These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1541 - 2012-09-19 17:19:29 UTC
Onictus wrote:
The fact that it was already the fastest hull in the class (pre -tier3) with dual weapon bonuses AND 6 free low slots always challenged the realm of believably, and the justification for that excursiveness was the Drake.

Well, that is getting knocked down a rung, so I'm not terribly worked up.


Nor me, and pretty much for the same reason. There's far too many Drakes and Hurricane in space, and I've long advocated cutting t2 BCs down to t1 levels, which would impact the Drake and Cane much more than Myrm and Harby. Well, this isn't quite t1 levels, but the principle is there.
wondering darkness
Tyrant's
Short Bus Syndicate
#1542 - 2012-09-19 17:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Use tracking disruptors on a missile are you serious, they use their own guidance systems. that's why they are built with guidance systems, as for reducing damage that is bad in itself, a missile takes an age to reach a target while all other weaponry does instant damage, this gives people at least a chance to get away and still makes money making time consuming. if anything the range on the missiles should be reduced but certainly not the dps as it sucks anyway.
Onictus
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#1543 - 2012-09-19 17:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Onictus
Lord Ryan wrote:


Imagine you just spent hundreds of dollars and months studing something, and than the university decided that it's no longer a valid subject. Yeah that's what all MMOs are like.


Fixed that for you.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#1544 - 2012-09-19 17:20:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloutok
Liang Nuren wrote:
Bloutok wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
Bloutok wrote:


If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?


Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond.

When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice?


Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P

In other words. Never.

But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong.


The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.

-Liang


Fine, Make the ham drake better.

Edit: Or one medium missile launcher with different range amo.
Soko99
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1545 - 2012-09-19 17:20:21 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
PetersmithII wrote:
i have two question if ccp can answer do it please
1, if heavy missiles are so uber why is cerberus so ussles ?


Its a bad ship and has been for some time now.



The problem with the Cerberus is why fly a 200m ISK drake?

And why care about a range bonus when you can already reach 80km?


Cerberus
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage and 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level

Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Assault Missile and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level


Drake
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and assault missiles per level



Drake resistance bonus balances out with the fact that Cerberus has HALF (50%) of shield EHP of the drake.

You get more damage bonuses with the cerberus but... only 5 hardpoints versus 7, so your rate of fire bonus gets you from having 5 launchers... to 7 launchers, like a drake.

So on.

Why fly a 200m ISK Drake?


^^^ This.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#1546 - 2012-09-19 17:20:59 UTC
Kesthely wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Kesthely wrote:

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.


The Drake doesn't have that luxury because it doesn't have a bonus to AML. Furthermore, the Caracal getting decent performance out of a bonused weapon platform? Blasphemy. But to humor you: what's the pct DPS difference at 30km with 3 BCU HAMs?

-Liang


For your amusement the Ham would get 98% more damage then the rapid light at 30 km with your setup, 100% damage vs 200% range isn't a bad tradeoff on paper, but the RML has a better overal damage when factoring speed and sizes. Also the Effective hp on a RML caracal is 77% higher. If you try to go ranged HAM with Javelins, its dps suddenly drops to only 40% Higher compared to a similar RML setup while still only haveing half the range and less then half its effective hp

This would eventually result in the same Range + Effective HP vs Damage we've seen on the drake


I was following you right up until you claimed that a 36k EHP tank was equivalent to a 100k EHP tank.

-Liang

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

MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1547 - 2012-09-19 17:21:24 UTC
I think CCP needs to have a hard look at HAM fittings if they go through with this so if we decide to use the short ranged alternative we can have more PG and CPU to put towards tank or gank.
Connall Tara
Conquering Darkness
#1548 - 2012-09-19 17:22:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Connall Tara
Fozzie I call you a madman and a hero for reading through all this so I think its only fair I make an attempt at a reasoned response.

