These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#1321 - 2012-09-19 13:52:55 UTC
Alot of people here seem to be justifying the Heavy Missile nerf by saying "They need it drastically, look how OP Drakes and Tengus are", which is stupidity. Drakes are a little OP, more in blobs than in any other format.

So address drakes as an issue, dont break the entire missile boat Caldari line. Nighthawks, Cerberus, Caracal, just three useless ships that are about to become even more useless. If you really have to nerf drakes, then nerf them directly, don't ruin all the other heavy missile platforms. The missiles are fine as they are, in fact I would go so far as to say Heavy Missiles are about perfect, and HAMs need a buff.

CCP, your really not doing yourself any favours nerfing HMs. I could probably get behind a small nerf. The range nerf on its own would be worth some debate, but the 20% damage reduction is lunacy. What happened to rolling out changes "slowly" so that they can be tested and to make sure there are no big reaction? Its been working so far, why stop now?

Somebody wasn't thinking when this nerf was added to the to-do list.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Johan March
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1322 - 2012-09-19 13:53:14 UTC
Seems like I won't be training for that Tengu. Chiming in with my views:

I agree with the posters who say the HML damage nerf should be more like 10% coupled with a 10% buff to HAM's. In my opinion, the range AND the damage nerf is too much

Also, the Cane PG nerf is a bit too much. Perhaps a full rack of 425's plus two medium neuts is a bit overpowered, but don't go overboard CCP.
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#1323 - 2012-09-19 13:54:22 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:
That is the main difference between missiles and turrets. Missiles are easier because transversal is irrelevant. You don't have control over it. There is a reason why missile boats are considered noob friendly compared to turret boats.
You can't get the same maximal effectiveness from both turrets and missiles if the latter involves less skill and effort ( things which are essential for manual piloting ).


Exactly. And to compensate for the the less skill and effort required, missiles do crappy damage, which is also delayed by the flight time. So now, the base damage will be reduced, and TD's will bring that down even further. How the hell can you tracking disrupt something that doesn't track. CCP, stop smoking that stuff ffs.

This is too much of a nerf to make any sense.
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#1324 - 2012-09-19 13:56:51 UTC  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Boogie Jones wrote:
The powergrid nerf on the cane is a bit much imo. It should be able to fit a full rack of 425s + the neuts. What?
Survey says NO.

it is already hard to fit a armor cane 220m without a pg implant, and even with a +5pg, it will not be possible anymore to have 220mms + 2 med neut + 1600mm plate.

however, it will still be possible to fit 425mm + 2 med neut on a shield cane.

goal missed, this will just kill arty cane (to be checked, since they also reduce de pwg need of artys) and armor close range ones

because dropping a neut or downgrading a plate is not gonna be worth it.
congrats, you just made the cane as usefull as a cyclone
in the mean time, the triple rep myrm still fly

same for the drake.

tracking disrupting missiles? are you serious?

to balance the drake, the only one thing that was required was giving it a bit less tank, that's all (i bet just removing the resist bonus was enought)
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1325 - 2012-09-19 14:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
assuming the change might make TDs overpowered, and defender missiles make a lot of lag, can you do something like making defender missiles function similarly to TDs but play a fancy client-side graphic?

e: to be clear, I meant "make defender missiles function like the proposed effects of TDs against missiles"
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#1326 - 2012-09-19 14:01:05 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

"DIE IN A FIRE" is an example of significantly less useful feedback. It doesn't tell us which changes you object to, or what the reasons for your position are. In fact it even makes it hard to tell whether you actually object to the content of the change or are just experiencing an unusually strong craving for S'mores.


I too think all CCP employees are delicious chocolate and marshmallow treats, ready to be dipped into a fire and eaten deliciously.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
#1327 - 2012-09-19 14:01:08 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone?
We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.


Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ?

That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?
Lord Ryan
True Xero
#1328 - 2012-09-19 14:01:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Ryan
Michael Harari wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
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?


Because drakes scale very well into large nullsec blobs. They are easy to orbit anchor f1 with and receive reps better than any other bc besides the lolprophecy.

Why fix Prophecy when you can just break Drake, Nighthawk, Cane and Tengu.

Balance = make everything suck.

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1329 - 2012-09-19 14:02:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Willie Horton
Recoil IV wrote:
Willie Horton wrote:


No you are so wrong .There was totally different reason ,but that is not topic here.Point is missile ships will get tools to control explosive radius and optimal and that is what they never had.If you check how they are changing Kestrel and Caracal ,than you will see that there is no more kinetic bonus so all damage mods will do same dmg and that is awesom.Gallente and Ammar dont have that option for example.



yes and no.gallente and amarr has 3x times the dps of rockets/missiles and so on


Yes but they have tracking issues maybe?When you fire missile or rocket you dont care will you be in good trasveral .angular or what ever you know that you not miss and do some dmg.So you dont see that as problem at all.

