These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks
PowerDucks Alliance
#881 - 2012-09-19 01:23:10 UTC
Jackie Butters wrote:
One thing people have overlooked is that if you fire light, heavy or cruise missiles at someone, if you unlock the target...the missiles still hit that target.


they hit with no damage.
Lex Starwalker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#882 - 2012-09-19 01:23:17 UTC
These changes look great! Looking forward to seeing the final product.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#883 - 2012-09-19 01:23:50 UTC
Laura Dexx wrote:
Misanth wrote:
And Gila.

But yah, it's quite a weird decision by CCP to do a generalised weapon type nerf, rather than looking what causes the will to do the nerf to begin with. One is how a certain fairly-low-damage-and-well-allround-balanced ship being very powerful in blob combat. The other being how one t3, with a fairly low base damage output (200-250ish for a regular cloak setup Tengu) goes up to very-high (for a cruiser hull) when it combines the damage and engineering subsystem. Other t3's doesn't do the same.

If CCP had simply watched it this way, they'd probably be consider something more reasonable (like slightly tweaking the RoF bonus on the dmg subsystem, as that seems to be the main cause), and in the first case with the blob just flat out ignore it. As in blobs, there has always been a ship X that is the FotM and 'most versatile', while there's multiitudes of other ships playing support role for them. Drakes out of blob combat doesn't have all those light tacklers, dictors, fleet boosts, titanbridges etc to go, for one. And a solo PvP Drake has obvious flaws (not very agile, not great speed, easy to pin down and counter, fairly low damage, both weapon systems easily disrupted by smartbombs, fairly tight fit, cannot really active tank so definate high sig), with few perks (range, hits anything from frigs and up, decent buffer tank, ok-ish slot layout even for a Caldari).

TL;DR CCP just feels it's better to look at what blobs do, and blantanly strike down on a complete weapon system, rather than looking and what potential could be causing this skewed vision. We all know CCP wants everyone to fly blobs, bring friends to tackle for you so ships will never be balanced around the need for tackle slots for example. Ships that lives too long while dealing damage (no matter how low) obviously is doing "too much damage" (as they take time to kill, so the killers can't move on to next target faster). Lag and support compositions is not taken into consideration. Etc. And noone really knows why doesn't even look at how the Tengu goes from a low-damage balanced boat, to a high damage long-range platform just by fitting a single subsystem.

Do CCP even play this game, or are they just the same kind of mindless drones as the average pilots in the blobs?


They haven't even gotten to T2/T3/CS yet and you're already harking. Harden the **** up and wait until everything is laid out in full.


Not gonna happen bro, as long as CCP "fixes" a weapon type affecting alot of ships and they will "maybe" fix the ship types using that weapon. Basicly as is right now we have the Drake + Tengu being useful with the HML, the other weapon types are not. By these changes CCP makes essentially every single HML-ship in the game mediocre (at best) to useless. Even if you magicly was right about your hopeful dream that CCP by some magic have a solution to Tengu (or Drake or both) already figured out; we still face two issues -

1) that's just a few of the HML-using ships in the game, so fixing the ships after the non-broken weapon type is not only quite awkward way to go about, but it also means CCP better have a fix coming for Command Ships, Cruisers, HACs, T3's, Recons etc - all in the same patch. All cruiser hulls. It needs to be fixed same time as the HML or else we have a situation where they are all virtually useless (and what point did the HML 'fix' serve, then?).

2) it also show a worrying sign that CCP work on the wrong things in the wrong order. Most seems to agree that, if anything, the "issue" with HML is not HML itself. It's the Drake (in blobs, not solo or smallscale or PvE), or the Tengu (when using the accelerated dps subsystem). How about this radial idea! Fix Drakes behaviour in blobs, without changing the innate behaviour for small- and midscale PvP + in PvE, and how about altering the bonuses on the Tengu's Accelerated bay.. then have a look at HML later on, after fixing the rest of the HML using hulls?

RADICAL
SENSIBLE
Shocked

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#884 - 2012-09-19 01:24:17 UTC
nice

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#885 - 2012-09-19 01:26:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Artyom Hunter wrote:
"Lets nerf the drakes ****** damage even more" - Said no one ever.



Yet even after this nerf HML will be on par with the other med long range weapons.

Here's a thing:

why couldn't they buff the other medium sized long range weapons? They're pretty underutilized as it is, with the exception of arties.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Trolly McForumalt
Doomheim
#886 - 2012-09-19 01:27:44 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Artyom Hunter wrote:
"Lets nerf the drakes ****** damage even more" - Said no one ever.



Yet even after this nerf HML will be on par with the other med long range weapons.


How will the 'short range' weapons compare? IMO HAMs gotta suck a little less and still they'll do less damage. Making HAMs benefit from Guided Missile Precision and rigs would be a good start. IMO that's the main reason people used HMLs over HAMs regardless of engagement range. Even at close ranges HMs hit cruiser hulls harder than HAMs which shouldn't be the case considering that they're cruiser sized weapons. Oh well - we'll see I guess.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#887 - 2012-09-19 01:28:58 UTC
time line for CCP fixing ships:

step 1: fix tech I ships (sub cap)

Step 2: update faction ships

step 3: fix tech II ships

step 4: update pirate faction ships

step 5: nerf the hell out of tech III ships

step 6: look for gaps in tech I and tech II ships and fill them in

step 7: look at capital balance and bring in new ships for missing roles

step 8: bring in for tech III ships like frigs and bs's

step 9: start from step one and repeat....

