These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cardinal Harvest
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#2941 - 2012-09-25 12:58:56 UTC
Can Cerberus get a new look other than recolored Caracal? Something like Vagabond is being redrawn. Please?
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2942 - 2012-09-25 13:08:53 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.


You're a strange one, all this time you are telling to everyone that wants and don't wants to hear that HML damage is on par with short range weapons and therefor should be nerfed, but when someone makes a point about short range missiles, you are the one that starts comparing with long range weapons.

I didn't make a claim about HML's I made a claim that HAM launcher has the fitting stats of a long range turret.

So that makes a brawling missile ship with short range heavy asault missiles a crime to fit, where as shortrange turrets are rather easy to fit.

Now it's fine that HML's are 500sp earlier to fit than a t2 turret, but it has nothing to do with the problem at hand. (as well as the fact that that t2 turret can be short and long range a few minuts extra training,hat doesn't get you anywhere near a T2 HAM launcher) We where talking about a HAM launcher and that one is quite hard to fit.



Onictus, I'm aware that there are more ships that are hard to fit, that doesn't make it less a problem.
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#2943 - 2012-09-25 13:09:59 UTC
Lallante wrote:
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)


I agree that this fix might bring HAMs some love. It doesn't change the fact that HMs are the only long range weapon system without short range malus, though. And that they are currently better suited to smaller targets than their short range counterpart.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2944 - 2012-09-25 13:17:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
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 really?

The Drake has the weakest weapon bonus in the game you would have them apply a negative bonus to it?

Nighthawks issues are more fitting related than bonus related (Its not alone, Eos/Astarte? ever see one in space? Yeah, thought not.) Cerberus suffers from the drakes tank, its not a big enough advantage to add raw range with a weak tank, so you get the "Yeah, its a 200 million isk Drake" comments and they are generally frowned upon. Because of of the drakes weapon bonuses? LOL No.

Tengu is just an extension, a powerful bonus on an unbalanced weapon system SURPRISE, its more then a little out of line.

CCP already said straight out that heavy missiles were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls, it doesn't take a doctorate in math to figure out why.


Mike Whiite wrote:

Onictus, I'm aware that there are more ships that are hard to fit, that doesn't make it less a problem.


I started the game as Gallente, Caldari are by and large very easy to fit. You STILL can't fit a rack of 425s on a Megathron without using a adaptive plate or a meta 5+ resist module.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#2945 - 2012-09-25 13:19:56 UTC
Lallante wrote:


HMLs have short range weapon DPS at ranges longer than long range turrets.



They simply dont. Any short range weapon system cruiser class or above out DPSes HML grand time. To claim the opposite is a lie.

What is true is: HML have very good range (like CMs, for that matter) and decent damage application (unlike CMs). They have also flight time (esp. on the second half of their range). All in all they are strong, but not OP like scorch in Pulselasers or falloff-ownage of BS-sized Autocannons. If you want them fixed, fine for me, but fix those other 2 first.

Lallante wrote:


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.


Thats what I say all the time - choose your fighting range according to your weapon system. If you face a HML-Drake get close enough to it so you can deal MORE damage to him than he can do to you OR disengage - you might have noticed, that point range is not the same like HML range ...


Lallante wrote:

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


Your list is so dumb it really makes me cry .. first of all I said "above frig class", so there goes Merlin, Crow, Cormorant (which sucks in comparison to other dessies btw!), Flycatcher. Caracal is by no means on par with a Rupture, Thorax or Vexor, seriously! BB is support and not combat. Same goes to Falcon, Basi, Widow and Scorpion. Duh.

Rokh is a fleet ship, we are left with the Tengu, Ferox and Drake. By NO MEANS (!!!) the Ferox is a match for a Harbinger, Cane or Myrmidon, and the tier 1s will mop the floor with it too if not flown by complete retards. Tengu is t3 and decent, but will be hit by HML nerf the same like Drake. So where exactly is your small gang combat caldari ship above frig class?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2946 - 2012-09-25 13:22:07 UTC
Lallante wrote:


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?


For reference I was agreeing with you.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2947 - 2012-09-25 13:36:31 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
So where exactly is your small gang combat caldari ship above frig class?


Drake. Yawn.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2948 - 2012-09-25 14:00:12 UTC
Onictus wrote:
[
Mike Whiite wrote:

Onictus, I'm aware that there are more ships that are hard to fit, that doesn't make it less a problem.


I started the game as Gallente, Caldari are by and large very easy to fit. You STILL can't fit a rack of 425s on a Megathron without using a adaptive plate or a meta 5+ resist module.



As I don't fly Gallente Battleships, my knowlage is limited, but why is it, that now the diference between long range fittings and short range fittings isn't a problem.

damage wise it is a problem that a long range weapon system does damage like a short range wise

But fitting wise it isn't a problem that the short range weapon system fits like a long range weapon system?

Wouldn't it be on par that that short range system to be equal itting wise to the other short range systems? and o course the long range system on par fitting wise with the other long range systems.

