These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5641 - 2012-10-30 17:39:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Why was the range of Fury missiles reduced?
Our goals for T2 ammo is that each ammo type should have a specific and useful role to play, but that the T2 ammo should not completely obsolete the T1 and faction variants. For this proposal we have removed the ship penalties and increased the damage bonus for Fury missiles while reducing their range and increasing the penalties to precision. The goal for all T2 ammo is that it should be the ideal choice in some combat situations and not others, so that you should never be best served by only carrying one type of ammo. Switching to Fury missiles when hostiles are closer/larger and using T1/Faction missiles at longer ranges is normal and expected behavior.
That being said, the exact numbers are of course up for discussion and if the 50% range is something that would put Fury missiles out of whack with their intended purpose and with their relative balance we may change those numbers. Don't expect a return to 90% range though.


I think this would be a good move,
HML do seem to be relatively short post patch while longer then the hams when I logged onto test I felt compelled to use hams over the HML.
Do not get me wrong that is a good thing Hams need love, however I felt like HML was going through an identity crisis and didn't know where or what they wanted to be. I slightly less range nerf would be great I would like to also see a slightly faster travel time integrated into the improve acceleration times.



CCP Fozzie wrote:


Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck?
Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.


I loved the damage increase with the T2 cruise but the range nerf felt a bit harsh here.
When you are looking at long range cruise for over 150km (this is important for incursions)
Taking the faction ammo option to continue to be able to snipe with cruise at these ranges would mean the cruise CNR and SNI sniper boats would end up taking a nerf to dps in this area. It is hard enough as it is to get your sniper CNR / SNI
into an incursion fleet, being forced into T1 or faction ammo mean a nerf how ever as I noticed on test my DPS was down between 100-150. I think the T2 ammo should continue to out preform T1 and faction after all some of us did take the month ++ to train them proper buff Cruise dmg leave range alone.
Continue with buff to torps.


CCP Fozzie wrote:

What about projectiles?
There are a number of issues surrounding some Minmatar ships, some connected to the ships, some to the weapons and some to other modules. We've taken a first step by balancing the powergrid on the Hurricane, and the cruiser changes are going a long way towards providing strong competition to some popular Minmatar ships. We've got our eyes on more fixes to come, including tweaks to Tracking Enhancers.


We will see how this pans out it's clear to everyone that Projectiles are way out of whack hence the overuse of them. Would love to see more balance across all four weapons systems. Im not sure TE are the only issue here though.
The cane was a good start but I think all the hulls need to be looked at.


CCP Fozzie wrote:

We're going to rebalancing all of the battleships, including the Raven. Sorry for the confusion.

In case anyone has missed the overall plan from some earlier dev blogs, we're going to rebalance every ship in the game, sprinkled with some new ships here and there,


Pirate Caldari based cruise missile BS to compete with the Mach and NM please.
And to top it off I understand changes take time how ever until we see some fixes to the Caldari BS
The nerf while possible not game breaking will leave the Caldari *MISSILE* pilot wanting until that happens.
A revamp to the BS line along with cruise / torp will hopefully bring everything closer to being balanced.
When can we expect these changes to be completed?


Looking forward to more feedback from DEVs as this progresses.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5642 - 2012-10-30 18:03:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Alara IonStorm wrote:
I disagree with that sentiment. I don't think tracking or the maximum damage should be improved but at longer ranges, long range weapons should be better IMO instead of Short Range with T2 Ammo.


Then everyone would use heavy missiles.

HML Drake outdamages 250mm Ferox at any range. Even with Javelin you're doing only 368 dps at 13 km.

Cazador 64 wrote:
Pirate Caldari based cruise missile BS to compete with the Mach and NM please.


They are rebalancing ships class by class. They have to rebalance T1 BSs first before they can do anything to pirate BSs. Oh, and you seem to forget Rattlesnake. Just wait till they fix it.
Alara IonStorm
#5643 - 2012-10-30 18:09:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Then everyone would use heavy missiles.

HML Drake outdamages 250mm Ferox at any range. Even with Javelin you're doing only 368 dps at 13 km.

Literally just said they should redue the bonuses and Ammo System. Ferox is missing a gun and should have its tank bonus done into a Dmg bonus. Just said that. Why are you even mentioning the current failed Rail Ferox when the entire post is about rebalancing it...

