Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Liquid space man, liquid space. Also missiles did used to have agility which was fun. and splash damage. servers didn't like it much .....

The proposed changes are interesting but I'm not sure they are the best way to go. I agree something needs to be done about HMLs but I think changing them without looking at the rest of the missile line is a mistake. HMLs are widely used because they are effective and just about the best choice for missile options. Fixing the other missiles has to be done at the same time as any nerf to the primary missile system. That said I want to toss out some numbers to help show where I think changes should be made.

First I want to propose that all missiles have their velocity doubled and their flight time halved. Same range, but it helps reduce the flight lag.

Next I want to look at a comparison between missiles and some of the gun options. These numbers come from an all five character using an Osprey since it has no weapon bonus.

HML
standard ammo- Range 84,000 ----- DPS 25 after change 68,000 --- DPS 20
Hi dmg ammo- Range 76,000 ----- DPS 32 after change 61,000 --- DPS 25.6
Precision ammo- Range 42,000 ----- DPS 21 (not used for further calculation)

Average range- 80,000 after change 64,500
Average DPS- 28.5 after change 22.8


Rails (250)
Lead ammo- Range 36,000 (O) + 15,000 (F)= 51,000 --- DPS 20
Javelin ammo- Range 9,000 (O) + 15,000 (F)= 24,000 --- DPS 35
Spike ammo- Range 64,800 (O) + 15,000 (F)= 79,800 --- DPS 20

Average range- 51,600
Average DPS- 25


Artillery (720)
Phased Plasma- Range 15,000 (O) + 22,000 (F)= 37,000 --- DPS 25
Quake ammo- Range 7,500 (O) + 22,000 (F) = 29,500 --- DPS 29
Tremor ammo- Range 54,000 (O) + 22,000 (F)= 76,000 --- DPS 17

Average range- 47,500
Average DPS- 23.6



HAM
standard ammo- Range 20,000 ---- DPS 31
Hi dmg ammo- Range 18,000 ---- DPS 39
Range ammo- Range 30,000 ---- DPS 28

Average range- 22,600
Average DPS - 32.6


Blasters (Neutron)
Lead ammo- Range 4.5 (O) + 6.2 (F)= 10,700 --- DPS 29.5
Null ammo- Range 6.3 (O) + 8.75 (F)= 15,050 --- DPS 40.5
Void ammo- Range 3375 (O) + 3125 (F)= 6,500 -- DPS 56

Average range- 10,750
Average DPS - 42


Auto-Cannon (425)
Phased Plasma- Range 1,500 (O) + 12,000 (F) = 13,500 --- DPS 32.5
Barrage ammo- Range 3,000 (O) + 18,000 (F)= 21,000 --- DPS 30
Hail ammo- Range 1,500 (O) + 9,000 (F)= 10,500 --- DPS 41

Average range- 15,000
Average DPS- 34.5



The problem with my numbers is they do not take into account falloff dmg reduction, tracking, explosion radius, or explosion velocity. So while we can see on paper the DPS numbers when applying full damage the reality of EVE is most of the time we rarely get the chance to apply full damage at max range.

In theory once HMLs receive a 20% reduction to damage and to range they will be somewhat balanced. Best range but lowest DPS by a little. The change to Precision missiles will pull the DPS up some but drop the range even more. While I'm not a fan of nerfs I can see how this will make HMLs fit with the other weapon options.

What has to be considered though is what size ships HMLs and HAMs are supposed to be effective against. With the current explosion velocity and explosion radius the cruiser sized missiles are better against Battleships instead of Cruisers or Frigates. I think the explosion velocity needs to be increased and the explosion radius decreased to make the heavy missiles better able to engage cruisers and frigates.


The final point I would like to bring up is the balance of CPU, PG, and effective targets of the missile lines.

Rockets 4pg 17cpu
Light missiles 9 pg 28 cpu

Rapid light 53pg 39 cpu
HML 105pg 55 cpu
HAM 126pg 50 cpu

Cruise 1313pg 66 cpu
Torpedo 1838pg 88 cpu


So the frigate launchers have the close range being the easier to fit. Then you get to cruisers and have the short range cost more PG but less CPU. Finally there is the BS lineup with the short range using both more PG and more CPU. I think the close range launchers should be like the frigates and have both lower PG and lower CPU. I would change things up like the following.

