properly) a cool anti missile system that works.

the problem comes with figuring out just whos missiles to hit . . .

Defenders suck because they #1 have to be manually activated when a missile is in flight, and #2 only work against missiles aimed at you.

The ideal situation would be for 1 or 2 ships spamming defender missiles to defend the whole fleet against missile attacks, but how does the server determine whos missiles to attack?

The most reliable way would be to use your blue standings, but picture this. Every tick, the server has to figure out who each missile on the grid belongs to, determine its distance from each person with a ray trace, and then cross reference all of the missiles in that ships range with that pilots personal blue list to determine whether or not to activate the phalanx gun system.

You could change it back to only having it work against missiles targeted at you, but that would relegate them back to the useless bin.

I think the best way to add e-war to missiles would be to make a seperate missile script for the tracking disruptors or maybe even a seperate module because the curse might be a bit overpowered in small gang warfare now.

Another interesting idea i just had regarding defender missiles would be to target a ship with them then the defenders go after any missiles launched from that ship. That would be pretty cool and the server would have to do less work; it would still be quite a bit of load to the server but not as much as figuring out on its own who the defender missiles have to shoot.
Sigras
Conglomo
#2668 - 2012-09-23 10:55:06 UTC
Can someone please explain to me why HAMs do worse damage to small targets than HMLs? it makes no sense to have missiles of the same size have different explosion velocities and explosion radii Why should they be different?

Guns track better at shorter range to compensate for the comparatively increased transversal of their targets, missiles dont have to deal with that, so their shorter ranged versions shouldnt have any better or worse factors.

Also why are the shorter ranged HAMs harder on PG?? rockets arent that way vs standard missiles . . . for all the other weapon systems the shorter ranged weapon gets easier fitting to compensate for having to actually get in range, why are HAMs different?

I think this is all a throw back to when HAMs didnt exist and needs to be looked at again.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#2669 - 2012-09-23 10:55:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Sigras wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Also, Fozzie said defenders are a) crap and b) heavy on the [host?] CPU. Why not change it, as has been suggested before, to a phalanx type system? No extra objects like little missiles, less calculations and (if tuned properly) a cool anti missile system that works.

the problem comes with figuring out just whos missiles to hit . . .

Defenders suck because they #1 have to be manually activated when a missile is in flight, and #2 only work against missiles aimed at you.

The ideal situation would be for 1 or 2 ships spamming defender missiles to defend the whole fleet against missile attacks, but how does the server determine whos missiles to attack?

The most reliable way would be to use your blue standings, but picture this. Every tick, the server has to figure out who each missile on the grid belongs to, determine its distance from each person with a ray trace, and then cross reference all of the missiles in that ships range with that pilots personal blue list to determine whether or not to activate the phalanx gun system.

You could change it back to only having it work against missiles targeted at you, but that would relegate them back to the useless bin.

I think the best way to add e-war to missiles would be to make a seperate missile script for the tracking disruptors or maybe even a seperate module because the curse might be a bit overpowered in small gang warfare now.

Another interesting idea i just had regarding defender missiles would be to target a ship with them then the defenders go after any missiles launched from that ship. That would be pretty cool and the server would have to do less work; it would still be quite a bit of load to the server but not as much as figuring out on its own who the defender missiles have to shoot.



Yup I imagined, as you say, one could 'target' the ship who has fired the missiles you want to interdict. Could have something like dessie hulls (lots of high slots, currently useless) running around as dedicated anti-missile boats, could add an interesting dynamic to fleet warfare.

Don't want a one-slot-fits-all (with-'ammo') system out there.
LtTrog
Perkone
Caldari State
#2670 - 2012-09-23 11:20:12 UTC
Please remember one and only area that Caldari really excel in is in pve as selecting damage type is useful the dps drop of 20% will will destroy that.
Its only recently Caldari have been more accepted into pvp. Yes the kiting drake and tengu are a problem and should be looked at. A massive dps drop is not the way to do it
Rumpelstilski
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2671 - 2012-09-23 11:20:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Rumpelstilski
I agree with the intention of the patch notes completely, although there's a few points the OP missed


Damage reduction stats (explosion velocity and radius)

1) hams, torpedoes and citadel torpedoes are pretty much oversized weapons, the damage reduction on the target of the same class is significant and their ability to hit smaller targets is VERY bad, this has traditionally made hams an inferior choice to hmls for close range missile boats, there's also the matter of clearing tackle and breaking logistics,

the hmls, after the proposed nerf, will still be the superior choice because they will still be able to counter sig tanking setups more efficiently (actually, any setup that uses afterburner logistics, which is 99% of Eve) while keeping the tank and the range benefits