all told... I approve of the suggested changes hand over fist and I'm more than happy to accept that caldari WILL be getting better pvp platforms based on the continuing balance changes in the form of the upcoming "combat" moa and the eventual rebalancing of the ferox as well. the cane needed a kick in the teeth I reckon as did the drake and tengu, these changes handle this nicely. after all, just because caldari don't have "viable" pvp platforms now at least by the standards of nullblob types it doesn't mean that they WON'T come these changes, after all its impossible to argue that the merlin isn't by far the most dangerous of the "combat" frigate platforms at the moment and I'm eager to see how the Moa is going to shape up as a possible upgrade of the Merlin hull with 5% hybrid damage/RoF and 5% resist/level.

in compensation however I do agree that slightly more love might be in favour of the heavy assault launchers as they take over the roll as primary "close range" missile platform. while this may be covered by the changes to tracking enhancers and tracking computers I think an improvement in explosion speed might be worthwhile regardless in order to support other ships which will be equiping this weapon, most notably the new caracal which will no doubt be adopted by us RVB types as a 30-40km dps support platform for our gudfights.

its also an interesting point that these changes may leave heavy missile operating ships with little recourse in closer ranges where gun platform ships may switch down to close range ammo to help deal with closer targets. it would seem like a reasonable suggestion then to offer an alternative ammunition type with higher damage but significantly reduced range. the T2 missiles would seem like an easy choice for this though their harder to access nature may restrict them. what I would personally propose would be taking the "fury" missile concept and pushing it to a further extreme with the missile changes fluffed along the lines of "rapid burn" response missiles for defense. much shorter range, higher damage but with a vastly accelerated flight speed (the missile doing a quick short burn then adding its remaining fuel to the payload). some way for the heavy missile equipped ships to defend themselves at closer ranges would be most welcome to a lot of people in this threadnought. cut the range a little bit more, buff the damage but keep a large explosion radius so that fury missiles act as a defense against other battlecruisers (or even cruisers if you've got TE's/TC's to improve ER/ES) but at substantially shorter ranges while precision ammo still acts as the anti frigate option. the T2 ammo types adding versitility to the platform as it were :)

I would also like to propose that with the addition of tracking enhancers and computers now providing the "counter balance" to this nerf that ballistic control systems receive a reduction in CPU cost to bring them in line with the other weapon upgrades. with the dps nerf to the heavy missiles coming into effect I would think that the improved CPU would go a fair way to allowing missile using pilots to equip their ships to adapt accordingly with the additional costs for both tracking computers and tracking enhancers for the "improved" preformance making up the difference, much like fitting 2 magstabs and a TE to a blaster moa it would make sense that 2 BCU's and a tracking enhancer would be an ideal choice for a caracal pilot (at least on the new hull).

as for tracking disruptors I think that your own suggestion for splitting the disruptor into two separate blends, one for missiles and one for guns, would solve a lot of the balance concerns with the tracking disruptor becoming some form of "wundermod". it would make sense from a lore perspective as well as it would make sense that a dedicated missile countermeasure system would be developed to take advantage of a missiles weaknesses, most notibly its internal targeting and navigation systems causing preemptive detonation (missiles exploding at much shorter ranges) or messing with the payloads (explosion radius/speed). of course both disruptor types should be effected by pre-existing bonuses and the idea of TD equiped ships bringing a mix of missile and gun disruptors sounds like a most excellent way to avoid the TD becoming a mandatory module on every hull as you won't always know what the opposition has.


that's just some suggestions however, I'm more than happy to work with what's coming and eagerly wait to see what the masters of fit foo will come up with to fill the void and hope to the gods that I'll be able to contribute to that when it happens :)

TL:DR like the proposed changes, but some more love for HAMS, BCU's and the "split" tracking disruptors seems in order

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#1549 - 2012-09-19 17:22:58 UTC
Bloutok wrote:

Fine, Make the ham drake better.

Edit: Or one medium missile launcher with different range amo.


The HAM Drake is getting better at the same time that the HML Drake is being brought down to where the rest of the long range weapons are. Arguably, it's still better than the other long range weapons because you can't get under its weapons and even up close it'll have pretty fantastic damage application.