HAM 75pg 40cpu

Torp 800 pg 50 cpu

Next take a look at the explosion velocities and radius of HAMs and Torps. Make Torps effective against another battleship without having to use any TPs. Change their stats to match current HAM numbers. Then cut HAMs numbers by about half.

Finally I would change the ROF on the rapid light missile launcher to a base speed of 6 seconds to make it something worth fitting.


This would go a long way to making the HML nerfs much more accepted because it's fixing some glaring problems with missiles while bringing the weapon system more in line with the capabilities of turrets.

Ok, remove the drake and tengu love whining.

Would a simpler solution be to remove all long range weapons?

projectiles only get AC's
hybrids only get blasters
lasers only get pulse
missles only get unguided

or an alternative....
nerf projectile damage and increase rof? You still get the same dps but less alpha? Because by comparison, even with the duration of firing, the alpha of projectiles completely dwarfs rails and beams...and will include the alpha of HM's once this change takes place.

And you think YOUR opinions matter more than anyone else's. My blood pressure isn't now and wasn't raised in the slightest either, you assume to much. And you know what they say about assuming ;)

Drake and Tengu have both been very useful with hams and heavies, so no problems there. As for my post, what they're doing to missiles is going to have more effects than what they're realizing, which is basically plenty of what I pointed out.

Troll elsewhere please.

You have it backwards. The BS doctrines existed before the drake was in the game. They came back into fashion when drake-trains started being the norm.

Armor hacs was the way things were done for a long time (once the use of logistics ships became wide spread) because they WRECKED battleships. And then drakes showed up and were good against HACs. They are good against armor hacs because drakes were faster than 1600mm toting HACs and all the HACs had short range guns. IIRC the original FIST armor HACs didn't even twin prop, it was all AB all the time.

Missiles are only better against sig tanked targets at close range, and thats because tracking and missile damage reduction aren't the same exact thing. The missiles always do something, even if its only a little bit. At range, missiles are EXACTLY as good the equivalent amount of turrets are, except you get a 10 second timer to let your friends know you've been primaried.

I've been in 150man tengu fleets and watched our missiles achieve NOTHING against logistics, against rapiers, even against dictors. They all had the logi team ready to run before our birds were half way there. I saw this happen a LOT.

Heavy missiles are reasonably good at taking out like rifters and ceptors that burn towards your fleet, better than HAMs for sure, but its pure quantity of missiles that is doing the job. You send 700+ heavy missiles at something with 5000ehp and it should just be fine ? Just shrugs it off ? Try flying a frig straight at tornadoes or maelstroms or anything with BS guns and it will die just the same. You can't beat all the tracking all the time. You never could. BS guns will do the exact same thing, and they track worse.

Thing is, I do actually agree with you at least your principal.



I don't think that switching the 'tracking' stats of the two weapons is exactly the way to go, but yes, that would be a good place to start any balancing from. Heavies shouldn't be as bad as HAMs are atm at hitting sig tankers (they are still medium guns) but a reduction to that would be fine, at least in principle. Not because they are good at popping logis, just because it makes sense for their sig stuff to match similar guns. Just remember that 720mm arty fitted lokis spent a while wrecking every single cruiser size target they could omnomnom. And that titan guns did too. Sig tanking is never perfect.

The stuff about mixed gangs, I don't see happening (eve is all about specializing then using your strong suit again the opponents weak one, being generalized means every specialized fleet beats you) but pulling down the maximum web range and point ranges would be a nice start to making battlefields of different sizes more frequent. I don't think CCP ever seriously expected large numbers of people to have faction webs and points, and max gang boosters, but that is the norm now.

You still don't get it. Just because someone disagrees with you, calls you out on being emo, or uses sarcasm, does not equate to troll posting. Here, read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Now call me other names such as "you you mean person that won't support my despairing posts . . . terrible person I disagree with . . . agh . . . ****** . . . " ~

but know what troll posting is and what is a troll.