I want these weapons and the ships that use them around par at those ranges and Heavy Missile Range shortened so it needs a range bonus to hit out as far as the Ferox. So no, they would not all use Heavy Missiles they would use all different weapons. Arty = Volley, Beams = Damage, Rails = Range, Missiles a balanced combination of all with time to hit.
TripStarrR
4S Corporation
The Initiative.
#5644 - 2012-10-30 18:12:01 UTC
guys, is the tengu going to have its powergrid or cpu nurfed on November 4th as part of this re-balancing?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#5645 - 2012-10-30 18:32:36 UTC
TripStarrR wrote:
guys, is the tengu going to have its powergrid or cpu nurfed on November 4th as part of this re-balancing?


We don't have any changes to the Tengu fittings planned for December (or November) 4th.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#5646 - 2012-10-30 18:35:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshi Hanshin
Lili Lu wrote:
The Raven is not the only hull that uses cruises. People fly cruise phoons in pve (granted not popular either). And HML Drakes and Tengus were not overshadowing Ravens due to number of launchers alone. There was also the op damage HMs were putting out as a medium ranged weapon. That is being addressed with this nerf. As Fozzie states they can't piece meal some change onto large weapons or hulls. The raven will have to wait til they get done with cruisers and BCs.

And of course the arguably op tanks on Drakes and Tengus. Those may be getting addressed indirectly with the coming TC/TE/TD changes. Forcing fitting choices that armor/turret boats already face onto missile boats will constrain both the easy and stale damage and tanking patterns on Drakes and Tengus. It may mean these ships won't need a further harsh Cane nerf (but imo BC hp and shield regen in general need a snip).

I think your questions are valid to ask. But as you recognize, they are currently busy still finishing the frigs and cruisers, and you are unlikely to get any detailed answers itt. Anyway, with these medium weapon and tech II missile adjustments people might want to reevaluate ravens and some weapon systems they wrote off as compartively weak to HMLs.

Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.

That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
On somewhat related topic is the ancillary shield boosters going to get a reduced reload time? Cause that 60-seconds is ridiculously long! Almost makes the things not worth using for PvE or PvP. I would suggest either the 12-sec time of shield boosters or slightly longer but no more than 15-seconds. In a fight that 15-seconds will feel like an hour.

As I mentioned in a message via Duality to CCP Fozzie. The powergrid and CPU requirements for Torps & CMs and HMs and HAMs need to be flopped. Longer range weapon system should have the larger of the two power-requirements. That is not the case presently.
Lili Lu
#5647 - 2012-10-30 19:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.

That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
On somewhat related topic is the ancillary shield boosters going to get a reduced reload time? Cause that 60-seconds is ridiculously long! Almost makes the things not worth using for PvE or PvP. I would suggest either the 12-sec time of shield boosters or slightly longer but no more than 15-seconds. In a fight that 15-seconds will feel like an hour.

As I mentioned in a message via Duality to CCP Fozzie. The powergrid and CPU requirements for Torps & CMs and HMs and HAMs need to be flopped. Longer range weapon system should have the larger of the two power-requirements. That is not the case presently.


Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I said hp values on BCs, not just shield hp. That would include armor hp on armor tankers. The way I see it the hp values on the current tier 1 BCs were fine. There was no BC overuse and Cruiser bypass prior to the introduction of the tier 2 BCs. Of course the Caldari and Minmatar BCs will have more relative shield hp and the converse for the Amarr and Gallente.

As for breaking shields. I didn't call for breaking shields. What I was referencing is the skewed shield regen time with all BCs. You can get some utterly ridiculous regen fits on Drakes for pve purposes. Why is this? Well if your shield hp is as much as a Geddon's (a BS, even if an armor tanking one) but your regen time is almost as good as a Cruisers you have a massive regen overtank for level 3s and even for level 4s and other pve content. A Ferox can tank a level 4 if fit for it (the damage of course will be abysmal) and has been so able for many years even with one less mid and lesser base shield hp. But other BCs are not so blessed. BCs in pve terms should be level 3 boats. Most races have to train BS to put together a level 4 tank and sufficient level 4 damage in the same ship.

In pvp, as I said, prior to the tier 2 BCs, Cruisers were not automatic dog food. Presently Cruisers are being buffed. I think what we just saw with the Cane is something that indicates where BCs are going. They will stay stronger than but are not going to be miles ahead of the new Cruisers. BCs are going to be weaker relative to BSs. Tier 2 BCs are crowding out smaller hulls or under pricing too many larger hulls. Smaller hulls are getting buffed atm. The underpircing of BSs with BCs will apparently be addressed with some varying nerfs to tier 2 BCs. Already there was mention of nerfing mobility and possibly fittings with tier 3 BCs.