2) IF you wish to bring missiles in sync with other weapon platforms you need to switch damage reduction stats (explosion radius and velocity) between close range and long range missiles and maybe then tweak them around a little to bring their applied dps against smaller targets in range with short range guns, e.g.:

  • give hams damage reduction stats of hmls and vice versa
  • give torpedoes damage reduction stats of cruise missiles and vice versa
  • give citadel torpedoes damage reduction stats of citadel cruise missiles and vice versa
  • not sure how the situation with rockets and light missiles is


3) after you switched damage reduction stats between close range and long range missiles, you might (possibly) find that the damage nerf isn't even necessary due to reduced damage output and firewall vulnerabilities that hmls have at range


Fitting requirements

1) short range missiles have higher fitting requirements on caldari boats then long range missiles (caldari traditionally have no problem with cpu, but lots of issues with grid), this too made short range missiles an inferior choice for close range ships, close range ships tend to eat more damage then long range ships, it is usually not acceptable to reduce tank as you move in closer to your target

For this reason alone, you will still see ship comps fielding long range weapons for close range brawls, dps nerf or no won't fix this, buffer tank is pretty much God atm and Drake gangs which are for most part a close-medium range platform will happily accept the damage nerf and continue using hmls so they don't have to sacrifice tank

2) after you switch grid requirements between close range and long range missiles, you might find that indirect nerf of tengu/drake tank isn't necessary, fitting requirements will do it



In short,

CCP you have the right idea, but you missed the ballpark, if you address the bizarr relationship between short range and long range missiles, the "damage at range" and "tank at range" issues will sort out themselves with very few tweaks,

it is quite possible that these changes will simply screw long range missiles without making close range missiles any more appealing, which I suppose isn't the intention of the OP?



The range tweaks seem OK, it's OK that only range bonused platforms hit at long range
Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2672 - 2012-09-23 11:30:17 UTC
I'm not in favor of the missile changes.

Within their nominal weapon system category they have long range and solid dps, but they are very very seldom being used to fight cruiser sized ships. They are used to fight battlships, and that changes the complexion of things by a fairly substantial margin.

When I was in AAA we flew a LOT of 100mn tenugs, sometimes to great effect, sometimes to almost no effect. The criticism that we always heard both from allies and enemies was that 100mn tengus do **** all damage. And while thats not quite true (battleship damage at 100km is comparable) flight time makes a MASSIVE difference.

Missile flight time still remains an absolutely huge downside to missiles, and the only place that it is even vaguely relevant is in drake-train or tengu-train fleets fighting big gangs with lots of logistics. In the time it takes a volley of HMLs to reach its target (say 90km away so a little over ten seconds) there is ALREADY logistics action on it. A scimmi can lock a rapier in under 3 seconds, a battleship in less than two. Unless you have enough damage to bulldoze through the entire enemy logistics wing, then you don't get to kill anyone unless they are dual boxing or otherwise have taken their eye off the ball for the whole time you're shooting them.

Heavy missiles at long range cannot target switch to try and spoof logis, because the time between redboxing and damage arriving is so huge. Assuming adequate logistics on the enemy side, they should never EVER lose a ship to HML firing ships.

And thats why HML don't need to be changed.

Change the ships if you must, certainly change HAMs, maybe change the other medium long range guns (do people actually still use sniper HACs since the tier 3 BCs came out ?) but for the love of god don't make HML ships terrible just because they look better on a graph, or because they look to be getting a lot of use on the field.

The reason why 100mn tengus (and drake trains before them) were and are successful was that they forced battleships to have to fight in much tank-lighter fits, with long range guns and ammo.

Essentially, they keep battleships honest. If you take out a 100man BS gang, it HAS to have a plan to deal with 100mn tengus. If it doesn't, then it dies, or at least the tengus run humiliating rings around them.

The changes, as currently proposed, will mean that fleet combat will exclusively be battleships. There will simply not be a fleet type that can use their lack of mobility to mitigate their huge damage advantage. We'll return to the age of all BS slugging it out, and whoever brings the most wins. And those days sucked hard.
Rumpelstilski
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2673 - 2012-09-23 11:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rumpelstilski
Valea Silpha wrote:
And thats why HML don't need to be changed.