As to your latest post, no I never said my opinion matters more. It does matter though how you present your thoughts. And in a lengthy thread, whether you have even read the OP carefully and any of the pages that followed, and bothered to engage your pre-frontal cortex as opposed to just your amygdala.

edit - lol eve forum won't include the (Internet) part in the link. Must be a Scandinavian preference for the old version.

Hellbound, I appreciate your analysis.

Those two ships are definitely a problem, but why they are a problem is somewhat complex.

Consider this:
(skills @ 5)

The Drake has a 75km targeting range.
The Hurricane has a 56km targeting range.

720mm artillery needs 2 tracking enhancers to roughly reach the range of missiles.
The Hurricane needs a sensor booster/signal amp/rig to target as far as the Drake. For the sake of argument let's make it a rig.

Throw a suitcase and MWD on both,
The Drake has 5 mids and 3 rig slots free, a tanking bonus, and almost 250pg to spare.
The Hurricane has 3 mids and 2 rig slots free, and approximately 46pg to spare.

At this range, the Drake has a paper DPS almost 50% higher than the Hurricane (navy scourge), and it can typically apply it fairly well to BC hulls and up.

_____________

Part of CCP's plan (with the range nerf) is to force said Drake to fill some slots with modules to extend range, and this I have no issue with. Let them nerf the range and give the Drake a range extender module and make it a choice. It has too many free slots compared with its competitors.

The Drake does 50% more DPS than a Tremor 'Cane, and Rage missiles roughly match DPS of a 720mm Hurricane with EMP loaded.

The Drake does have a lot of issues applying its DPS which are inherent to missiles though, but I still don't think it's unreasonable that it receives some kind of damage nerf. HOWEVER, Fozzie's post indicates that CCP is considering nerfing the base damage of the missiles themselves, and then perhaps changing the Drake's kinetic bonus to a RoF bonus.

The net effect of a 20% base damage reduction combined with changing the kinetic bonus to a RoF bonus on the Drake results in an approximate 15% loss in DPS while giving the Drake true damage selection - this doesn't sound bad to me. In PvE, the Drake is actually going to be even better in places where it can't use kinetic missiles, and the HAM Drake will benefit similarly. Remember that the Drake still has a tanking bonus which the Hurricane and Harbinger do not, and it's a much better one than what the Myrmidon (and Brutix) have.

Everything looks good so far, except that (and this is the really important part) these changes break heavy missiles on every other ship in the game. They effectively makes heavy missiles useless on any ship without a RoF or damage bonus to them.

^ That's why I'm against these changes.

CCP can go through with these changes as long as ships like the Stabber, Rupture, Bellicose, Lachesis, Curse, etc. etc., all get additional bonuses to missile RoF or damage.

EDIT: Reposting because missiles still don't make any sense to me:

Just curious if all the above numbers have taken into account that your missile will never hit full theoretical range as it looses a percentage due to acceleration and the movement of the target. So lets say the theoretical range on a HML is 65km, a ship orbiting at 60ish km's is not likely to be hit by the missile as it fly's in an arc and looses range due to acceleration.

I'm sure once they get around to balancing the drake that it'll get a bonus to range.

So, it kinda seems that they're nerfing heavy missiles to nerf the tengu and when time comes around to rebalance the drake they'll buff its range and give all damage types the same dps as kinetic.
However, what probably will change for the drake is the ehp. It may lose its resist bonus, but i'm thinking they'll take it out of the drake in the form of shield recharge so that it can't fit a passive tank, thus making it more vulnerable to cap warfare.

So, they're nerfing missiles to nerf the tengu, and they'll buff the drake later when they nerf its EHP.

Basically, they're making the drake nothing but a tank until they rebalance it with bc rebalance.

Honestly, if you look at it explained that way it makes total sense why they did the missile nerf.

However, though it makes sense, it's completely idiotic.

You know, implement this. It's pointless to argue. They are going to go through with it. So the drake and the cane will go on the shelf with the rest of the BC's. Just please make sure the TE/TC adjust explosion velocity and explosion radius....also remove the trajectory analysis requirements of TC's as the support skills for missiles already dwarfs that of gunnery and since TA will have no other affects towards missiles, kind of further supports any ideas that you might be attempting to kill missiles all together.