These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#801 - 2012-09-18 23:56:28 UTC
I'm Down wrote:

Were you the one a few threads ago who bitched at me for doing pimped t2 fits and bonuses, and here you're making an impossible dps statement unless you go with billions in fitting options? And then chucked in Overheating stats to boot.

why yes, yes you were the one.


A few comments:
- This particular branch of the conversation is about PVE. People regularly faction fit their Tengus. I personally have multiple PVE Tengus that are faction fit.
- Those stats are not overheated.
- I yelled at you for **** fitting and posting unrealistic PVP fits.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#802 - 2012-09-18 23:56:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
Heavy Missiles:

Well, I was suggesting a NERF to heavy missile range for a long time now. The aforementioned had a serious advantage over comparable turrets (artillery, beam laser). @ first I didn't like the reduction in damage, but it makes sense when compared to artillery and beam laser @ 60,000m (using long range ammunition).

Increasing heavy assault missiles range by fitting tracking enhancers is interesting, but isn't needed if CCP's removing the penalties of javelin missiles...

So, pilots have to fit 3 damage mods on thier heavy missile-Drakes instead of 2 (I rock 3 now). You'd need 3 damage modules to repilcate what 2 damage modules are capable of doing currently. How much will this really NERF the Tengu? Not that much. Infact, it puts the Tengu inline with a Proteus using railguns or a Legion using pulse lasers @ 45 - 55,000m. However, there's still a significant difference in range and damage maintained @ that range. Solo-Tengu setups will be hit HARD. CCP should also remove the ability of strategic cruisers to fit ganglinks altogether. To make sure Command ships are the first and only choice for that purpose.


Cruisers:

These changes are the most interesting. I'm not going to go into why to much, but the Caracal and Thorax seem to make it out like bandits. I'm waiting to see what will happen with the Rupture and Vexor. I'm worried about the Vexor, but after seeing the Thorax changes I'm worried about the Thorax @tleast in warp scrambler and stasis webifier range. However, the Moa could suprise me esp if they increased the drone bay like they with the Omen.


- end of transmission

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#803 - 2012-09-18 23:57:32 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

This is a good post.


It isn't.

He ignores the fact turrets will hit for less damage on fast moving targets or miss entirely.

He ignoresthe fact that the other guns need to use their longest range ammo to match the range of missiles.

He ignores the fact that all ships are going to be changed.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#804 - 2012-09-19 00:00:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
He ignores the fact turrets will hit for less damage on fast moving targets or miss entirely.

False. Missiles behave that way. Turrets don't unless that fast moving target is at close range and moving transversal to the attacker.

baltec1 wrote:
He ignoresthe fact that the other guns need to use their longest range ammo to match the range of missiles.

Not really.

baltec1 wrote:
He ignores the fact that all ships are going to be changed.

Not really.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#805 - 2012-09-19 00:00:48 UTC
While i think some of these changes are indeed needed, the idea of using tracking disrupters to effect missiles seems a very lazy solution.

Instead, why not introduce more missile types, much like we use for ammo (except not ammo duh).

If we had non-t2 heavy missiles that had extended flight time for reduced damage, and larger damage for reduced flight time, i think it would make a LOT more sense.

I mean think about it, this is a missile, it has a limited capacity. To increase the range, you must reduce the size of the warhead and vice versa.

This would seem to me to adress the issue that we have now of massive drake blobs kiting people, as it would be far less enticing to do it if you only had 150dps per ship.

Mind you idk a lot about missiles so vov
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#806 - 2012-09-19 00:01:09 UTC
Oh my god, please stop comparing missiles in a positive light to medium railguns.

They're easily the most broken weapon system in the game. Saying that something still does X% better than railguns is NOT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT. It's like being 35% more intelligent than the kid who has finally learnt that pain means you are damaging your body, or whoever thought that reducing HML damage output by a fifth was a good idea when their damage WASN'T THE PROBLEM, rather it was the damage PROJECTION! They need just as much work as HMLs are GOING to if this change goes through.

It's utterly irrelevant to compare something to the worst of something and then claim that this is excellent, without also taking into effect the fact that beam lasers are a better long range platform than railguns for comparison. AFAIK, beam lasers are actually quite well balanced in terms of damage projection and how much pain they actually cause. They should be more of a benchmark for the HML changes than railguns!
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#807 - 2012-09-19 00:04:59 UTC
Wolfstorm wrote:
Misanth wrote:
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:
confirming that ccp is to incompetent to balance their game properly, instead of having unique in vastly different mechanics for their weapons systems and tanking modules to make the game exciting and engaging, where the meta-game is constantly changing and they have decided to make every tanking type, and every weapons system at virtually the same. .


