These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1461 - 2012-09-19 16:15:28 UTC
Smabs wrote:
Quote:
I already use rails over blasters in many situations.


Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve.


Small med and large. You see, unlike you, I figure out how to use these things rather than spend all my time chasing the FOTM or bad posting on the forums flapping over an OP weapon system getting nerfed into line with everything else. I am already working out the best way to make a HML caracal work for me. You have been given the numbers that show HML will still be a viable weapon after the changes. No doubt when this change hits you will be on the forums decrying the end of EVE while the rest of us are adapting.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#1462 - 2012-09-19 16:16:36 UTC
Aprudena Gist wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?[/b]
I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.


HAMs are not good they are ****. They move slow they have slow explosion speed and can't hit a target if its actually moving unlike the rest of the weapon systems.

HAMs are also too hard to fit on a ship properly they should be easier to fit then heavy missiles but they are not.

Quote:

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.


Heavy missiles right now are **** compared to properly fit long range weapon systems on double bonused ships like hurricanes and you are making them even worse. The Biggest ******* thing you idiots dont seem to be factoring in is that all the gun ships have double weapon systems roles on ships and missiles ones are lucky if they have 1 ship bonus to them.

The biggest things you idiots that are redesigning missiles need to do is make the ******* tech 2 ammo work like guns.

1 short range higher damage then the rest of the ammo. This isn't true for a lot of the missile systems.
1 Longer range medium damage. Like pulse, aurora, spike. These dont even exist why are the weapon systems treaded differently.
That needs to apply to all missile systems if you are nerfing the ******* range. The reason the range is longer on them is because they dont have range increasing ammo, mods or anything so **** you if you make this change and dont make the weapon systems equal.


Also **** you for nerfing **** instead of making other ones equal to these ones as a base line. Stop nerfing decent ships just because other ones are **** fix them make them all good.



Too many F-words.
You should really learn to voice your opinion in a more appropriate way.
Seriously, it can be done without all those asterixes cluttering the view.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1463 - 2012-09-19 16:16:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Smabs wrote:
Quote:
I already use rails over blasters in many situations.


Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve.


Small med and large. You see, unlike you, I figure out how to use these things rather than spend all my time chasing the FOTM or bad posting on the forums flapping over an OP weapon system getting nerfed into line with everything else. I am already working out the best way to make a HML caracal work for me. You have been given the numbers that show HML will still be a viable weapon after the changes. No doubt when this change hits you will be on the forums decrying the end of EVE while the rest of us are adapting.




How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#1464 - 2012-09-19 16:17:01 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem.


In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ?

Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1465 - 2012-09-19 16:18:04 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Three things:
- The Drake does not have low DPS by any stretch of the imagination.
- Caldari will be fine in PVP.
- Caldari is likely going to be improved in PVE with the TE/TC changes.

-Laing
Drake DPS is hotly debated.
Caldari PVP was the Drake (Tengu rose slowly too) until it got a boost from ASBs, which will get nerfed somehow.
TP already did that, unless we are getting unscripted low slot versions.


I respect your opinion, but I am on the other side of the fence. And, no I haven't fallen off the edge to say HML are useless. I will agree that people are getting dramatic, which doesn't help my case. The Caracal needs more love (and, as I predicted, is out classed by the Bellicose). The Navy Caracal, Cerberus, and Nighthawk got nerfed with the Tengu/Drake. Caldari HACs are now a complete laughing stock.

Huge nerfs like this are something I always frown on. When they affect moderate to under powered ships, such as in this case, it really is ludicrous. I use both missiles and guns, have for years, and this really makes no sense to me.

Btw, while I’m glad there was a slight speed increase; HML at long range loses DPS from over firing. At close range, this doesn’t happen, but damage is still meh anyway and on-paper damage at range that is what is argued against. The range needed a nerf more, but range bonuses should have been buffed. Then ships like Cerberus would make HMs shine, while the Drake would fail (Tengu would get a bonus nerf).

I say:
Give back the HM damage
Make a low slot into a mid slot on the Caracal (mirror the Omen, make it choose gank or tank in lows)
Really nerf flight time on HMs (nerfs the Drake and sadly the Nighthawk)
Boost the flight time bonus on the Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Cerberus to 20%
Nerf the flight time bonus of the Tengu to 5%
Maybe buff HAM range slightly (I think it is too short)

This would prevent nerfing under powered ships, give the Caracal a buff instead of a nerf/buff, and at least nerf the Nighthawk less.