That doesn't seem like a rather outragious request or does it.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2949 - 2012-09-25 14:32:16 UTC
CCP Foozie,

You had asked about Ideas for changes I think for the NH if you give it a 7th launcher and the PG to fit it. With the numbers I just came up with it would do 438 DPS at 55K plus what ever the TE give it with HML. I would change the kinetic bonus to a 5% damage bonus and 5% bonus to heavy missile and heavy assault missile explosion velocity per level. With this fitting you lose 32 DPS over the old fitting but when you change to HAMS and this is where this ship should shine as it would do 616 DPS at about 24k with TE I think this would bring it inline with other command ships although this thing can have a godly tank EFT ~118k. Below is the fitting for you to look at.

[Nighthawk, Fleet NH]

Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Tracking Enhancer II
Reactor Control Unit II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II
Warp Disruptor II
Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Warrior II x5
Doddy
Excidium.
#2950 - 2012-09-25 14:34:26 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Lallante wrote:


HMLs have short range weapon DPS at ranges longer than long range turrets.



They simply dont. Any short range weapon system cruiser class or above out DPSes HML grand time. To claim the opposite is a lie.

What is true is: HML have very good range (like CMs, for that matter) and decent damage application (unlike CMs). They have also flight time (esp. on the second half of their range). All in all they are strong, but not OP like scorch in Pulselasers or falloff-ownage of BS-sized Autocannons. If you want them fixed, fine for me, but fix those other 2 first.

Lallante wrote:


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.


Thats what I say all the time - choose your fighting range according to your weapon system. If you face a HML-Drake get close enough to it so you can deal MORE damage to him than he can do to you OR disengage - you might have noticed, that point range is not the same like HML range ...


Lallante wrote:

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


Your list is so dumb it really makes me cry .. first of all I said "above frig class", so there goes Merlin, Crow, Cormorant (which sucks in comparison to other dessies btw!), Flycatcher. Caracal is by no means on par with a Rupture, Thorax or Vexor, seriously! BB is support and not combat. Same goes to Falcon, Basi, Widow and Scorpion. Duh.

Rokh is a fleet ship, we are left with the Tengu, Ferox and Drake. By NO MEANS (!!!) the Ferox is a match for a Harbinger, Cane or Myrmidon, and the tier 1s will mop the floor with it too if not flown by complete retards. Tengu is t3 and decent, but will be hit by HML nerf the same like Drake. So where exactly is your small gang combat caldari ship above frig class?


Right, so falcons and basis are not combat ships now. Thats good, wont see any more of either paired with another ship then will I ....

Rokh is an awesome solo boat btw, and blaster ferox for that matter. Caracal is decent even now if you know how to use it. I remeber snigwaffe humiliating CFC gangs with ultra long range sniper caras, which only worked becasue hmls have such great damage projection. Can't imagine them doing the same thing with a turret cruiser, all of which have terrible dps at range. So really the suckiness is the corm (getting buffed), Moa (getting buffed), the hacs (cerb is being looked at), nighthawk (being looked at) and the raven, the raven mainly due to cruise being fail (hopefully being looked at). That leaves the eagle, may it rest in peace.
Doddy
Excidium.
#2951 - 2012-09-25 14:42:06 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.


This is a very illogical statement. How can you possibly balance the ships without balancing the system? And simply sticking the systems on an unbonused hull will show you how unbalanced they are.
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2952 - 2012-09-25 14:52:43 UTC
DR BiCarbonate wrote:
*looks at eve-kill stats*
Rank Ships Kills
1 Drake 209852
2 Zealot 117887
3 Hurricane 55016
4 Tengu 41806
5 Tornado 36558
6 Naga 34228
7 Maelstrom 33398
8 Loki 31593
9 Oracle 30786
10 Thrasher 21259
11 Hound 19516
12 Cynabal 19432
13 Sabre 18746
14 Talos 17529
15 Rifter 17297
16 Proteus 17240
17 Huginn 17202
18 Scimitar 16779
19 Stabber Fleet Issue 16659
20 Apocalypse Navy Issue

September Stats.

Yep. Good Nerf.


Pirate - 1
Caldari - 3
Amarr - 3
Gallente - 2

Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#2953 - 2012-09-25 14:59:25 UTC
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
[quote=DR BiCarbonate]*looks at eve-kill stats*

Pirate - 1
Caldari - 3
Amarr - 3
Gallente - 2

Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol



Its a good think nothing on the drake has changed only the HML has changed so not sure how you are saying the drake has changed in any way.
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2954 - 2012-09-25 15:09:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Terik Deatharbingr
MIrple wrote:
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
[quote=DR BiCarbonate]*looks at eve-kill stats*

Pirate - 1
Caldari - 3
Amarr - 3
Gallente - 2

Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol



Its a good think nothing on the drake has changed only the HML has changed so not sure how you are saying the drake has changed in any way.


Oh wow....let's grab your hand....The HML will affect 2 ships more than anything....the Drake and the Tengu, 66% of caldari PVP ships in this list here....If you were to alter projectile turrets...are you not changing the ships that fit them?