But then it's just different instead of wtf why would you fit anything else?!?!?

-Liang

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

Lord Ryan
True Xero
#1550 - 2012-09-19 17:23:39 UTC
Onictus wrote:
Lord Ryan wrote:


Imagine you just spent hundreds of dollars and months studing something, and than the university decided that it's no longer a valid subject. Yeah that's what all MMOs are like.


Fixed that for you.

Glad this is the only one I play.

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.

Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1551 - 2012-09-19 17:25:06 UTC
real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data
using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)

Quote:

250mm Railgun II + Spike M
DPS: 9
Volley: 52
Optimal: 52km
Fall-Off: 12km

250mm Railgun II + Javelin M
DPS: 14
Volley: 92
Optimal: 7.2km
Fall-Off: 12km

Heavy beam Laser II + Aurora M
DPS: 10
Volley: 58
Optimal: 43km
Fall-Off: 8km

Heavy beam Laser II Gleam M
DPS: 17
Volley: 101
Optimal: 6km
Fall-Off: 8km

720mm Howitzer Artillary II + Quake M
DPS: 8
Volley: 153
Optimal: 43km
Fall-Off: 18km

720mm Howitzer Artillary II + Tremor M
DPS: 13
Volley: 268
Optimal: 6km
Fall-Off: 18km

Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Fury Missile
DPS: 16
Volley: 192
Optimal: 33.8km

Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Precision Missile
DPS: 11
Volley: 130
Optimal: 18.8km



The only glaring issue I see is that the DPS/Volley data on Fury/Precision needs reversing, or the Max Range (either works), everything else is just fine at this point.
eg
Quote:

Change to:
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Fury Missile
DPS: 11
Volley: 130
Optimal: 33.8km

Change to:
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Precision Missile
DPS: 16
Volley: 192
Optimal: 18.8km


All the imbalance comes from 1 of 2 areas, and in some cases both of these.
Unbalanced Ship/Module/Subsystem Modifiers
Skill Bonus Modifiers
Azual Skoll
The Altruist
#1552 - 2012-09-19 17:25:48 UTC
Bloutok wrote:
Fine, Make the ham drake better.


By making tracking enhancers/computers affect missile range, that's exactly what they're doing. HAM drakes with Javelins (which will have no speed penalty) and a couple of TEs/TCs should hit out to around 45km.

Tusker, Small Gang PVPer, and author of The Altruist (guides to PVP in Eve) Formerly Director of Agony Unleashed's PVP-Uni

Onictus
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#1553 - 2012-09-19 17:28:27 UTC
Azual Skoll wrote:
Bloutok wrote:
Fine, Make the ham drake better.


By making tracking enhancers/computers affect missile range, that's exactly what they're doing. HAM drakes with Javelins (which will have no speed penalty) and a couple of TEs/TCs should hit out to around 45km.



I can't wait to jam a stack of TEs and BCSs on a nano-phoon Twisted

May not be the best ever, but it's going to look ****.
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1554 - 2012-09-19 17:28:42 UTC
Irregessa wrote:
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.



Of course. However, one point that has been mentioned several times already without any response has been that this change to HMLs is attempting to rebalance two of the several ships that use them. If the whole point of rebalancing ships is so that all ships have a viable use, isn't it counterproductive to then make ships like the Caracal, Nighthawk and Cerberus again undesirable due to the changes made to their primary weapon system? Heavy Assault missiles are often not an option either due to poor tank (the caracal/cerberus hulled ships) or fitting consideration (can be an issue with any ship, especially since HAMs use more PG than HMLs).

If you want to rebalance the drake and tengu, rebalance the drake and tengu. Don't pack all the desired changes in the weapon system.


They want the Drake and Tengu to have 25% less range and 20% less damage.

How would you achieve this by nerfing the hull? It's already got a single damage bonus that only applies to a single damage type.

Start removing high-slots? That would just screw up other fitting options and ruin the balance between BCs even more.
Give it a negative role bonus? Needlessly complicated.
Remove a launcher slot? Needlessly nerfing HAM Drakes.