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#888 - 2012-09-19 01:29:04 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Here's a thing:

why couldn't they buff the other medium sized long range weapons? They're pretty underutilized as it is, with the exception of arties.


Nerf one thing to fix many problem or fix everything else to work around HML.

Which sounds easyer to you?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#889 - 2012-09-19 01:31:00 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
baltec1 wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Here's a thing:

why couldn't they buff the other medium sized long range weapons? They're pretty underutilized as it is, with the exception of arties.


Nerf one thing to fix many problem or fix everything else to work around HML.

Which sounds easyer to you?

Where does doing the easy thing come into any of this?

How about I put it this way?
Do we nerf a weapons platform that sees at most two overutilized applications, leaving three underutilized weapons systems completely untouched?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#890 - 2012-09-19 01:31:35 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
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.


Been thinking this, and hoping they do the same to neuts as well. it's starting to turn into 2 slot needed on pvp ships when able builds.

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Isaiah Harms
State War Academy
Caldari State
#891 - 2012-09-19 01:32:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Isaiah Harms wrote:
CCP Fozzie 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.


Fitting a full rack of 720's already requires a PG implant or ACR. Moron.


Their PG is getting reduced. Perhaps you should read these things before acting like a fool.


Dear sir.. small details do not escape me.

Aren't RCU II's what we have to fit on cruisers to make them work? Now we gotta go do that with hurricanes? The shame!

You think this is a good idea? Go try to fit an armor tank to the nerfed Hurricane. The thing already has the lightest tank of all the Tier 2 battlecruisers.. now it'll be on par with a cruiser. \0/



Dato Koppla
Balls Deep Inc.
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#892 - 2012-09-19 01:33:41 UTC
Just reviving my concern about Rigors/Flares affecting unguided (HAMs, Rockets, Torps) missiles needs to be implemented now that TC/TE/TD effect missiles, it arbitrarily limits the fitting options of missile boats (which are already less than gun boats as gun boats get various caliber guns AND they can trade PG for CPU with the algid administrations rig)
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#893 - 2012-09-19 01:33:54 UTC
Wow... This is a major batch of changes, considering how widespread heavy missiles are used. I love it Twisted Clever use of the existing tracking computer to affect missiles too.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#894 - 2012-09-19 01:35:30 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Where does doing the easy thing come into any of this?


Less time spent trying to balance everything around HML means CCP get to work on the ships faster which means the nighthawk gets seen to much sooner.

HML are too good, the fact that even after a 20% damage nerf and 25% range nerf is resulting in them being on par with the other long range med weapons is evidence enough.
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
#895 - 2012-09-19 01:36:29 UTC
Haquer wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
You are all aware that looking at DPS numbers on HML's is like comparting DPS numbers on artillery right? They're alpha weapons, their DPS doesn't mean **** all, its what their alpha is which is what matters, and their alpha will still be quite high.


This.


In blobs. That is irrelevant for any kind of warfare that includes piloting skill, then dps, explosion velocity, (and range) matters. P

AFK-cloaking in a system near you.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#896 - 2012-09-19 01:37:40 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Where does doing the easy thing come into any of this?


Less time spent trying to balance everything around HML means CCP get to work on the ships faster which means the nighthawk gets seen to much sooner.

HML are too good, the fact that even after a 20% damage nerf and 25% range nerf is resulting in them being on par with the other long range med weapons is evidence enough.

Except that as has also been stated repeatedly, missiles don't behave in the same way as turrets do and so you can't make direct comparisons between them, at least not as simply as you're doing.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tragedy
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#897 - 2012-09-19 01:39:35 UTC
Awesome. HMLs need a nerf in a bad way. They do too much damage at too far of a range. I hope tracking comps wont be able to put them right back to where they were in range with just 1 comp though. NERF THEM MOAR!!!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#898 - 2012-09-19 01:40:00 UTC
Misanth wrote:
Most seems to agree that, if anything, the "issue" with HML is not HML itself. It's the Drake (in blobs, not solo or smallscale or PvE), or the Tengu (when using the accelerated dps subsystem)

Actually I've seem quite the opposite expressed by many here, stating that the ships were overpowered due to the advantages on HML's over turrets of the same size.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#899 - 2012-09-19 01:42:49 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Misanth wrote:
Most seems to agree that, if anything, the "issue" with HML is not HML itself. It's the Drake (in blobs, not solo or smallscale or PvE), or the Tengu (when using the accelerated dps subsystem)

Actually I've seem quite the opposite expressed by many here, stating that the ships were overpowered due to the advantages on HML's over turrets of the same size.

If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.

On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Neuntausend
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#900 - 2012-09-19 01:45:25 UTC
everyone whining and bitching that the drake will be useless now needs to think out of his tiny little box here.

for damage: fit hams -> 600 or 700 something dps -> comparable to other bcs -> drake still works
for range: add a third bcu and a te and sacrifice a little tank like all the other battlecruisers do -> drake still works

same goes for the tengu. or basically any ship using hml.