In short, too many of you folks that relied on the Drake to do everything are going to have to adjust and discover other ships. You will still have appropriate shield tanks, as the armor BCs will have appropriate armor tanks. But I would bet no longer will you have the same tanking abilities you currently enjoy with shield BCs when they get to BCs. And as Fozzies last post suggests this will be due to restored utility with cruisers and BSs. This will be good for the game, as a whole, even if some currently over used BC or Tech III hulls stand to lose some amount of their current utility.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5648 - 2012-10-30 19:26:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.

That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari.


Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods
Armor Harbinger has 58,5k EHP with MWD, point, web, two damage mods and just enough (well, with 3 ACRs) grid for short range turrets (HPL) and is painfully slow. Oh, and it needs 6% CPU implant to fit...

If you want to talk about resists, check T1 armor resists, especially kinetic and explosive.

I can get Prophecy to 97,6k EHP but it's not what you'd call a cheap fit.
Cazador 64
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#5649 - 2012-10-30 21:19:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Cazador 64
Jorma Morkkis wrote:

They are rebalancing ships class by class. They have to rebalance T1 BSs first before they can do anything to pirate BSs. Oh, and you seem to forget Rattlesnake. Just wait till they fix it.


Hrmm Oh you mean the drone boat.
The statement was made they are adding new ships,
I simply gave an idea that a Caldari Cruise Missile BS pirate faction to compete with the NM and Mach.
I know what the Rattler is and it is a different type of ship then the Mach or NM.

Jorma Morkkis wrote:

Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods

Please Link this fit because with all lvl 5 skills I do not get a drake to 97.3 K EHP and taking up two mid slots.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#5650 - 2012-10-30 21:42:56 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Why not have one T2 longrange missile and one T2 shortrange missile with T1 in between for Cruise/heavy/Light missiles?
This is the pattern used by turrets and by short-range missiles, and it was an option we considered for long-range missile launchers. However in the end we didn't see a good reason to homogenize missiles and turrets in that way. As well, since T1 missiles have comparable range to T2 longrange turret ammo, we would have had to nerf T1 missile range further to keep that system balanced and I don't think you folks want that.


Instead, you Homogenize their damage even though they are 2 completely different weapon platforms.
Quote:

Are you making these changes because you are part of a shadowy dev conspiracy to push the agenda of fat cat projectile conglomerates and stretching back to the original BoB BBQ in 1723?
How do you know? Did someone break the blood oath?


You still have not answered the player grip:

Why don't you start with just the Range nerf, then change the problematic ships, then come back and balance with DPS and other nerfs later............IF NEEDED!!!

Range alone is a huge nerf to missiles, that you just do not get. It is a nerf to damage projection, kiting, and other factors all on it's own.

Anyone with half a clue knows that the only threat a drake fleet at 0 presents is their amount of EHP vs the grind to kill them faster than they slowly kill you.... nobody thinks their range at 0 is stupendous... just their tank.

Again, nobody has ever said that damage was the issue with the drake, and the tengu is an issue with bonuses/fittings. So why are you going so overboard on nerfs when the huge range nerfs would more than likely be enough. Stop with the bullcrap answer of "out of whack" when history shows that you are wrong and why missiles are the damage they are currently.


And furthermore, when are you going to go fix capitals AGAIN after your failed "titan nerf" and dread buff, plus the massive issues of Sentry carriers doing better than CR bs tracking at nearly 1500 dps and 6000 alpha out to 120km range when desired. Honestly, this is a much more game breaking and pressing issue that isn't even being addressed and making capitals online worse than ever before.

Oh yeah, Tell Greyscale I was right on that one... maybe I can school him more on "real" tracking mechanics in this game vs his spreadsheets.
Lili Lu
#5651 - 2012-10-30 22:22:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Cazador 64 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods
Please Link this fit because with all lvl 5 skills I do not get a drake to 97.3 K EHP and taking up two mid slots.


Well color me shocked Cazador asking for eft proof What? Lol, back to fitting advice for unimaginitive Drake pilots.

I'm not sure exactly what Jorma is looking at. I do think he overstates the case, because I think he uses tech II extender rigs to get there.
My stab at it was:
highs - 7 HML II with scourge fury
meds - 2 x LSE (one tech II and one meta 4), Invuln II, Meta em hardener, Meta 4 TP, Meta 10 mn MWD
lows - Meta 4 damage control, 3 BCS II
rigs - 3 CDFE (one tech I, 2 tech II)

At all level 5 skills it all fits without implants and has 95,956 ehp. Now with not much in a fitting implant you could swap some of the meta mods to tech II and increase the tank.