A couple patches back in Inferno, they wanted to change shield/armor function virtually the same. Favoring passive/active changing as your choice. Needless to say that's a very bad idea. They started by trying to change the rigs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99872 ( CCP bouncing ideas, are as close to good , as fire is to ice .because none of them actually play it again besides missioning/mining in high-sec ).

Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players.. all it will do is dumbed down eve even more. It is gotten so bad that there is very little difference between the races, Beyond what slots they used to tank, and what flavor of gun they put in their high slots. well I admit there is problems with most of the missile boats in the game at the moment I think that is more wrong with ships themselves than the actual missile mechanic.

what is going to make this thing easier for new players, is more mechanics built in that facilitates experienced players teaching the new players. Here's some ideas off the top of my head. Reworking the certificate system so that players, make and share certificates among the corporation mates and their alliance mates easily. The certificates could be used for anything such as an easy to look up new player training plan. All the way up to figuring out if you have enough skills to qualify for reimbursement on a particular ship.

Because God knows none of the CCP staff are qualified to teach someone how to properly fit a ship or the skills required to properly fitted anymore. I'm going to hazard a guess and say no CCP dev is playing the way the average player does since the T2 lottery scandal. THE FACT THAT NO Dev plays the game the way the majority of pvper play. They have no clue about balancing past they care bearing in hisec.

so I urge you to put new player training in the hands of current players and give usThe tools to do it. Instead of dumbing down eve to the lowest of dominator


I want your space-babies.


This again!

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#808 - 2012-09-19 00:06:01 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

False. Missiles behave that way. Turrets don't unless that fast moving target is at close range and moving transversal to the attacker.


Wrong again. Go use rails.

Quote:
baltec1 wrote:
He ignoresthe fact that the other guns need to use their longest range ammo to match the range of missiles.

Not really.

Yes really. To get the same range as HML you need the longest range ammo. So wrong again.

baltec1 wrote:
He ignores the fact that all ships are going to be changed.

Not really.[/quote]

Stike three. CCP are doing every single ship.
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade
Ghost Legion.
#809 - 2012-09-19 00:06:46 UTC  |  Edited by: sYnc Vir
Hmm reduced base range by 25%, IxTC II with Range script or 2x TE II = 30%, hmm why are people complaining?

O right, Tengu having to choose between dps/range/tank.

Lets all look at the armor ships that have been making the DPS/Tank trade off for well EVER.

I wonder how far HAMS will go with a TE II and a TC II. Time to return to the L4 Ham Tengus.

As for the Cane, 220 being the order of the day, fine with me. Just hope the prices of those things doesn't sky rocket now EVERY Cane has to use them.


*Edit, I remember a hole list of people gleefully telling "whiny highsec miners too choose between yield and tank" Tengu gets the same options and suddenly lessons forgot. Wonder what group of people will ***** next because its their turn.

Don't ask about Italics, just tilt your head.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#810 - 2012-09-19 00:09:05 UTC
lets not forget how acheingly long we gotta wait for the first volly to hit the target while guns hit instantly.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#811 - 2012-09-19 00:09:24 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Seranova Farreach wrote:

re you insane? look at NH vs sleipnir . NH gets a nominal tank and if these changes come barley 350 dps while sleipnir gets nearly 1k dps with 425s+1HAM launcher and usually enough PG and mids for a good XL booster fit. hell even cane gets 800ish dps our equivelent tier 3 BC dosnt even come close even when useing HAMs



Im interested in what DPS your Sliep does at 50km (let me give you a hint, its about 4 dps)




I'm interested in this 700 dps fit that totally works with the proposed gun fitting changes:

[Sleipnir, New Setup 1]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Reactor Control Unit II
Damage Control II

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Large Shield Extender II
Large Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Heavy Missile

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


Hammerhead II x3
Warrior II x2

Or several other ASB fits that are also similar.

or the 400 dps it can project out to 50-60km just with weapons and no drones.

or the variety of other ways you can fit it into more of a true sniper boat with 100km range and solid buffer tank.


You keep talking about the DPS output of artillery, I don't think you get how artillery works.


Also Yaay, while you're extolling the your own virtues while bashing my ingame knowledge why dont you tell the audience about your Ahac Sac fleet that went so well.

Your arguments are all strawman bullshit backed up with 4 damage mod fits purpose built to suit your argument and ignoring the actual practices used in game.

You say nobody uses Arty lokis, when YOUR alliance actually uses arty lokis.