Here's why I don't understand...if, in fact, the drake is so OP, why, as an Amarr/Caldari pilot, am I wishing I was minmatar instead?? Why don't these guys crying it's so OP fly drakes instead?? Why is the HML, drake and tengu so op, when 11 of the top 20 ships on this kill board are, in fact, Minmatar?

To truly "balance" this....would a nerf to the Volley of arty's and increasing it's RoF be just as much a work toward's the "balance" they so desire?

BTW, of the top 2 ship kills...can anyone explain why those numbers are so high....like according to evenews and themitanni...is there not a war going on in the north??
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#2955 - 2012-09-25 15:22:35 UTC
I really can't believe noone is noticing the phantom buff thats in TE's...

Its going to change entirely how missile boats are fitted..

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#2956 - 2012-09-25 15:26:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
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.

Remove excessive slots to bring Drake and other tier2 BCs back to proper level, in line with tier1s.

Its 6th med slot is not really required, so is the 7th launcher. Then treat the rest of the lineup in the same way.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#2957 - 2012-09-25 15:29:05 UTC
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
DR BiCarbonate wrote:
*looks at eve-kill stats*
Rank Ships Kills
1 Drake 209852
2 Zealot 117887
3 Hurricane 55016
4 Tengu 41806
5 Tornado 36558
6 Naga 34228
7 Maelstrom 33398
8 Loki 31593
9 Oracle 30786
10 Thrasher 21259
11 Hound 19516
12 Cynabal 19432
13 Sabre 18746
14 Talos 17529
15 Rifter 17297
16 Proteus 17240
17 Huginn 17202
18 Scimitar 16779
19 Stabber Fleet Issue 16659
20 Apocalypse Navy Issue

September Stats.

Yep. Good Nerf.


Pirate - 1
Caldari - 3
Amarr - 3
Gallente - 2

Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol




Total Caldari
285886

Total Minmatar
284023

Total Amarr
180913

Total others.
I did not do the math........

So, should the entire Minmatar race be nerfed ? I vote for a 20% reduction in base speed for all Minmatar ships.
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2958 - 2012-09-25 15:31:16 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I really can't believe noone is noticing the phantom buff thats in TE's...

Its going to change entirely how missile boats are fitted..


while you are right...from a PVE aspect, this actually would balance out the Tengu as your 4th BCS isn't giving you that much of a bonus to DPS anyway. But it will hinder the drake as most are only fitted with 2 BCS's it MIGHT balance out.

From a PVP perspective, though...IDK, I think it might be more detrimental.

From a skill perspective, are they looking at changing the skill requirements for TC's so that missiles don't have yet another support skill to train. While I think it's stupid requirements to fit T2 guns, as someone posted earlier...it does take 10 days longer to be perfect med HM's than it does to be perfect med pulse/blasters...and 10 days less than that for med ac's *or their long range counter parts.
Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2959 - 2012-09-25 15:34:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Terik Deatharbingr
Bloutok wrote:


Total Caldari
285886

Total Minmatar
284023

Total Amarr
180913

Total others.
I did not do the math........

So, should the entire Minmatar race be nerfed ? I vote for a 20% reduction in base speed for all Minmatar ships.


Go back to June and tell me if the numbers are the same....from everything I'm reading, those numbers are from a war going on in the North with some Drake blobs...but I do agree...20% reduction in base speed for minmatar seeing as the minmatar ship almost always dictates whether the fight happens or not.
Ian Wolf
Otawasa Bureau of Development Services
#2960 - 2012-09-25 16:08:08 UTC
Tyrus Tenebros wrote:
I virtually never post to eve-o forums but the missile changes are way to excessive.

While I generally never join the whines of "don't make everything the same" I have to agree that the move to make missiles "more inline" with other weapon types is misguided. Missiles have always done low-ish to moderate dps in exchange for being reliable and difficult to stop barring outranging them. Shoving them in to the TE/TD paradigm dramatically affects the character of missiles.

While I understand the desire to increase the use of HAMs and promote the LR/CR dichotomy, I also don't think needing HMLs in ti the ground is the way to go with that either.
1) DPS reduction is too high. 10% would be a better start.
2) Range reduction is slightly too significant. 15-20% base might be better... missiles don't have falloff and are subject to chase distance against fast targets
3) TE/TD paradigm will likely reduce DPS further as some lows are swapped to TEs. While I "get" how the reduced dps is supposed to be compensated for slightly by increased applied damage to small targets, I don't think it will play out very well.
4) TDs themselves become extremely powerful. I suggest dropping the TE/TD change entirely, there's no reason for it. As they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.. and the balance of missile damage actually applied is fine as is, even if tweaks need to be applied there'sno need for a wholesale shift.


The 10% damage nerf should be sufficient to promote the use of HAMs. Slightly increasing damage applied by HAMs would also promote their use.

Edit: well played dropping the cane nerf in front of the overboard missile changes to derail the thread from that discussion. Roll


I couldn't agree with this more
TE/TD effecting missiles? What is the negative effect of using them? Atleast with ECM you have the chance they miss jams, TE/TD just became the most overpowered Electronic Warfare mods in game. PASS