These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1481 - 2012-09-19 16:39:17 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Random McNally wrote:

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"?


It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#1482 - 2012-09-19 16:39:30 UTC
Onictus wrote:
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.






Fine, nerf the range, not the damage.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1483 - 2012-09-19 16:41:12 UTC
Onictus wrote:
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.





That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.



Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#1484 - 2012-09-19 16:44:23 UTC
Someone somewhere in this tread posted something about having less launcher types and add amo range. I'd go for that.

Only one medium. The "Medium Missile Launcher". Make a bunch of different missiles with more DPS close range, less DPs long range.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1485 - 2012-09-19 16:45:01 UTC
Soko99 wrote:





That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.





The drake does low end BS damge but its tank is firmly inside BS class.
AlexHalstead
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1486 - 2012-09-19 16:45:16 UTC  |  Edited by: AlexHalstead
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Random McNally wrote:

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"?


It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
You did also see the implication of the TD being allowed to affect missiles and the fact that the Amarr EW standard tool is the TD? Though it does affect minmatar ships that use missile launchers, it affect the caldari missile boats the most.
The Bazzalisk
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1487 - 2012-09-19 16:45:48 UTC
I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.

I see no imbalance between heavy missiles and other weapons systems as they are.

Comparing artillery cannons and heavy missiles is stupid because:

The WHOLE POINT of artillery cannons is for alpha strikes with a slow RoF. When your ships are getting hit by big punches all in one go, it makes it hard for the logistics ships to react and land reps in time. Compare that to missiles which have flight time and low alpha and it's clear this is a stupid comparison. Now consider firewalling too. I now see no problem with HMLs.


At short range in small gangs, you get no damage bonus from being close in the missile range, so the dps will be easily outclassed by ACs, Pulse lasers, blasters.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#1488 - 2012-09-19 16:46:17 UTC
Bloutok wrote:
Onictus wrote:
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.



Fine, nerf the range, not the damage.


As Fozzie stated earlier in the thread: HML contains most of the damage of close range medium missiles with all of the range. If you want to nerf the range you'd better be prepared to have HML become HAMv2 and have literally no long range missile option at all.

I somehow doubt you'd be excited by the Drake's HML range being neutered down to 25km or so.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc.
The Fourth District
#1489 - 2012-09-19 16:46:41 UTC
A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf

First CCP Fuzzie I want to express admiration for your willingness to read throe this entire threadnot. Remember, even when it dose not look like it, most of us appreciate your balancing efforts.

My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps.

IMHO for winter expansion it would be best if HML get range reduction of 25% as suggested, but only 10% damage reduction. Leave it like that for few months until you are ready to introduce full BC rebalancing and then based of feedback and changes of ship/launcher popularity decide if you want to introduce remaining 10% of the nerf.

Similarly for winter expansion cut cain's power grid for only 10%. Leave it like that until you are ready to introduce full rebalance for all BCs, and then based on changes in cane's popularity decide how much more power grid you want to cut, together with any other changes you want to make to that ship and other battlecruisers. If you cut 20% of hurricane power grid at once I’m afraid you might be making it suboptimal choice compared to other ships in it's class.

I'd like to remind you of danger of overbalancing too much at once, like it was done with buffing Dramiel and nerfing sensor dampeners. Rather do it in gradual iterations, much like you did when introducing tech alchemy. You cautiously decided first to go for 1 to 10 ratio and only later after you see what transpires you likely intend to introduce 1 to 5 reaction. You should take same multi step approach when introducing nerfs to HML and canes.

Also I’d like to bring your attention to cruiser and battleship sized pulse lasers combined with scorch ammo. Pulse lasers on scorch are already very popular, and are becoming even more so. Pulses on scorch have among turrets unique combination of good tracking ability, projection and raw DPS. In that way they are not unlike HML. They also contributed to making beam lasers obsolete. Now with buff on their power grid requirements I think it is time to consider some changes to scorch ammo.

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#1490 - 2012-09-19 16:47:16 UTC
The Bazzalisk wrote:
I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.


I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

The Bazzalisk
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1491 - 2012-09-19 16:47:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Random McNally wrote:

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"?


It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end not making EVE completely homogenous is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.



I completely agree with you which is why these changes are dumd.
AlexHalstead
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1492 - 2012-09-19 16:47:44 UTC
The Bazzalisk wrote:
I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.

I see no imbalance between heavy missiles and other weapons systems as they are.

Comparing artillery cannons and heavy missiles is stupid because:

The WHOLE POINT of artillery cannons is for alpha strikes with a slow RoF. When your ships are getting hit by big punches all in one go, it makes it hard for the logistics ships to react and land reps in time. Compare that to missiles which have flight time and low alpha and it's clear this is a stupid comparison. Now consider firewalling too. I now see no problem with HMLs.


