These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2921 - 2012-09-25 09:41:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Mike Whiite wrote:


The 680 PG is after the patch, yes when fully skilled you can fit it and that is exactly what the problem is.

So we have a t1 missile cruiser that needs to be trained to end to compete with all other t1 cruisers.

Long range will be nerfed to shreds and to it short range you need to be trained top end. In short to long to train beore it gets usefull, form the eyes of a starting player.

Switch of long range/short range PG needs on launchers would bring it more in to par with those other systems.


Are you serious?

You are complaining that you can't fit a full rack of tech 2 weapons, a tech 2 propulsion mod and a tech 2 shield extender without maxed fitting skills?

You trained for tech 2 missles (~2,5m - 5m + skillpoints to be properly effective) before maxing out engineering and electronics (total 512k skillpoints)?

You lost the arguement when he posted the numbers, just accept it and move on.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2922 - 2012-09-25 09:54:53 UTC
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.

Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.

Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#2923 - 2012-09-25 10:09:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically.


The missile changes are fine tbh. People are just used to HML's having the same damage as short range guns, they are way too good.

While I kinda hate active armor tanking, it would be fun to see how a Myrm would work with the following bonuses:

10% bonus to armor repairer repair amount and capacitor use.
10% bonus to drone hp and damage.

The cap use bonus would let us run 2 or maybe even 3 repairers on one cap booster.

Inb4 OP tank, 2 xl-asb on a Myrmidon today are better than 3 repairers, and use no cap.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#2924 - 2012-09-25 10:22:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Lallante wrote:
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.

Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.

Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.



One thing at a time is not an appropriate approach when it leaves a swathe of collateral damage in the form of all HML boats but the two problem children.


As as previously linked by someone, the top 20 kill hulls for this month - apart from Drake/Tengu - how many other boats there use HML? How many other boats there use medium weapons at all?


By all means, fix a busted weapon, but you really should fix boats it is barely carrying at the same time, rather than kicking the only crutch out from under them for 6-12 months.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#2925 - 2012-09-25 10:26:37 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.

Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.

Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.


That is simply not true. As shown in this graph you can see HML are not better than most of their turret counterparts on their turret counterparts *optimal* range, and just begin to shine at a longer range. Which is where they also suffer more from delay between fired shot and incoming damage. Range/Damage Graph As a matter of fact the Drake as a whole is not so bad (and in fact a good match for any other tier 2 BC in PvP), but it is also the *only* viable Caldari combat PvP ship in tech 1 (and also tech 2 ...) above frig level and except Rokh in certain fleet doctrines. So I dont wonder too much everyone who can just fly caldari will use a Drake - do you? And still: the Drake deals its "good" DPS only with pure kinetic, if it would be so damn OP, why is there no run for Gallente t2/1 kin hardener in most setups?

HAMs are not strong enough in comparison to HML in some scenarios, and in others they are fine. If it was me, HAMs should be much faster flying and keep their short range, but should be usable on ships like the NH (which atm CANT fit a viable HAM setup for PvP!). There is no need to change HML to make HAMs viable where they are right now not.

The only thing where HMLs are OP is PvE, and thats by definition NOT what EVE is balanced about .... and still, HMLs are by far not as OP as Winmatar/Projectiles and esp. Angels.

Too many things would need to be changed, if those OPs ideas would be set, and I do still wait for a reasonable answer to my concerns.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2926 - 2012-09-25 11:08:08 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
So, tell me which Caldari ship is viable for small scale, roaming or 1on1 above frig size when the Drake gets nerfed to oblivion by crippling its most versatile weapon platform and making the other weak against a pretty regularly fitted ewar-module (TD) ?


Well, there'll be the Drake, for one...
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2927 - 2012-09-25 11:08:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.

Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.

Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.



One thing at a time is not an appropriate approach when it leaves a swathe of collateral damage in the form of all HML boats but the two problem children.


This is completely incorrect. Currently there are three types of HML using ships. OP, broken hulls, reasonably balanced hulls, and underpowered, broken hulls.

The drake and tengu are OP and broken
The caracal is balanced
The Nighthawk and Cerb are underpowered and broken.

Given 4 broken hulls out of 5 total users, nerfing HMLs goes a long way to fixing the drake and tengu while having no real effect on the Nighthawk and Cerb (they are still ****). The caracal will also be fixed as part of the balance changes and remains balanced post HML changes (see various fits and stats posted already in this thread).