Change the ships if you must, certainly change HAMs, maybe change the other medium long range guns (do people actually still use sniper HACs since the tier 3 BCs came out ?) but for the love of god don't make HML ships terrible just because they look better on a graph, or because they look to be getting a lot of use on the field.

The reason why 100mn tengus (and drake trains before them) were and are successful was that they forced battleships to have to fight in much tank-lighter fits, with long range guns and ammo.

Essentially, they keep battleships honest. If you take out a 100man BS gang, it HAS to have a plan to deal with 100mn tengus. If it doesn't, then it dies, or at least the tengus run humiliating rings around them.


See how little you know 1,

I bolded a part of the reason why this nerf is happening. Also, no long range battleship except the nightmare has the tracking necessary to hit the gazillion ehp tengus kiting at 100km with more then 30-40 dps with bonused republic fleet painters on the target and well within faction ammo optimal, which is kind of why HBC switched to a close range gun setup. Also, HML setups are far too effective in breaking (typically sig tanked) logis at range, while close range missile setups can do no such thing, which is ridiculous

If this gets addressed, Tengus can keep their hml deeps against battleships for all I care

Also, long range missile boats get to have more tank then close range missile boats, which is also ridiculous, switching grid requirements and damage reduction stats between close range and long range missiles fixes all of this without significantly nerfing the pve abilities or the ability of the cowardcat doctrine to plink at range at battleships if you really want to, lol

however, breaking logis and light tackle with long range weapons should not be so easy, deffo shouldn't be easier then with close range weapons of same class

Valea Silpha wrote:
The changes, as currently proposed, will mean that fleet combat will exclusively be battleships. There will simply not be a fleet type that can use their lack of mobility to mitigate their huge damage advantage. We'll return to the age of all BS slugging it out, and whoever brings the most wins. And those days sucked hard.


See how little you know 2,

proliferation of battleship doctrines is almost ENTIRELY due to HMLs which are far too good at hitting sig tankers.

In the current state of PVP you need to have buffer to be able to rep targets before they die, so it's either pure EHP setup like with battleships or a speed&sig tank + ehp setup like with cowardcats, thundercats and ahacs.

The HML proliferation and proliferation of gang bonused tanky recons with faction points forced everyones serious-business setups to pure EHP doctrines which can hit at gang+recon bonused warp disruptor range (100km or gtfo), which for the better part means a (99% shield) BS, a Draek (up to a point, sort of) or a Tengu.


If you switch grid requirements and explosion velocity/radius stats between close range and long range missiles you will see more cruiser-hull comps being used in the game.

Also, if you tweak gang bonused recon faction point range to be in line with t3 point range you will see a lot more diversity in pvp setups and fleet comps because setups of all ranges will be useful for different scenarios and this means we'll probably see more armor comps mixed among primarily shield-based fleet comps of today
Rumpelstilski
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2674 - 2012-09-23 11:57:46 UTC
Also,

delayed damage arguments are ******** for the most part of the previous discussion.

The closer you get (fixed!), the more missile velocity you have (buffed!) the more ******** delayed damage arguments get
Rumpelstilski
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2675 - 2012-09-23 11:58:33 UTC
Fml,

"intellectually challenged" appears to be a dirty word on this forum, how can one express himself?! Shocked
Rumpelstilski
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2676 - 2012-09-23 12:42:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rumpelstilski
Also, just a thought,


not necessarily in line with, or related to any of the stuff I proposed earlier,

add minimal activation / dps application range for (some) long range missiles (exact value for this can be dependant on missile type and missile launcher type combination)


(easily rp explained by "warhead not yet primed", "guidance systems not activated yet" etc)
Master Dumi
Gladius Veritatis
Goonswarm Federation
#2677 - 2012-09-23 15:13:29 UTC
"Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 30%
-Base velocity increased by 6.66%
-In total, base range reduced by ~25%
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF."

Shocked

So, the Drake will be useless for PvE and has not enough powergrid for 7HAM and a good defense for PvP.
Even now the DPS of the Drake is LOW, lower than other races BC.

Nerfing Heavy Missiles will hit Caldari Characters too Hard,
after the Gallente major Buff, Caldari will be useless.

Is the Tengu DPS too high ? What about Vindicators ???

This nerf will destroy Caldari Pilots !!