The only way to do this is:
- Nerf HMs.
- Buff unused HM ships.
- Tweak previously overpowered HM ships to work with the new HMs.
Sophia Ban'ki
Adhara Corporation
#1555 - 2012-09-19 17:32:15 UTC
Well, even if I expect noone from CCP to read this, I want to point out, that there are also a few other things to be nerved if missiles are supposed to be turrets.

Surgical Strike (rank 4)
3% damage bonus on all turrets per level
Not just that the missile counterpart gives only 2% damage bonus per level it is also a rank 5 skill, meaning that it takes even longer to train.

Solution: Nerv/Adjust: the Surgical Strike skill to 2% bonus and make it a rank 5 skill as well.


Rapid Firing:
4% RoF per level
Same again, Rapid Launch is one again lower with 3% RoF bonus.

Solution: Nerv / Adjust Rapid Firing bonus to 3% RoF, to make them more eqal.


Missile Projection: (rank 4 - skill)
Bonus to all guided missiles, leaving unguided missiles unaffected.
Related Gunnery skills would be Motion Prediction, if we look at the planned TD changes.
Motion Prediction is just a rank 2 skill and it affects all turrets.

Solution: Nerv Motion Prediction, so that it no longer affects short range weapons (as unguided missiles are all considered short range) and rank 4 or adjust Missile Projection to affect all missiles.


Requirements for T2 need to be changed as well, T2 medium turrets require more skills than Heavy Missiles.
You should make sure that it also requires T2 Light Missiles in order to use T2 Heavy Missiles, otherwise it wouldn't be fair, would it?




Disclaimer: This post might contain traces of irony and sarcasm.
Kesthely
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1556 - 2012-09-19 17:32:22 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


I was following you right up until you claimed that a 36k EHP tank was equivalent to a 100k EHP tank.

-Liang



In the initial post on wich you replied i clearly stated that these changes to HML will not promote HAM use on ships that have bonuses for HAM RML and HML Takeing in range and damage in consideration RML with these changes allow for better tanks on those ships and are still able to shoot to (extreme) long ranges Also due the light missile vs the heavy assault missile, the real damage difference vs verry fast and / or small ships will be significantly closer to eachother On these ships i don't think anyone would chose for the HAM.

The reference to the drake was only to show what would happen if people were to chose range + effective hp vs damage
NOT to compare the caracal with the drake
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#1557 - 2012-09-19 17:34:34 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Onictus wrote:
Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit.


Fit an ACR, easy. In fact the more I play with Hurricane fits the sheer absurdity of its ease of fitting becomes clear. It's very easy to argue that more PG needs to come off.

You just proposed a setup with an ACR and not one but two frigate sized modules, and you're using that to argue that the ship's too easy to fit? Riiiiiight. Let me tell you about the excessively generous fitting room on the Brutix, as demonstrated by a setup with a co-processor and two light neutron blasters!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#1558 - 2012-09-19 17:36:14 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data
using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)


You can't use unskilled data because there are a different number of support skills for each weapon platform.

-Liang

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

Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1559 - 2012-09-19 17:37:38 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:

I was thinking this too. No reason for HAMs to cost more in terms of fitting. Should be brought in line with the formula used on long and short ranged turrets


I think they will address this when they get to the drake itself in the balance pass.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

FistyMcBumBasher
Goryn Clade
#1560 - 2012-09-19 17:38:27 UTC
I really like these changes to the hurricane and drake. By neutering these beasts it is clear what you are attempting to do with your balance to the tier 1 cruisers. Having to choose between 425's and no medium neut, or 220's and a medium neut is the proper way to go with the balancing in my opinion because AC's+neuts+drones was a bit too powerful. It was a bit ridiculous that the drake can spit out decent and constant dps from 80 km's, thought it was fun while it lasted. Tengu's can always switch over to HAM's for the extra dps at the cost of range, so I don't see it affecting them all that much.

Keep up the good work!