These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1581 - 2012-09-19 18:02:35 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.

-Liang

I really don't get why people keep saying this. I didn't compare beams or rails to HMLs when I said "these are total ****, why would I ever use them?" On their own they're awful and need a buff or people won't use them any more just because HMs are being nerfed. The only thing that's going to happen now is that long range combat will be solely in the domain of artillery and rare but specific applications of rails (Nagas, Rokhtrine).

The range nerf is reasonable, 10% damage nerf would also be reasonable on top of that. Giving missiles comparable DPS ignores their many counters (plus one with this patch).


We cant say that for 100% certainty until we see what all the ship rebalancing have in order have in order.
Bloutok
Perkone
Caldari State
#1582 - 2012-09-19 18:03:19 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 was not talking about range.

And i never touch the TD thing cause, i am out of words for it.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1583 - 2012-09-19 18:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


These are the numbers at the BASE of the pyramid.. they are foundations that the game bases everything off. So i can use them, because the game does.


The support skills are what start to skew the data
The Ship Modifiers skew it even futher
These are the numbers at the TOP of the pyramid (that you see in the fitting screen).



Infact using raw data this way shows CCP did infact mess up with missile data, and its easily fixable.
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Fury Missile
DPS: 16
Volley: 192
Optimal: 18.8km
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Precision Missile
DPS: 11
Volley: 130
Optimal: 33.8km
That instantly puts HML's inline with other medium weapon platforms ... fixed and not nerfed .... is much better outcome.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1584 - 2012-09-19 18:05:34 UTC
spellbound spirit wrote:
Cane is simply too good, and these changes might actually do some good to command ships usage.

Next thing they're gonna nerf will be skirmish boosts, farewell DS.-like drake gangs?

One sad thing about not only this but CCP direction overall is that they seem to promote blobs more and more, instaed of well put and executed small/medium gangs/tactics, not to mention their goal of killing solo.

P.S
So when is ECM drones nerf coming?

No, the cane is where the battlecruisers SHOULD be, not to mention it's an excellent cap/supercap killer.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1585 - 2012-09-19 18:06:20 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


These are numbers at the BASE of the pyramid.. they are foundations that the game bases everything off. So i can use them, because the game does.


No, your argument is invalid because it completely ignores both what is actually possible and what is reasonably probable.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1586 - 2012-09-19 18:07:22 UTC
The Bazzalisk wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.

-Liang

I really don't get why people keep saying this. I didn't compare beams or rails to HMLs when I said "these are total ****, why would I ever use them?" On their own they're awful and need a buff or people won't use them any more just because HMs are being nerfed. The only thing that's going to happen now is that long range combat will be solely in the domain of artillery and rare but specific applications of rails (Nagas, Rokhtrine).
So much this. People don't not-use medium rails because HML drakes are soooo good, they don't use them because they're **** and nerfing HMLs won't change that


Actually, people specifically don't use medium rails because the Drake and HML exists. Go look at the old threads regarding the Rail ferox.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1587 - 2012-09-19 18:07:44 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


These are numbers at the BASE of the pyramid.. they are foundations that the game bases everything off. So i can use them, because the game does.


No, your argument is invalid because it completely ignores both what is actually possible and what is reasonably probable.

-Liang

Except CCP is changing base stats by looking at the platforms after skill and role bonuses are applied...

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Eromatic 3592AE
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1588 - 2012-09-19 18:08:12 UTC
CCP....DO U THINK WE ARE NUTS?

IF U GUYS WANT TO BE FAIR THEN GIVE US AN INGAME OPTION TO SELL ALL CALDARI SKILLS SO WE CAN PUT THE SP IN GUNS AND IN OTHER RACES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


THIS ALREADY THE XXX TIME SINCE 2005 THAT U GUYS NERF MISSILES SOMEWHERE


FIND ANOTHER JOB INSTEAD OF BORING PEOPLE OFF THE GAME!!! TJEEEEEZ!!!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1589 - 2012-09-19 18:08:38 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.

-Liang

I really don't get why people keep saying this. I didn't compare beams or rails to HMLs when I said "these are total ****, why would I ever use them?" On their own they're awful and need a buff or people won't use them any more just because HMs are being nerfed. The only thing that's going to happen now is that long range combat will be solely in the domain of artillery and rare but specific applications of rails (Nagas, Rokhtrine).