This means the HML changes don't break any additional ships. The Nighthawk and Cerb needed fixing before the changes, they still need fixing after the changes. Very few pilots fly them atm and this wont change. CCP will UNDOUBTABLY look at them next year and at least now they will have a reasonably balanced weapon system as a starting point for such balance.

In otherwords - What collateral damage?

Quote:
As as previously linked by someone, the top 20 kill hulls for this month - apart from Drake/Tengu - how many other boats there use HML? How many other boats there use medium weapons at all?


There are 5 real HML platforms. As noted, Cerb and Nighthawk are broken but this has nothing to do with HMLs and everything to do with their bonuses. A t1 cruiser wont ever make the top 20.

Of the top 20 kill hulls, 9 use medium weapons. This seems about right.

Quote:

By all means, fix a busted weapon, but you really should fix boats it is barely carrying at the same time, rather than kicking the only crutch out from under them for 6-12 months.

Almost noone flies the two hulls that will be unbalanced by these changes. Another 6 - 12 months of them still not being used is a FAR lesser evil than another 6-12 month of drake/tengu(/hurricane) ubiquity.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2928 - 2012-09-25 11:17:33 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:


The 680 PG is after the patch, yes when fully skilled you can fit it and that is exactly what the problem is.

So we have a t1 missile cruiser that needs to be trained to end to compete with all other t1 cruisers.

Long range will be nerfed to shreds and to it short range you need to be trained top end. In short to long to train beore it gets usefull, form the eyes of a starting player.

Switch of long range/short range PG needs on launchers would bring it more in to par with those other systems.


Are you serious?

You are complaining that you can't fit a full rack of tech 2 weapons, a tech 2 propulsion mod and a tech 2 shield extender without maxed fitting skills?

You trained for tech 2 missles (~2,5m - 5m + skillpoints to be properly effective) before maxing out engineering and electronics (total 512k skillpoints)?

You lost the arguement when he posted the numbers, just accept it and move on.


Yes I'm serious all the arguments that de caracal does great damage are with fits that use max skills and therefor it should be justified.

So it´s nice you can fit a Caracal with engenering electronics ----> weapon upgreades, advanced weapon upgrades and a couple of shield and propulsion upgrades, little more than 512 k skill points.

Numbers are nice and well, but it would be nice if someone tells how to they get them and what the diference is with those ships they are compared to.

But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.

Personaly I have little trouble making that fit nom, but I know how frustrating it was to make a HAM fit on the old Caracal when I started this game, in the end I gave up and bought a Drake.

But as all comparisations are made, on how nasty a lvl 5 skill fit is, everybody seem to forget the effects for younger pilots.
Renegade 41
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2929 - 2012-09-25 11:21:47 UTC
why does everybody keep refering to paper numbers, the only way to truly get a proper handle of numbers on the situation is to get into some ships on a test server and study the results, at the moment its like looking at a fourm guide for horseracing, and as every gambler knows, fourm on paper dont mean its going to win on the day.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2930 - 2012-09-25 11:21:56 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.

Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.

Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.


That is simply not true. As shown in this graph you can see HML are not better than most of their turret counterparts on their turret counterparts *optimal* range, and just begin to shine at a longer range. Which is where they also suffer more from delay between fired shot and incoming damage. Range/Damage Graph As a matter of fact the Drake as a whole is not so bad (and in fact a good match for any other tier 2 BC in PvP), but it is also the *only* viable Caldari combat PvP ship in tech 1 (and also tech 2 ...) above frig level and except Rokh in certain fleet doctrines. So I dont wonder too much everyone who can just fly caldari will use a Drake - do you? And still: the Drake deals its "good" DPS only with pure kinetic, if it would be so damn OP, why is there no run for Gallente t2/1 kin hardener in most setups?

HAMs are not strong enough in comparison to HML in some scenarios, and in others they are fine. If it was me, HAMs should be much faster flying and keep their short range, but should be usable on ships like the NH (which atm CANT fit a viable HAM setup for PvP!). There is no need to change HML to make HAMs viable where they are right now not.

The only thing where HMLs are OP is PvE, and thats by definition NOT what EVE is balanced about .... and still, HMLs are by far not as OP as Winmatar/Projectiles and esp. Angels.

Too many things would need to be changed, if those OPs ideas would be set, and I do still wait for a reasonable answer to my concerns.


HMLs have short range weapon DPS at ranges longer than long range turrets. I've seen the graphs. IF you are fitting long range weapons, you care about range. Saying "but long range turrets are better at "specific short range envelope" is disingenuous - if you are using those weapons at such ranges in a balanced fight, you messed up.