A few comments:
- Yeah, people are getting overly dramatic. They should stop that.
- The Caracal's DPS is being lowered in the single digits. It's not being hit very hard at all.
- The Cerb and NH were already laughing stocks and are basically never flown. Arguing against the Drake/Tengu nerf from the perspective that it might nerf ships that are simply never ever flown is complete madness - especially when those ships literally cannot be fixed until the weapons systems they depend on are fixed.
- Caldari are getting a net damage application and range boost by way of the TE/TC changes.

To your proposal:
- Keeping HML damage constant is extremely short sighted.
- I don't think that's a good idea, personally. I like the balanced slot layout, and I'd be extremely leery of the ewar advantage that would give to the Caracal.
- You suggest a big nerf to the NH and use the NH as a reason not to nerf HML. What?
- HAM range is getting boosted with the TE/TC changes. It's unknown how far they're going to go, but it won't take a whole hell of a lot to push Javs out to the critical areas. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1466 - 2012-09-19 16:18:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Soko99 wrote:
How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????


From memory, future Caracal will fit HMLs, MWD and LSE with a single ACR.

EDIT - wrong, HML Caracal won't need the ACR, HAM Caracal will.

Bloutok wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem.


In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ?

Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ?


Because HML Drake was better, not because HAM Drake is bad.
Aprudena Gist
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1467 - 2012-09-19 16:19:06 UTC
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Aprudena Gist wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?[/b]
I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.


HAMs are not good they are ****. They move slow they have slow explosion speed and can't hit a target if its actually moving unlike the rest of the weapon systems.

HAMs are also too hard to fit on a ship properly they should be easier to fit then heavy missiles but they are not.

Quote:

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.


Heavy missiles right now are **** compared to properly fit long range weapon systems on double bonused ships like hurricanes and you are making them even worse. The Biggest ******* thing you idiots dont seem to be factoring in is that all the gun ships have double weapon systems roles on ships and missiles ones are lucky if they have 1 ship bonus to them.

The biggest things you idiots that are redesigning missiles need to do is make the ******* tech 2 ammo work like guns.

1 short range higher damage then the rest of the ammo. This isn't true for a lot of the missile systems.
1 Longer range medium damage. Like pulse, aurora, spike. These dont even exist why are the weapon systems treaded differently.
That needs to apply to all missile systems if you are nerfing the ******* range. The reason the range is longer on them is because they dont have range increasing ammo, mods or anything so **** you if you make this change and dont make the weapon systems equal.


Also **** you for nerfing **** instead of making other ones equal to these ones as a base line. Stop nerfing decent ships just because other ones are **** fix them make them all good.



Too many F-words.
You should really learn to voice your opinion in a more appropriate way.
Seriously, it can be done without all those asterixes cluttering the view.

Eat a ****.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1468 - 2012-09-19 16:20:35 UTC
Bloutok wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem.


In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ?

Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ?


It's because everyone's fitting HML Drakes or are being dumb and thinking "loldpsdrake" like we see in this thread. The tank/gank ratio of a properly fit HAM Drake is not beatable. Furthermore, it has a resist bonus so it adapts better to larger gangs with logi support.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1469 - 2012-09-19 16:21:17 UTC
Soko99 wrote:



How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????


Behold the new Caracal

Caracal:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire
10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity
Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers
Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1)
Signature radius: 135 (-10)
Cargo capacity: 450
Kesthely
Mestana
#1470 - 2012-09-19 16:22:15 UTC
Ok perhaps the 2.3 dps was a little bit exagerated in my previous post. But unlike guns you do have the much delayed damage.

Since at this point are all makeing paper scenarios that rarely or never occur you i give you this one: What if a ship is orbiting at say 60km at its top speed around a missile ship with 63 km range? due to the orbital elipse the missiles need to fly further then there max 63 km, doing no damage, while the orbiting gun ship with 60 km range guns will apply its dps fully.

Missiles atm have a unique advantage of haveing the same damage output from 0 to max range. Once you start balancing the range and damage output to be equal with guns at a specific range you need to drasticly change other things as well:

Change the Rage and precision missiles so there equivallent to the short and long range gun ammo, this includes explosion radius and velocity to be comparible.
Adjust the damage appropiatly to factor in good and perfect hits
Factor in the optimal + falloff in the damage equation for missiles
Factor in the flight time in the damage eqation

And i can guarantee you that once its done in this way, the changes to the heavy missiles will not be as clean cut as there presented now.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1471 - 2012-09-19 16:24:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Soko99 wrote:



How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????