At short range in small gangs, you get no damage bonus from being close in the missile range, so the dps will be easily outclassed by ACs, Pulse lasers, blasters.

I alway thought the guided missile was to be about Alpha and Accuracy over distance while the unguided missile was about rapid fire rate and DPS.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#1493 - 2012-09-19 16:48:27 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Bloutok wrote:
Onictus wrote:
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.



Fine, nerf the range, not the damage.


As Fozzie stated earlier in the thread: HML contains most of the damage of close range medium missiles with all of the range. If you want to nerf the range you'd better be prepared to have HML become HAMv2 and have literally no long range missile option at all.


I somehow doubt you'd be excited by the Drake's HML range being neutered down to 25km or so.

-Liang


I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that.
The Bazzalisk
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1494 - 2012-09-19 16:48:49 UTC  |  Edited by: The Bazzalisk
Liang Nuren wrote:
The Bazzalisk wrote:
I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.


I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :)

-Liang
I would like to point out that Caldari are referred to as the kings of PvE by some people which causes some people to then choose Caldari for the Drake and Tengu. They then do their PvE for a while, get bored, want to do some PvP only to find that the only useful ship they can fly is the Drake. THAT'S why it gets used so often. Not because the Drake is some kind of mother-of-all godships. It's because the rest of the caldari ships are all useless for pvp.
OlRotGut
#1495 - 2012-09-19 16:49:06 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Random McNally wrote:

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"?


It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.




It appears from the numbers on page 71, that the HAMS need a tweak to their explosion/sig penalties as well as their fitting requirements, I also think their range should be looked at in terms of how they compare to other medium weapon systems. If HAMS are close up weapons, they should be able to hit cruisers and above.

I would also like you to think about giving us solid numbers on what you are doing to the T2 Ammo, so we can properly discuss the changes you are throwing around in this thread. Without real numbers on the T2 ammo we can only speculate what the possible HML changes can do to DPS of Caldari ships.

If T2 Fury missiles are getting a damage increase and removing ship penalty, this changes things.
If T2 Precision missiles are tweaked, and removing ship penalties this also changes things.

For HML's; range nerf is fine, damage nerf should be tweaked a bit, maybe 10% damage nerf, but also make it harder to hit targets that have small sig radius, since you are at such an extreme range.

I think there are more ways to balance the HML's than just chopping range, and DPS, to make them more in line w/other systems.

Also, if you are fixing Defenders, please remove firewalling of missiles.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#1496 - 2012-09-19 16:49:22 UTC
Bloutok wrote:
I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that.


Cool well I'd be raising holy hell over the complete removal of all long range weapon missile platforms. But no, you have to keep your HML damage for some odd reason. What, did you forget to train the 8 days for HAM 5?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Colman Dietmar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1497 - 2012-09-19 16:49:36 UTC
Please, don't murder my poor little cane! T_T

Murder the drake instead.
Aprudena Gist
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1498 - 2012-09-19 16:50:23 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Soko99 wrote:





That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.





The drake does low end BS damge but its tank is firmly inside BS class.

No its not. A drake does 350dps and has about a 80k tank.

A Battleship usually starts at about a 90k tank and goes to 160-180k tank. Its high on the terms of sub battleship sized tanks sure but not firmly inside.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#1499 - 2012-09-19 16:50:49 UTC
The Bazzalisk wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The Bazzalisk wrote:
I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.


I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :)

-Liang
I would like to point out that Caldari are referred to as the kings of PvE by some people which causes some people to then choose Caldari for the Drake and Tengu. They then do their PvE for a while, get bored, want to do some PvP only to find that the only useful ship they can fly is the Drake. THAT'S why it gets used so often. Not because the Drake is some kind of mother-of-all godships. It's because the rest of the caldari ships are all useless for pvp.


Hahahahahahahahahhaa, no. You are totally, completely, and utterly wrong. Caldari are the upcoming kings of small gang PVP for anyone who has a clue what they're doing. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Kesthely
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1500 - 2012-09-19 16:51:54 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
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



The same is going to happen if they force the HML in this direction but then towards tank, with a +10% bonus to light missile damage and -20% penalty to Heavy missile, a Rapid light missile setup for ships that give bonuses to both weapon systems gets you within 15% of the new HML damage while freeing up a lot of power for a heavier tank. If the Tracking enhancers would give a 10-15% bonus to missile range i could get a Rapid light missile caracal over 100km have it at 36k effective hp, and only do less then 15% damage difference between a HML variant. Also the Explosion velocity and exlosion radius would probably give me against many targets more effective damage then the HML variant would.

Doing the HML change to promote HAM use is not going to work.