The range nerf is reasonable, 10% damage nerf would also be reasonable on top of that. Giving missiles comparable DPS ignores their many counters (plus one with this patch).


You keep complaining about the counter, but that counter is a natural result of the incredible boost that comes from the TE/TC change.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#1590 - 2012-09-19 18:09:09 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
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


These are numbers at the BASE of the pyramid.. they are foundations that the game bases everything off. So i can use them, because the game does.


No, your argument is invalid because it completely ignores both what is actually possible and what is reasonably probable.

-Liang

Except CCP is changing base stats by looking at the platforms after skill and role bonuses are applied...


So... you support my position. Cool.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1591 - 2012-09-19 18:11:26 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
So... you support my position. Cool.

-Liang

No, I'm supporting his, the point being that skill and role bonuses are being ignored yet they're taken into account in the numbers that show that the missiles are overpowered.

Yes they're overpowered, but not as much as you think they are, otherwise they'd be viable on more than simply two platforms.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1592 - 2012-09-19 18:12:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • This change will make Tracking Disruptors very overpowered!
    • That is a very valid concern and one we will be continuing to look very closely at. Some options on the table include making TDs affect missiles at a lower severity to guns, dropping the base power of TDs and increasing the bonus from TD bonused ships, 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). One way or another we will be working with you all to make sure Ewar is as balanced as possible before release in Winter.
    [/list]

    I've asked already and since I didn't seem to recieve any answer gonna ask once again. Basically there are only 2 options, kinda like in tests for little kids, so picking one is pretty easy.

    a) you believe EW modules should allow their users to completely cripple opposing ship, rendering it totally toothless, which is exactly what happens when you're permitted to stack multiple TDs or RSDs upon the very same target;

    b) you believe EW modules should only somewhat debuff the target, still leaving the latter one some offensive capabilities.

    "Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
    Warde Guildencrantz
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #1593 - 2012-09-19 18:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
    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.


    Good enough damage IMO. Could just build a new nano drake that has ballistic+TE+2xnano in the lows with javelin assaults and it would be exactly same deal as the standard nano drake, cept less range. Who kites out to 50km in a nano drake anyways.

    Thing is, it should still be possible to choose fury missiles for heavies and get a little more range than javelins, while having less DPS (but not a huge amount as it is planned). It's like how javelin rails have a bit more range than null blasters, while having a bit less DPS. There should be a bridge to the gap where missiles can be "Close ammo for long range that does the closest dps to long ammo for close range". Currently the nerf is being considered as "Furies need to do way less DPS". I think it should be like:

    Rage HAMs: worst range, best DPS
    faction HAMs: Middle HAM range, middle DPS
    javelin HAMs: long HAM range, low HAM dps
    T1 ammo: same as javelin DPS, middle HAM range.

    ^This is at least being done

    Furies HMs: short HM range, best HM dps
    faction HMs: Middle HM range, middle HM dps
    precision HMs: Long HM range, lowest HM dps
    T1 ammo: same as precision DPS, middle HM range.

    However, the above T2 HM parts are not "set in stone". They are currently:


    Furies HMs: almost same range as faction, only a little more dps
    faction HMs: middle damage, middle range (good)
    precision HMs: Horrible, but we know they will be fixed.

    The only discrepancy above is that they haven't specified how they want to change furies. (They said they would, by reducing range and increasing damage, but not by how much) I think the damage nerf will be less yelled about if furies can stay close to their current dps (still getting nerfed, just by not as much as the others), and having their range reduced to bridge the gap between TE boosted javelin HAMs and close-range-ammo HMs.

    TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
    Liang Nuren
    No Salvation
    Divine Damnation
    #1594 - 2012-09-19 18:15:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Liang Nuren wrote:
    So... you support my position. Cool.

    -Liang

    No, I'm supporting his, the point being that skill and role bonuses are being ignored yet they're taken into account in the numbers that show that the missiles are overpowered.

    Yes they're overpowered, but not as much as you think they are, otherwise they'd be viable on more than simply two platforms.


    His argument is that you should ignore all skills and all bonuses. This is both unreasonable and impractical because it ignores what is both possible and what is likely. It is an utterly stupid thing to assert, and your support for it diminishes my respect for your opinion. I get that you want to claim missiles aren't OP, but seriously this is not the way to make the argument.

    -Liang

    Ed: Also, what you said supported my position, not his. -_-

    I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
    Nyla Hunt
    Doomheim
    #1595 - 2012-09-19 18:16:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyla Hunt
    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.