Caladari viable combat PvP ships (pre-balancing changes. Post balancing that have been announced, add in the rest of the t1 frigs and cruisers):
Merlin
Caracal
Crow
Cormorant
Flycatcher
Blackbird
Drake
Ferox (but so overwhelmed by drake theres no point using it)
Tengu
Basalisk
Falcon
Rokh
Scorpion (dual/triple ASB setup rocks)
Widow

HMLs are a no brainer for anyone fighting at medium-long range in a ship that needs staying power
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2931 - 2012-09-25 11:24:21 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:

But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.

This is simply a lie. To get t2 guns on a gunnery ship alone takes 500k more SP than t2 HMLs.

Post numbers for comparable fits for pilots with level 4 skills if you want to make this argument. Prove your claim.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2932 - 2012-09-25 11:31:07 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:

But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.

This is simply a lie. To get t2 guns on a gunnery ship alone takes 500k more SP than t2 HMLs.

Post numbers for comparable fits for pilots with level 4 skills if you want to make this argument. Prove your claim.


Try fitting a rupture or thorax without AWU V and near every other fitting skill.

This is not a unique condition.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#2933 - 2012-09-25 11:55:32 UTC
Even after the 'fix', the HM will still be unique in one aspect:

It is a long range weapon that has no malus whatsoever on short range targets. This has 2 consequences:
- the Tengu is the only general purpose long range ship without the hassle of using a secondary weapon system (usually light drones) for dealing with small, close targets, making it the favored ship of hordes of PVE players
- HAM's are rarely used, as the HM serves the same purpose, maybe a bit weaker vs SOME targets but is more generalistic in nature


The only way to truly fix HM use would be to give the HAM a real purpose as a higher damage weapon system AND a weapon system vs. small, close targets, while the HM stays a good long range weapon system and loses some of its usefulness against those same targets.

Possible solution:

Make explosion radius and velocity depend on the actual missile flight time (i.e. the on-board computer uses the time to adjust to the target's signature and velocity). Therefore HM's would start with a very large explosion radius that decreases during flight. Similarly the explosion velocity would start low and increase over time. The result would be similar to turrets insofar as big, slow targets on close range would still get full damage, slow and fast targets would only get full damage while they are at range. Dissimilar to turrets the movement direction would still be mostly irrelevant.

HAM's, being unguided missiles (right?), would simply have to have a smaller explo radius and higher explo velocity than HM's and not be subject to modification during flight, to make them used.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2934 - 2012-09-25 11:59:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Onictus wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:

But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.

This is simply a lie. To get t2 guns on a gunnery ship alone takes 500k more SP than t2 HMLs.

Post numbers for comparable fits for pilots with level 4 skills if you want to make this argument. Prove your claim.


Try fitting a rupture or thorax without AWU V and near every other fitting skill.

This is not a unique condition.


Having to have maxed out skills in order to fit a maxed out fitting is not a balance problem and if anything your post reinforces my point.

Theres nothing wrong with it being hard to fit a full t2 weapon rack and tank on a t1 ship without maxed skills. What would be the point of the final level of skills if this wasnt the case?
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2935 - 2012-09-25 12:05:25 UTC
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
Even after the 'fix', the HM will still be unique in one aspect:

It is a long range weapon that has no malus whatsoever on short range targets. This has 2 consequences:
- the Tengu is the only general purpose long range ship without the hassle of using a secondary weapon system (usually light drones) for dealing with small, close targets, making it the favored ship of hordes of PVE players
- HAM's are rarely used, as the HM serves the same purpose, maybe a bit weaker vs SOME targets but is more generalistic in nature


The only way to truly fix HM use would be to give the HAM a real purpose as a higher damage weapon system AND a weapon system vs. small, close targets, while the HM stays a good long range weapon system and loses some of its usefulness against those same targets.

Possible solution:

Make explosion radius and velocity depend on the actual missile flight time (i.e. the on-board computer uses the time to adjust to the target's signature and velocity). Therefore HM's would start with a very large explosion radius that decreases during flight. Similarly the explosion velocity would start low and increase over time. The result would be similar to turrets insofar as big, slow targets on close range would still get full damage, slow and fast targets would only get full damage while they are at range. Dissimilar to turrets the movement direction would still be mostly irrelevant.

HAM's, being unguided missiles (right?), would simply have to have a smaller explo radius and higher explo velocity than HM's and not be subject to modification during flight, to make them used.



I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of TE/TCs working on HAMs. Being able to extend HAM range and effectiveness vs small targets 30 - 60% may well prove to be the new FOTM. I think we should wait and see before buffing HAMs (except maybe fittings, to bring them in line with other close range weapon systems)
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#2936 - 2012-09-25 12:12:58 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.

Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.

Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.



One thing at a time is not an appropriate approach when it leaves a swathe of collateral damage in the form of all HML boats but the two problem children.


This is completely incorrect. Currently there are three types of HML using ships. OP, broken hulls, reasonably balanced hulls, and underpowered, broken hulls.

The drake and tengu are OP and broken
The caracal is balanced
The Nighthawk and Cerb are underpowered and broken.

Given 4 broken hulls out of 5 total users, nerfing HMLs goes a long way to fixing the drake and tengu while having no real effect on the Nighthawk and Cerb (they are still ****). The caracal will also be fixed as part of the balance changes and remains balanced post HML changes (see various fits and stats posted already in this thread).

This means the HML changes don't break any additional ships. The Nighthawk and Cerb needed fixing before the changes, they still need fixing after the changes. Very few pilots fly them atm and this wont change. CCP will UNDOUBTABLY look at them next year and at least now they will have a reasonably balanced weapon system as a starting point for such balance.
In otherwords - What collateral damage?

Quote:
As as previously linked by someone, the top 20 kill hulls for this month - apart from Drake/Tengu - how many other boats there use HML? How many other boats there use medium weapons at all?


There are 5 real HML platforms. As noted, Cerb and Nighthawk are broken but this has nothing to do with HMLs and everything to do with their bonuses. A t1 cruiser wont ever make the top 20.

Of the top 20 kill hulls, 9 use medium weapons. This seems about right.

Quote:

By all means, fix a busted weapon, but you really should fix boats it is barely carrying at the same time, rather than kicking the only crutch out from under them for 6-12 months.

Almost noone flies the two hulls that will be unbalanced by these changes. Another 6 - 12 months of them still not being used is a FAR lesser evil than another 6-12 month of drake/tengu(/hurricane) ubiquity.



I am not convinced the caracal is fine under the new world. And if T1 cruiser wont make the list it is strange then, that dessies and frigs make it.


As I've said before, fix the problem hulls (a plethora of suggestions on how to do this) and revisit the boats properly alongside the weapon system. There's nothing wrong with wanting a balanced foundation to change from, but there's equally nothing wrong with implementing both at once.

Again: If the weapon system itself is THAT good; why are only two hulls (ab)using it to any success? To me that says it's a lot more than the weapon system. I suspect it wouldn't matter what you put on a drake and it'll still chew you out (otherwise, the beast that is the HAM drake wouldn't exist). A drake is, by and large, weapon system agnostic (ultra short range stuff like blasters may be the exception).

HML could well need putting down a rung or three, but I think the hulls which have the insane synergies of other things needs fixing first and then the situation assessed.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2937 - 2012-09-25 12:21:34 UTC
Lallante wrote:

I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of TE/TCs working on HAMs. Being able to extend HAM range and effectiveness vs small targets 30 - 60% may well prove to be the new FOTM. I think we should wait and see before buffing HAMs (except maybe fittings, to bring them in line with other close range weapon systems)

Where have you got those numbers? Just pulled out of your cargo?
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#2938 - 2012-09-25 12:41:02 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:

Again: If the weapon system itself is THAT good; why are only two hulls (ab)using it to any success? To me that says it's a lot more than the weapon system. I suspect it wouldn't matter what you put on a drake and it'll still chew you out (otherwise, the beast that is the HAM drake wouldn't exist). A drake is, by and large, weapon system agnostic (ultra short range stuff like blasters may be the exception).

Because those ships are OP, thus overshadowing the one ship using it that is balanced, and the 2 remaining are broken underpowered. So, they revamp the missiles to be in line with other weapons at the same time they are rebalancing the Caracal which is the one ship that is already semi balanced, and then they will rebalance the OP and underpowered ships to fit in line with the new missiles.

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Signal11th
#2939 - 2012-09-25 12:42:26 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.

Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.

Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.



Range only. The problem is missles are not the same as guns so you can't attribute the same things to them. The problems aren;t the missles but the ships that are fitting them. It's just a lazy fix instead of actually looking at the ships causing the problems with the missles.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#2940 - 2012-09-25 12:48:03 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.

Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.

Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.



Range only. The problem is missles are not the same as guns so you can't attribute the same things to them. The problems aren;t the missles but the ships that are fitting them. It's just a lazy fix instead of actually looking at the ships causing the problems with the missles.

Oh, so you can quote CCP on that they are not going to rebalance the missile ships?

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

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}