To be more reasonable though I would drop the tech II rigs. And if you went with two BCSs you could replace one with a power diagnostic. This frees up both cpu and grid for tech II tanking mods in place of meta mods. So with 2 LSE II, both hardeners tech II, and a PDS II and even with 3 tech I CDFEs you can get 97.5k ehp to fit without fitting implants. The DPS drop goes from 445 to 396 on current tranquility HM damage.

So Jorma's point stands because the performance of turret boats can't even reach this with long range ammo and any even halfway similar tank. The above fits stack up very much more favorably to any attempt at a long range Harby or Hurricane for both ranged dps and tank at any range. You would have to go back to the first half of this thread to read the extensive proof on the Drake advantages over other ships with long range medium weapons for tank and dps at range. And even at short range there is littel dps advantage with turret tech II high damage ammo with such short optimals (~10km at best) and dismal tracking. It is precisely what this whole nerf is about.
Lili Lu
#5652 - 2012-10-30 22:38:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
I'm Down wrote:
Again, nobody has ever said that damage was the issue with the drake, and the tengu is an issue with bonuses/fittings. So why are you going so overboard on nerfs when the huge range nerfs would more than likely be enough. Stop with the bullcrap answer of "out of whack" when history shows that you are wrong and why missiles are the damage they are currently.


Because if you strip down to the medium long range weapons on a Drake, Harby, or Cane (I won't include the Brutix here because it is tier 1) you can't create anywhere near the same damage at 60-70kkm as you can with a drake all with possibly double the tank for the drake. HMLs are simply better than heavy beams and 720 artys and of course 250mm rails. Even with short range tech II ammo in the turrets the dps advantage is much less than the HM tech II advantage over tech II range turret ammo. Tech II turret ammo that has a 10k optimal and a tracking disadvantage.

Even after the new stats the HML tech II fury will outrange tech II turret ammo by quite a bit.

I don't disagree that the tengu subsystem stats and bonuses are "out of whack" and that Drake tanks are "out of whack". Resist bonuses are precarious things. One could envision a rebalanced and possibly buffed Prophecy and Legion (if they retain resist bonuses) being similarly precarious ships. But the weapon systems are "out of whack" and that is why this nerf is happening.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5653 - 2012-10-30 22:41:20 UTC  |  Edited by: serras bang
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:
Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.

That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari.


Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods
Armor Harbinger has 58,5k EHP with MWD, point, web, two damage mods and just enough (well, with 3 ACRs) grid for short range turrets (HPL) and is painfully slow. Oh, and it needs 6% CPU implant to fit...

If you want to talk about resists, check T1 armor resists, especially kinetic and explosive.

I can get Prophecy to 97,6k EHP but it's not what you'd call a cheap fit.


now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#5654 - 2012-10-30 23:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Lili Lu wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Again, nobody has ever said that damage was the issue with the drake, and the tengu is an issue with bonuses/fittings. So why are you going so overboard on nerfs when the huge range nerfs would more than likely be enough. Stop with the bullcrap answer of "out of whack" when history shows that you are wrong and why missiles are the damage they are currently.


Because if you strip down to the medium long range weapons on a Drake, Harby, or Cane (I won't include the Brutix here because it is tier 1) you can't create anywhere near the same damage at 60-70kkm as you can with a drake all with possibly double the tank for the drake. HMLs are simply better than heavy beams and 720 artys and of course 250mm rails. Even with short range tech II ammo in the turrets the dps advantage is much less than the HM tech II advantage over tech II range turret ammo. Tech II turret ammo that has a 10k optimal and a tracking disadvantage.

Even after the new stats the HML tech II fury will outrange tech II turret ammo by quite a bit.

I don't disagree that the tengu subsystem stats and bonuses are "out of whack" and that Drake tanks are "out of whack". Resist bonuses are precarious things. One could envision a rebalanced and possibly buffed Prophecy and Legion (if they retain resist bonuses) being similarly precarious ships. But the weapon systems are "out of whack" and that is why this nerf is happening.


My god, you're a broken record....

not everything is about the homoginized DPS at range. There are many other factors that go into missiles while bringing them comparably closer to those others by making the change to range. Stop ignoring the other factors with missiles that make them suck next to turrets.

You also say more range for fury.... what about massive ncrease in tracking for all LR turret CR ammo.

this is why you do balance is small doses with a plan for further change if need that can be implemented quickly... rather than huge swaths that force you to figure out how you broke something by going way too far in the other direction. It's common sense implementation to go in small doses knowing what the next step can be with coding already written if needed rather than huge changes.

You seem to be skipping over the fact that I'm not saying ignore all the proposed changes, but rather do them in waves to see if they are all truly needed. Stop being such a political animal with your posting and actually represent what's being said rather than brown nosing the devs.