You fail to address any of the core issues, those being that HML's perform far above the parameters of every other lr medium ship weapons platform, on EVERY ship, its just that the Drake and Tengu are shining examples of exactly what is wrong with the ship. The only time the other weapons systems outperform missiles is generally under 10km, then their higher DPS numbers come into play.

But please, do just fling out more insults instead of backing it up with functioning in game knowledge since you only play during the summer when the kids are out of school (and then only if the group you're with massages your delicate little ego, which we wouldn't do for you).

Tell me this Yaay, if missiles are so well balanced, why does AAA rely only on that particular fleet comp for its heavy lifting? Why haven't you moved them all over to arty sleips?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Aracturus
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#812 - 2012-09-19 00:09:59 UTC
No. Bad idea. Shouldn't a ships effectiveness scale with it's price? Cruisers and frigates being more powerful is nice and all, but I really don't see how making two of the commonly used battlecruisers less useful or powerful really helps anything.
Consider the drake, which on a good day gets about 300dps, and can hit out to somewhere around 70k. suddenly, by reducing heavy missile flight time and damage, you're reducing the dps of a ship that's already pretty pathetic to somewhere around 225 dps - which most cruisers can tank pretty easily.

I don't care about the range, but nerfing the damage of HMLs all the while buffing other weapons systems seems like you are trying to target someone in particular. someone who may just use lots and lots of drakes.

Take that as you will Fozzie, but my opinion/support of your balance changes drops with every change you propose - not because the changes aren't needed, but because you seem to miss the point.

This is now a WIDOT thread!
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#813 - 2012-09-19 00:10:09 UTC
Aglais wrote:
Bla Railguns are worse system ever

Actually, 70km is the range were railguns start to become even or better than beams. Yes railguns are bad until this range, but don't take the only thing they have please.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#814 - 2012-09-19 00:10:33 UTC
I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.

Ahac HAM Sac's.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#815 - 2012-09-19 00:10:48 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
He ignores the fact turrets will hit for less damage on fast moving targets or miss entirely.

False. Missiles behave that way. Turrets don't unless that fast moving target is at close range and moving transversal to the attacker.

Doesn't the tracking formula also work to determine (though from what I understand indirectly) hit quality? Meaning that smaller targets with higher transversal would receive less of the damage output then a larger stationary target?

Also, in my experience, it's much easier to miss high tranvsersal targets with turrets than it is to have missiles miss unless dealing with particularly high-speed fits.
Aracturus
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#816 - 2012-09-19 00:11:32 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

Tell me this Yaay, if missiles are so well balanced, why does AAA rely only on that particular fleet comp for its heavy lifting? Why haven't you moved them all over to arty sleips?



-A- doesn't even undock, and they use missile boats because we killed all their lokis.

This is now a WIDOT thread!
Boogie Jones
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#817 - 2012-09-19 00:14:03 UTC
Nerfing the crap out of the tier2 battlecruiser class is a terrible move. You managed to bring the cyclone back into prominence and created a wildcard in fleet warfare with tier3 battlecruisers. The Hurricane is a solid workhorse and reliable pvp ship. Leave the guy alone. Adjust the artillery pg accordingly.

CptBen: this was the rare nice CptBen, ill probably be back later and boogie will agravate me and ill call you all scrubs
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#818 - 2012-09-19 00:18:47 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
...

grath, please differentiate between the ships and the weapon system. if HMLs were really so awesomesauce, the navy caracal would be right up there in the top20.
and one more thing: if the drake was BAD, less people would train for the tengu and it would probably fall in line with the loki and proteus on the kill boards.

I should buy an Ishtar.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#819 - 2012-09-19 00:18:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
According to eve-kill.net; the heavy missile launcher is used almost 35% of the time. Followed by 425mm auto cannons being used 8%.

Some of you go on and on about how it is balanced with the other medium weapons, but why is it used so much more than any other medium weapon platform in the game?
Selinate
#820 - 2012-09-19 00:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Selinate
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Hannott Thanos wrote:

....because HML's were too awesome, not because HAMS were bad.

No it was because HAM's were bad along with Medium Beams and Rails and the ships they go on.

Cutting this basically means the only LR Medium Weapon boat that is semi viable is the Cane with its Double Dmg Bonus.

They should not be nerfing the Drakes Dmg by 20% they should be fixing LR Medium Guns so they don't require a double Dmg bonus like on the Cane and can actually be used on Cruisers and Battlecruisers.


For fucks' sake, this.

Has anyone ever tried to use a set of medium beams?

Go try it. It's terrible. Medium beams need a boost badly...