These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1421 - 2012-09-19 15:39:57 UTC
Kesthely wrote:
Quote:

250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 14
Alpha: 66
Optimal: 58 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -0.8
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 15
Alpha: 65
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.2
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO:
DPS: 12
Alpha: 174
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3


The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3


So after the first volly of missiles then what your back to your ~23 DPS its only the first volly that has flight time after that missiles hit every cycle time.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1422 - 2012-09-19 15:40:36 UTC
Kesthely wrote:


The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3


2.3 DPS?

Good god there isnt a faceplam big enough for this postStraight
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1423 - 2012-09-19 15:41:20 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
Cpt Gobla wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns?


How am I cherrypicking stats?

Would you rather compare to shorter ranged faction ammo? With ranges under 20km and outclassed by short-range turrets in about every single aspect?

i would rather compare the type of ammo that is ACTUALLY USED in the respective situation. which is not close range faction ammo.


My post was in response to someone feeling that using T2 long-range ammo, the ammo that's actually used, was unfair and that a comparison of faction ammo vs faction ammo should be made.

I did as requested.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#1424 - 2012-09-19 15:42:16 UTC
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
I tried, the forums were terribad at formatting, so I just gave up. Sorry.



DJ P0N-3 wrote:
All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.

Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s:
Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s:
Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s:
Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:

Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff
Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch).
Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff
Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.


Maybe try something like this.
Its much more readable.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1425 - 2012-09-19 15:43:51 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#1426 - 2012-09-19 15:45:13 UTC
Kudos to CCP Fozzie for his excellent answer.

I really like the idea of splitting TD into a tracking disruptor and a missile disruptor module. We'd need to fit a mix of TD and MD modules on our Curse or Pilgrim, just like we fit a mix of jammers on our Falcon. This will resolve the imbalancedness almost on its own.

.
Signal11th
#1427 - 2012-09-19 15:45:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Signal11th
baltec1 wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.



By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
AlexHalstead
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1428 - 2012-09-19 15:47:17 UTC
Good lords, 72 pages already? Can anyone summarize arguments from those who brought up the point that the TD changes seem to make the armarr EW ships a natural counter to the Caldari missile boats (and minmatar ships that use missiles to a lesser extent)?
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#1429 - 2012-09-19 15:47:37 UTC
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
DJ P0N-3 wrote:
I tried, the forums were terribad at formatting, so I just gave up. Sorry.



DJ P0N-3 wrote:
All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.

Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s:
Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s:
Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s:
Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:

Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff
Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch).
Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff
Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.


Maybe try something like this.
Its much more readable.


I have some unexpected free time so I'll muck with it again, but given the amount of complaining going around based on "you're not coming up with the numbers correctly!", I wanted to include the relevant modules so at least people can verify the numbers.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1430 - 2012-09-19 15:48:44 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:


Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo
compared to
Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo


cherry picked data for desired outcome ??


That data is for long range. If you can get that kind of range and damage using faction ammo in the turrets then be my guest and post the results.


have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0.

and also: it has been stated quite often that the long range versions of medium weapons are lacking. do we now need to make heavies suck just because beams suck?



Have you figured out that heavies do close if not full damage to any frigate with a MWD not an intercpetor or assualt?

Cruiser and BCs almost universally get walloped, and its as true at 0km as it at 85.

The comparisons are completely valid, HMLs are STILL the premier MEDIUM long range system after these changes, they just no longer step all over the toes of the Battleship weapons.

please show me the math where a commonly fit pvp drake does full damage to a cruiser going 600m/s. also, not all frigates use MWDs and those that do have all the time in the world to warp away before the first volley even hits them.

as for being the PREMIUM long range weapon system: what's the point if no one will use them just as no one uses medium rails?

I should buy an Ishtar.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1431 - 2012-09-19 15:48:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.


by eliminating the only decent weapons system that Caldari have.. I see..

So are we going to get bigger drone bays to help augment the DPS of the hybrids like gallente do?
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1432 - 2012-09-19 15:49:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Marian Devers wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
DPS: 17
Alpha: 242
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3

This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.


EFT warriors assemble. As you know, missiles need to reach their target. Likewise, target is rarely stationary. Let's examine effective HML range when a target is moving.

Weapon 'Effective' Range (optimal+1x falloff)

Aurora: 64km
Tremor: 76km
Railgun: 80km
HML: 84km


60km - 1625m/s
65km - 1291m/s
70km - 958m/s
75km - 625m/s

So yeah... that 84km range is basically 70-75km at best.

Well what do you know... Artillery and Railgun are actually better in this respect.


Try again, optimal + falloff is 50% damage. and do tell, how many ships are over 1625m/s that aren't frigates?



and 76k meters for a 720 with Tremor, try it and tell me how that works out for you.
MisterArch
Red October.
Fanatic Legion.
#1433 - 2012-09-19 15:49:45 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.

Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.

It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story.

And THIS one is CSM? Maybe there are more ships using HML? And maybe missiles cannot have perfect hits? And, just maybe, delayed damage? OR firewall protection? Or counter-missiles? That is a cool idea to take complex things and compare them by two parameters only. Using the same logic you can back up almostany nerf - very effective.

The proposed change is awful.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1434 - 2012-09-19 15:50:04 UTC
AlexHalstead wrote:
Good lords, 72 pages already? Can anyone summarize arguments from those who brought up the point that the TD changes seem to make the armarr EW ships a natural counter to the Caldari missile boats (and minmatar ships that use missiles to a lesser extent)?



Shouldn't the way it works be that Amarr counter Minnie and Gallente vs Caldari? Seeming that those are the races that supposed to be at war with each other?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1435 - 2012-09-19 15:50:54 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.



By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate.


Still have the problem of HML being so much better than the rest.
Signal11th
#1436 - 2012-09-19 15:53:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.



By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate.


Still have the problem of HML being so much better than the rest.



Is it though? I much rather go against a tengu in a loki than the other way round.

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1437 - 2012-09-19 15:53:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.



By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate.


Still have the problem of HML being so much better than the rest.



than how come nobody uses drakes and tengus in incursions? Why is it that no other Caldari boat is flown during PVP other than drake and tengu? If the missile system was the problem, you'd see other ships being used as well. but you don't.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1438 - 2012-09-19 15:53:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.



By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate.


Still have the problem of HML being so much better than the rest.

hml being better is not the problem. rails and beams being **** and underused is the problem.

I should buy an Ishtar.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1439 - 2012-09-19 15:54:21 UTC
Soko99 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.


by eliminating the only decent weapons system that Caldari have.. I see..

So are we going to get bigger drone bays to help augment the DPS of the hybrids like gallente do?


As a gal pilot, I can safely say we rarely launch drones in railboats. Given that not only do we shoot past drone range a lot of the time but that drones seldom reach the target in time to matter when they are in range.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1440 - 2012-09-19 15:55:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Soko99 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?


Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.


by eliminating the only decent weapons system that Caldari have.. I see..

So are we going to get bigger drone bays to help augment the DPS of the hybrids like gallente do?


As a gal pilot, I can safely say we rarely launch drones in railboats. Given that not only do we shoot past drone range a lot of the time but that drones seldom reach the target in time to matter when they are in range.


railboats have a higher alpha than missile boats.. and short range blaster does more DPS..