These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-09-18 14:10:58 UTC
This looks good, but I suspect there will be a proliferation of Tracking Disruptors on unbonused ships. It might become necessary to weaken them on unbonused ships.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#42 - 2012-09-18 14:12:14 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!


Unless you fit a td or a tc.
Fatyn
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#43 - 2012-09-18 14:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Fatyn
Fozzie I think what you and the team are doing is pretty breathtaking. It's been so good to see CCP rumble into gear on ship balancing over the last year or so. The tentative, glacial changes of the past have been replaced by a much bolder approach - the core game of EVE pewpew always deserved so much more than one dev in a broom cupboard. There will always be some whiny fucks whose favourite ship / tactic / fitting is now superceded, but if the objective of making EVE PvP broader, deeper and more balanced is achieved most people won't care.

I hope you guys feel the power in your fingertips because you are supercharging our awesome game with every new balance patch.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#44 - 2012-09-18 14:13:11 UTC
Btw, when are medium rails going to become in any way usable in PvP?
Arty clearly is, HMs have been, beams too. Rails are just godawful on Gal or Cal ships.
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#45 - 2012-09-18 14:13:20 UTC
I can hear the tears from FOTM pilots across the cluster Twisted

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."

NiGhTTraX
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-09-18 14:13:56 UTC  |  Edited by: NiGhTTraX
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
With 7x T2 HAM launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing Scourge outputs 401 DPS.

The Hurricane with 6x T2 720mm Artys and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 371 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 477 DPS.

The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range or 320 DPS with HAMs. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well....

Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? So let me get this straight. Missiles will loose some of their range, will have the lowest DPS among weapons, they have flight time and they will also be tracking disrupted? And their only advantage will remain the ability to choose damage types? (which no one does because of the kinetic bonus on Caldari hulls) Did I mention that missiles can be smartbombed or taken out with defenders? Goodbye solo missile platforms!

CCP Frozie wrote:
The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.


No other high tier battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho.

TDs will be the new and improved ECM. At least with ECM you're taking the risk of bringing the wrong jammer. If TD effects will apply to everything there's absolutely no reason to not bring one.

If you're gonna post here thinking your idea is the greatest thing since bacon and that it will save EVE and possibly all humankind with it, you're gonna have a bad time.

Hosiden
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2012-09-18 14:14:58 UTC
I expect this giftcard to arrive in fozzies mailbox as the winter expansion arrives. "Superpilots everwhere hopes you are happy with that extra "Christmas bonus"" Signed Nerfed hurricane
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#48 - 2012-09-18 14:15:20 UTC
NiGhTTraX wrote:
No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho.


Not flown a Brutix recently then, I take it.

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."

Tyrus Tenebros
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#49 - 2012-09-18 14:15:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyrus Tenebros
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
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#50 - 2012-09-18 14:15:55 UTC
NiGhTTraX wrote:
CCP Frozie wrote:
The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.


No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho.
Who said the intended purpose was 2 medium neuts?
Or that BCs were balanced?
Or that a Brutix can fit Neutrons while using its active tank bonus?
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#51 - 2012-09-18 14:16:46 UTC
NiGhTTraX wrote:
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.


Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range?

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-09-18 14:16:50 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!


Unless you fit a td or a tc.


Yes, as if shield tanks have enough slots for random crap, its enough that armor tanks can fit ECCM and TCs and everything they need to combat ewar while shield tanks just die in a fire.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
#53 - 2012-09-18 14:17:57 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!



Drones. Hurrr.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#54 - 2012-09-18 14:18:23 UTC
On to the attack cruisers thread to see if they've killed the Caracal with these HM nerfs. I do hope that they changed the Caracal with that in mind, I always found it difficult to fit HAM's, HM's had pathetic DPS, and Light Assaults were... Oh god.

But I'm happy to see change, so HUZZAH!
On with change!
adopt
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2012-09-18 14:20:17 UTC
20% damage nerf is far too much. Same with the Hurricane PG Nerf.

I think you should reduce damage by 15% not 20%, and cut the PG by 150 rather than 225.