Dumi.
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2678 - 2012-09-23 15:41:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
Quote:
Is the Tengu DPS too high ? What about Vindicators ???



see.... here's the thing.... how far can a vidicator shoot its blasters? compare that to how far a tengu shoots heavy missiles.


the constant comparisons between the long range option (heavy missiles) and in this case the SHORTEST BASE RANGE WEAPON IN THE GAME are getting a little tiresome...


heavy missiles shouldn't be attempting to compete with auto cannons, blasters or pulse lasers as a primary weapon platform. they are the LONG range platform. they are supposed to be an alternative to artillery, railguns and beam lasers; unfortunately they outclass all of them so much its rediculous.

heavy missiles practically do 75% of the damage of Hams on most fits but yet have 4 times the range, a better hit rate and are easier to fit... people we need to stop lamenting the loss of a significantly overpowered weapons platform and ensure that CCP buff the alternative weapon accordingly, specifically HAMS.

heavy missiles DON'T need saved, heavy assault missiles quite clearly DO and its up to us to help convince the balancing team that this is so. Fozzie, if you're still reading this I call you a hero but as mentioned previously I would like to humbly suggest that:

- Fury missiles get polarised a bit more into a high damage/short range T2 weapon, with an explosion radius comparable to current HAMS to act as "anti-battlecruiser" defense much in the same way that other T2 long range weapons have a "short range" defense ammo such as javelin or quake which, as we know, improve tracking to help "defend" the long range weapon ship.

- Standard HAMs receive a slight explosion radius reduction, preferably down to 100-110m rather than the current 125 so Hams are a reasonable platform against cruisers, particularly so the Caracal can engage other cruisers without having to depend on target painters and TE's/TC's to apply any damage. A slight flight speed increase would also be most welcome as to allow the now "shorter ranged" drakes and tengus to still apply damage to a reasonable range rather than being forced to spend all their time chasing down minmatar kite platforms to no success, in turn this would increase the viability of the minmatar "split" weapon layouts which are so often shunned in favour of fitting a pair of neuts and T2 amarrian Khanid ships which often find themselves completely outmatched by all possible opponents.

- ballistic control systems could have fitting reduced to be more in line with comparable weapon systems such as gyrostabilisers, heatsinks and magnetic field stabilisers now that missile platforms will no doubt require TE's/TC's for combating opponents.

I'd also like to suggest that the fitting on hams be altered to make them more friendly for the hulls intended to fit them, with an extra 20% powergrid required compared to heavy missiles while only costing 10% more cpu (126 vs 105 and 50 vs 55 respectively) it poses a significant problem for the typically powergrid weak caldari vessels to fit HAMs and though while this may be adressed in future rebalancing (such as evidenced by the caracal) I don't think it'd be unreasonable to provide a slight reduction as, at the very least, an interm measure much like the proposed changes to the hurricane until other caldari missile platforms (particularly battlecruisers and higher) can be corrected in later releases.


of course in turn before we get the endless cries of "CALDARI WON'T HAVE A WEAPON!" I should probably remind people that there is MORE TO CALDARI THAT HEAVY BLOODY MISSILES. it might be the only thing you fit but crying like a lost sheep won't change the fact that while caldari hybrid platforms are currently not all that good they are ALSO being rebalanced, Moas, Ferox, Nagas, Rokhs and cormorants all actually exist in eve and some of us like flying these ships and in accordance with the Rebalancing of all ships these other hulls will be brought back up into line with their counter parts.

just look at the merlin, arguably the most powerful and dangerous of the T1 "combat" frigates. Caldari are being fixed, quit whining about what you'll lose and realise how much we're actually gaining :D

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Archa4 Badasaz
Vangazhi
#2679 - 2012-09-23 16:12:16 UTC
I'm sorry but I see no point to argument or argue about these changes.
How I see it: most people that actively post on these forums are those who hate PVE'ers and will, of-course, support nerfs to the PVE'ers preferred weapon - missiles.
Please, don't forget, missiles already have some disadvantages - explosion radius, explosion velocity and flight time. When you use missiles you never do the damage that you can see on paper. Ok, maybe heavy missiles are a bit OP but 20% damage decrease? Are you serious? Range nerf - that i can kinda understand.
What about cruise missile ranges? CNR lock on range 95km. Cruise missiles can fly 240km. I mean what is that?
Tracking disruptors - just no. There are already plenty things that affect missiles. I can understand switching them out, like, disruptors can affect missiles, but then remove something else. Like explosion radius. But this will require many other changes, so just no.
Kheeria
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2680 - 2012-09-23 16:12:22 UTC
Apparently it's not International Stupid Day as I thought earlier, it's International Stupid Month... I'm glad X-COM: EU is out soon so I can get my scifi kick from something else than eve.