Again I will say I have both Tengu and Drake and I dont see problem in this.It was expected and every game evolve over time so you can please all player per se.We are not playing this game cause of Drake and Tengu ,but cause of many other things.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1330 - 2012-09-19 14:04:13 UTC
Rommiee wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone?
We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.


Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ?

That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?


I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
darius mclever
#1331 - 2012-09-19 14:05:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good afternoon everyone. I know some people have been wondering if I'm still following the thread, so let me assure you that I have read every single post so far and I plan to keep that up.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to let us know your opinions on these proposals. It's great to see so much passion from our customers, and I hope I'll be able to demonstrate from now to December and beyond how much I appreciate all your dedication.


Thank you for the reply.

Could you address the point that the 20% nerf seems to be a bit harsh and that 10% seems to be more reasonable?
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1332 - 2012-09-19 14:06:22 UTC
Quote:
or splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers).


:thumbup:

BTW, going do anything about cruise missiles? And I was surprised to not see any tweak for medium rails, given that other medium LR weapons were altered.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#1333 - 2012-09-19 14:06:45 UTC
Satracz wrote:
what about drugs like optimal/falloff drugs.... did you give them a missile flighttime or speed ability ?



thats an excelent point!

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1334 - 2012-09-19 14:07:19 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
Alot of people here seem to be justifying the Heavy Missile nerf by saying "They need it drastically, look how OP Drakes and Tengus are", which is stupidity. Drakes are a little OP, more in blobs than in any other format.

So address drakes as an issue, dont break the entire missile boat Caldari line. Nighthawks, Cerberus, Caracal, just three useless ships that are about to become even more useless. If you really have to nerf drakes, then nerf them directly, don't ruin all the other heavy missile platforms. The missiles are fine as they are, in fact I would go so far as to say Heavy Missiles are about perfect, and HAMs need a buff.

CCP, your really not doing yourself any favours nerfing HMs. I could probably get behind a small nerf. The range nerf on its own would be worth some debate, but the 20% damage reduction is lunacy. What happened to rolling out changes "slowly" so that they can be tested and to make sure there are no big reaction? Its been working so far, why stop now?

Somebody wasn't thinking when this nerf was added to the to-do list.


Gypsio III wrote:
Current dual-BCS Caracal: 263 DPS kinetic, 210 non-kinetic, with CN to 120 km, 8.4 km/s missiles.
Future triple-BCS Caracal: 252 DPS all damage types with CN to 90 km, 9 km/s missiles.

I'm glad to see the Caracal surviving the deserved HML Drake/Tengu nerf fine.



Hams + TE/TC's man..

Thats the way to go!

So how is this a massive nerf to the Caracal?
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#1335 - 2012-09-19 14:09:22 UTC
i now Declare this thread to be a ... THREAD-NAUGHT!

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#1336 - 2012-09-19 14:10:52 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rommiee wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone?
We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.


Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ?

That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?


I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.


Looks like someone found the second best way to escape the uni. inv. coming. Moving on to a better job.

I just wasn't around luckily, number one.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
EcthelionStrongbow
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1337 - 2012-09-19 14:11:28 UTC
CCP Fozzie --

Unless I missed the announcement in the preceeding 67 pages, when are these changes due to hit Buckingham so that some testing can be done?
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1338 - 2012-09-19 14:11:59 UTC
darius mclever wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good afternoon everyone. I know some people have been wondering if I'm still following the thread, so let me assure you that I have read every single post so far and I plan to keep that up.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to let us know your opinions on these proposals. It's great to see so much passion from our customers, and I hope I'll be able to demonstrate from now to December and beyond how much I appreciate all your dedication.


Thank you for the reply.

Could you address the point that the 20% nerf seems to be a bit harsh and that 10% seems to be more reasonable?


Could you address the point that instead of 20% nerf of heavies you could do 10% nerf of heavies and 5%/10% buff of HAMs to get people using HAMs?

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Beezon
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1339 - 2012-09-19 14:12:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Beezon
Will TE/TD affect cruise missiles/FoF cruises/torps too?

Ok, since defender missiles are now _completely_ useless, can they be used to target bombs?
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#1340 - 2012-09-19 14:13:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rommiee wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone?
We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.


Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ?

That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?


I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.


To help Fozzie out...


Balance changes requires tweaking stats.

The Unified Inventory was a huge code undertaking from the FOUNDATION of EVE up to the highest levels of EVE codes. Making changes on a whim after work was done would've required whole amounts of weeks or more to be scrapped and redone. So, making changes there wasn't just a matter of punching a number in a spreadsheet and adjusting it.

Unified Inventory needed a lot of love when it came out, but it wasn't because they were ignoring you.

Where I am.