If you follow through with these changes you're making the entire BattleCruiser class obsolete.
Haargoth Civire
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#56 - 2012-09-18 14:20:22 UTC
Hey Null sec blobs... get it right round yees..
Haargoth Civire
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#57 - 2012-09-18 14:23:04 UTC
Fatyn wrote:
Fozzie I think what you and the team are doing is pretty breathtaking. It's been so good to see CCP rumble into gear on ship balancing over the last year or so. The tentative, glacial changes of the past have been replaced by a much bolder approach - the core game of EVE pewpew always deserved so much more than one dev in a broom cupboard. There will always be some whiny fucks whose favourite ship / tactic / fitting is now superceded, but if the objective of making EVE PvP broader, deeper and more balanced is achieved most people won't care.

I hope you guys feel the power in your fingertips because you are supercharging our awesome game with every new balance patch.


But fatyn all the blobs in null sec will now have to get skills for decent ships and they will have to spend isk on better hulls.. what are they gonna doooooooo..
Lili Lu
#58 - 2012-09-18 14:24:58 UTC
Interesting. And to all the folks who put so much effort into saying there is nothing wrong with HMs, Tengus, or Drakes . . welp.Smile

Anyway, if I'm reading these changes correctly it is only a nerf to current kiting tactics with Drakes and other heavy or heavy assault missile boats. A ship that has such a sturdy tank should not get a pass with range advantage as well. Ironically it may signal that the resist bonus might be staying (but that is not to say the same hp or regen stats will be there).

Basically you are losing damage with standard ammo at range, and you are losing base range. You will be gaining damage with Fury, if you fit for it, i.e. painter or painter support, and rigs to overcome the drawbacks (thus competing with tanking rigs). If you want to retain the present Drake sweetspot of 70km you will need to fit TE or TC and thus lose either tank or damage mods. And just like turrets you will be wary of TDs.

Not sure what to make of precision missile changes. Frigs may have to start fearing an ammo switch to it.

WIth Rage you are gaining damage, if you get closer than you may be presently used to. Rage HAMs will opperate more like blasters.

Just my quick impression and without all the coming other changes apparent. So the Tengu and Drake are getting an indirect nerf to their current ease of fitting and tactics. They can keep the range but at the expense of tank and/or damage, or they can keep the damage and possibly more damage but at the expense of range and the need for support painter and webbing ships.

Fozzie, are you guys considering any slight nerf to TD base strength? Because if not, everyone and his mother will be fitting TDs. It seems to me that the module could use little nerf, so as not to become the must have "multispec of doom", and to make the speicialized ships more desirable in fleets.
Alara IonStorm
#59 - 2012-09-18 14:25:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
DeBingJos wrote:
NiGhTTraX wrote:
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS.
The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.


Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range?

479 to 20 with Short Range Ammo 40 for 320 with Mid Range Ammo, 70 at 270 with Tremor using two TE's

New Drake 257 DPS + Flight Time.

I don't think Heavy Missiles are too good, Medium Range Guns just suck with Damage Projection and Fitting, Ships like the Ferox don't help either.

CCP should look into making more Medium Weapons viable not nerfing the ones that are.

Edit: Read that as Artillery.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#60 - 2012-09-18 14:25:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
A 20% damage reduction on HMs is just too much. I'd say 10% is way more reasonable considering the range nerf.

I would think a 10% reduction to HM damage and a 10% increase to HAM damage would be more reasonable, because the reason HMs are used so much right now is because of two reasons:

1. They have pretty good damage, but not amazing, they're "just right" in terms of missiles.
2. Hams are barely better for damage, whereas they should be considerably higher DPS, like the difference between cruises and torps (around 300-400 dps for cruises to torps, should be around 200-250 for HMs to HAMs)

Thus, by buffing HAMs, you fix one of those, and by nerfing HM damage, you fix another. Nerfing one of them a huge amount just makes the respective weapon completely useless. That's why I would think a 10% reduction for HM damage along with a 10% increase in HAM damage is better. HAMs are decent but they are always avoided in PvP because they can't match up to HMs. But making HMs useless to promote HAMs is stupid, HMs should simply be made a bit worse and HAMs should be made a bit better, which will solve the problem.

I understand the range nerf though, such huge range on HMs is really unnecessary.

Week later edit:

At this point I really don't care what they do to HMs as long as they fix the fitting on HAMs and possibly buff the damage on them a bit.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us