Behold the new Caracal

Caracal:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire
10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity
Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers
Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1)
Signature radius: 135 (-10)
Cargo capacity: 450


Ahh.. soyou're talking about your FUTURE caracal. Cause your posts made it seem like you were talking about one in the game already..
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1472 - 2012-09-19 16:24:56 UTC
Soko99 wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Smabs wrote:
Quote:
I already use rails over blasters in many situations.


Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve.


Small med and large. You see, unlike you, I figure out how to use these things rather than spend all my time chasing the FOTM or bad posting on the forums flapping over an OP weapon system getting nerfed into line with everything else. I am already working out the best way to make a HML caracal work for me. You have been given the numbers that show HML will still be a viable weapon after the changes. No doubt when this change hits you will be on the forums decrying the end of EVE while the rest of us are adapting.




How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????


Did you take into consideration that the Caracal will be getting a large CPU buff in the winter?
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#1473 - 2012-09-19 16:25:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloutok
Liang Nuren wrote:
Bloutok wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem.


In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ?

Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ?


It's because everyone's fitting HML Drakes or are being dumb and thinking "loldpsdrake" like we see in this thread. The tank/gank ratio of a properly fit HAM Drake is not beatable. Furthermore, it has a resist bonus so it adapts better to larger gangs with logi support.

-Liang


If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?

Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#1474 - 2012-09-19 16:26:32 UTC
Aprudena Gist wrote:

Eat a ****.


See only one naughty word now ( down from nine ).
You are improving, keep up the good work.Blink
Random McNally
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#1475 - 2012-09-19 16:31:38 UTC
Just a respectful question, Fozzie. At what point do you either go ahead with the proposed change or do someting different?

So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?

I think HM should get a range nerf. I think that nerfing their damage is a bad idea. Drake is already widely regarded as the monster tanker with the anemic dps. I can and do fly both HM and HAM.

By radically nerfing HM, you are basically hamstringing ALL the ships that use them (as has been stated in the previous 74 pages). Buh bye Caracal and Nighthawk.

IMHO, more thought should be given to handling the Drake, not the weapon.

Host of High Drag Podcast. http://highdrag.wordpress.com/

Space music http://minddivided.com

I G Channel HighDragChat

Broadcast4Reps
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1476 - 2012-09-19 16:32:33 UTC
Soko99 wrote:


Ahh.. soyou're talking about your FUTURE caracal. Cause your posts made it seem like you were talking about one in the game already..


Oh I have fits for the current caracal. Light anti frig, front line brawler, HML sniper style and even a HAM vairent. I have much love for that little gem of a ship.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1477 - 2012-09-19 16:35:37 UTC
Bloutok wrote:


If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?

Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?


Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser.


People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide

If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1478 - 2012-09-19 16:36:18 UTC
Random McNally wrote:
Just a respectful question, Fozzie. At what point do you either go ahead with the proposed change or do someting different?

So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?

I think HM should get a range nerf. I think that nerfing their damage is a bad idea. Drake is already widely regarded as the monster tanker with the anemic dps. I can and do fly both HM and HAM.

By radically nerfing HM, you are basically hamstringing ALL the ships that use them (as has been stated in the previous 74 pages). Buh bye Caracal and Nighthawk.

IMHO, more thought should be given to handling the Drake, not the weapon.


If CCP listend to the bawing of the masses then hulks would have twice the base tank and three times more cargo and ore space than they ended up getting. CCP listens to smart and logical arguments. Most of the time...

Right now the changes mean HML will be one of the better med long range weapons and the caracal will be a great little ship.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1479 - 2012-09-19 16:37:32 UTC
Bloutok wrote:

If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?

Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?


The HML Drake is used because the DPS difference is relatively small and it has almost arbitrarily better damage projection and alpha.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1480 - 2012-09-19 16:38:18 UTC
Random McNally wrote:
Just a respectful question, Fozzie. At what point do you either go ahead with the proposed change or do someting different?

So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?

I think HM should get a range nerf. I think that nerfing their damage is a bad idea. Drake is already widely regarded as the monster tanker with the anemic dps. I can and do fly both HM and HAM.

By radically nerfing HM, you are basically hamstringing ALL the ships that use them (as has been stated in the previous 74 pages). Buh bye Caracal and Nighthawk.

IMHO, more thought should be given to handling the Drake, not the weapon.


Sorry did you even check how new Caracal will look ?

5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire
10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity
Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers

As you see L+2 ,put there TE and you have HAM explosion radius problem fix i guess.Add TC in mid slot and you can tweak it even more.

Also dont forget that punny Caracal will be viable in various weapon platforms like anti frig ,long range etc.