The player base keeps screaming for a "plan" from CCP rather than irrational changes with no logical next steps...

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#5655 - 2012-10-30 23:31:39 UTC
serras bang wrote:
now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.

Fleet drake don't need web nor point ; solo/small gang drake indeed need point, but web is optionnal ; indeed, it's fit is not a solo/small gang one, but it's a valid fleet fit (though not standard).

As for ehp, if you want to discuss its utility as a tool to evaluate a ship endurance to damage, it certainly could be interesting, though if you are talking about EVE ingame ehp value, I'm afraid you are a lot more ignorant than you seemed so far.
serras bang
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5656 - 2012-10-30 23:55:16 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
serras bang wrote:
now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.

Fleet drake don't need web nor point ; solo/small gang drake indeed need point, but web is optionnal ; indeed, it's fit is not a solo/small gang one, but it's a valid fleet fit (though not standard).

As for ehp, if you want to discuss its utility as a tool to evaluate a ship endurance to damage, it certainly could be interesting, though if you are talking about EVE ingame ehp value, I'm afraid you are a lot more ignorant than you seemed so far.


not really eft has said many of me ehp values are over 100k yet i get barely 60 in game
Lili Lu
#5657 - 2012-10-31 00:25:30 UTC
serras bang wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
serras bang wrote:
now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.

Fleet drake don't need web nor point ; solo/small gang drake indeed need point, but web is optionnal ; indeed, it's fit is not a solo/small gang one, but it's a valid fleet fit (though not standard).

As for ehp, if you want to discuss its utility as a tool to evaluate a ship endurance to damage, it certainly could be interesting, though if you are talking about EVE ingame ehp value, I'm afraid you are a lot more ignorant than you seemed so far.


not really eft has said many of me ehp values are over 100k yet i get barely 60 in game


Serras, the fitting screen in game and eft calculate the same fitting ehp differently. The point is though that any 50k Harbinger or Cane ehp from eft will also be less on the fitting screen also. Straight
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#5658 - 2012-10-31 00:27:54 UTC
I'm Down wrote:

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.


I missed you old friend. <3

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#5659 - 2012-10-31 00:42:29 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm Down wrote:

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.


I missed you old friend. <3



Forget this thread, let's talk ECM nerf.
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#5660 - 2012-10-31 01:01:59 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Lili Lu wrote:
I'm Down wrote:
Again, nobody has ever said that damage was the issue with the drake, and the tengu is an issue with bonuses/fittings. So why are you going so overboard on nerfs when the huge range nerfs would more than likely be enough. Stop with the bullcrap answer of "out of whack" when history shows that you are wrong and why missiles are the damage they are currently.


Because if you strip down to the medium long range weapons on a Drake, Harby, or Cane (I won't include the Brutix here because it is tier 1) you can't create anywhere near the same damage at 60-70kkm as you can with a drake all with possibly double the tank for the drake. HMLs are simply better than heavy beams and 720 artys and of course 250mm rails. Even with short range tech II ammo in the turrets the dps advantage is much less than the HM tech II advantage over tech II range turret ammo. Tech II turret ammo that has a 10k optimal and a tracking disadvantage.

Even after the new stats the HML tech II fury will outrange tech II turret ammo by quite a bit.

I don't disagree that the tengu subsystem stats and bonuses are "out of whack" and that Drake tanks are "out of whack". Resist bonuses are precarious things. One could envision a rebalanced and possibly buffed Prophecy and Legion (if they retain resist bonuses) being similarly precarious ships. But the weapon systems are "out of whack" and that is why this nerf is happening.


My god, you're a broken record....

not everything is about the homoginized DPS at range. There are many other factors that go into missiles while bringing them comparably closer to those others by making the change to range. Stop ignoring the other factors with missiles that make them suck next to turrets.

You also say more range for fury.... what about massive ncrease in tracking for all LR turret CR ammo.

this is why you do balance is small doses with a plan for further change if need that can be implemented quickly... rather than huge swaths that force you to figure out how you broke something by going way too far in the other direction. It's common sense implementation to go in small doses knowing what the next step can be with coding already written if needed rather than huge changes.

You seem to be skipping over the fact that I'm not saying ignore all the proposed changes, but rather do them in waves to see if they are all truly needed. Stop being such a political animal with your posting and actually represent what's being said rather than brown nosing the devs.

The player base keeps screaming for a "plan" from CCP rather than irrational changes with no logical next steps...

To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.


I don't know how to break this to you, but everything you say is wrong

No sig.