    CCP Fozzie,

    Lets look at your proposal, well in short dude it sucks.

    I trained Heavy Missile spec to 5 because that was what I liked. Now if you do these changes I demand my skill points back and oh yeah lets not forget that the only two ships on Caldari that works is a Drake and a Tengu which willl become redundant too with these changes. Dont even let me get started on the Nighthawk.

    So Me being a Caldari Pilot all the way is forced to buy HAMS because you cant find a place for it - really come on man... - what ever happened to common sense? Seems its a lost art.

    The only well balanced ship in this game is the Noctis, are you gonna try and break that too?

    Why not work on the tons of other useless ships in this game instead of trying to get us to vote on these stupid forums for your idea.

    Dude imho you should just resign and go home, you dont belong here.....

    Ban me I dont care - you just cost me 3 years of training.

    Oh btw Legally I purchased a product with time spent renting your services in the form of a client, then you change the product - thats equal to breach of contract .....
    James Amril-Kesh
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #1596 - 2012-09-19 18:17:28 UTC
    Liang Nuren wrote:
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:
    Liang Nuren wrote:
    So... you support my position. Cool.

    -Liang

    No, I'm supporting his, the point being that skill and role bonuses are being ignored yet they're taken into account in the numbers that show that the missiles are overpowered.

    Yes they're overpowered, but not as much as you think they are, otherwise they'd be viable on more than simply two platforms.


    His argument is that you should ignore all skills and all bonuses. This is both unreasonable and impractical because it ignores what is both possible and what is likely. It is an utterly stupid thing to assert, and your support for it diminishes my respect for your opinion. I get that you want to claim missiles aren't OP, but seriously this is not the way to make the argument.

    -Liang

    Ed: Also, what you said supported my position, not his. -_-

    I misinterpreted his point, but I still maintain that the platforms should be looked at a lot more closely, rather than blaming a problem specific to two platforms on an entire weapons system.

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)
    Liang Nuren
    No Salvation
    Divine Damnation
    #1597 - 2012-09-19 18:20:49 UTC
    James Amril-Kesh wrote:

    I misinterpreted his point, but I still maintain that the platforms should be looked at a lot more closely, rather than blaming a problem specific to two platforms on an entire weapons system.


    The platforms which use the weapons system cannot really be properly balanced until the weapon system itself is properly balanced. And that's really the crux of the issue - because I don't think anyone in their right mind can reasonably claim that HML are not OP as ******* hell.

    -Liang

    I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
    Connall Tara
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #1598 - 2012-09-19 18:21:00 UTC
    I hereby declare that "asking for SP's back" is equivalent to godwins law in these discussions and such requests should render the opinions of the poster null and void as clearly there is no intention to contribute to the debate in a reasonable and meaningful manner :P

    you know who wanted his SP's back? HITLER!


    *legs it*

    Oh hey, the curse blocker removes the name, neat :D

    Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
    Erin Ironjade
    ANGELGARD.
    The Initiative.
    #1599 - 2012-09-19 18:21:20 UTC
    Quote:

    Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
    -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles
    -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect:
    Max flight time (with optimal range script)
    Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script)
    -Make TDs affect Missiles
    Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius
    Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time


    lolwut? You want to take turret modules and make them affect the missiles? Are you serious? May be you should think about missile specific modules which will be same to tracking enhancers and computers?
    Onictus
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #1600 - 2012-09-19 18:21:26 UTC
    Nyla Hunt 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.


    CCP Fozzie,

    Lets look at your proposal, well in short dude it sucks.

    I trained Heavy Missile spec to 5 because that was what I liked. Now if you do these changes I demand my skill points back and oh yeah lets not forget that the only two ships on Caldari that works is a Drake and a Tengu which willl become redundant too with these changes. Dont even let me get started on the Nighthawk.

    So Me being a Caldari Pilot all the way is forced to buy HAMS because you cant find a place for it - really come on man... - what ever happened to common sense? Seems its a lost art.

    The only well balanced ship in this game is the Noctis, are you gonna try and break that too?

    Why not work on the tons of other useless ships in this game instead of trying to get us to vote on these stupid forums for your idea.

    Dude imho you should just resign and go home, you dont belong here.....

    Ban me I dont care - you just cost me 3 years of training.



    Three years for one race and the fastest weapon systems to train?

    Emo much?