Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Well said, and that's the thing, A smaller nerf would be much more palatable, because we're talking about 1 of the games 3 travel time weapons (the other 2 being bombs and drones) being brought "in line" with instant damage turret weapons. Travel time weapons NEED some kind of stat based superiority to compensate for the downsides of those weapons (such as vulnerability to smartbombs).

You make HMLs "in line" with turret weapons and you actually make them worse than turret based weapons. THEN add to that letting the modules that negatively affect turrets affect missiles too?

Hasn't CCP learn what too much nerfing does? When I started playing in '07, the Gallente ships were THE pvp ships and multi-nerf after multi-nerf put them on the virtual shelf.

To much nerfing of HMLs simply shifts the imbalance to Tracking assisted (and now faster) Cruiss Missles, HAMs and RLMLs/light missiles. how does making JavHAMS long range weapons fix anything?

Oh, and another reason to separate missile disruption modules is it opens up the same plan for how TCs affect weapons. Right now lots of ship fits use off-bonus, separate slot weapons in the utility highs. Allowing for a single module to affect both weapon types boosts the role of off-slot weapons in utility highs, or boosts the value of TCs for ships already using off-slot weapons in the utility highs. Break them out and keep the choice.

That was not smart. I said the exact same ting about 30 pages earlier.

All people like me and Sofia are saying is that too much change at once is wrong headed, CCP has done it before (over and over and over again), why not smarten up this time and not break something that then requires precious and costly developer time to fix? The risk here is that in attempting to bring HMLs in line, you end up with YET ANOTHER mostly un-used weapon that is simply replaced by other weapons (like HAMs)

Is that concept (the concept of advising caution) to much for people to grasp? Failing to learn from the past is the #1 reason people, societies and in this case a game company can't break out of the "dumb cycle".

We're just saying take it slow, there's no reason to rush.

You simply don't understand how heavy missiles work.
You compare them directly to guns, which in the case of base stats ( considering ammo types ) is wrong.

Guns get
- long range, weaker damage ammo
- short range, better damage ammo + slightly better tracking

Missiles get
- long range, medium damage ammo ( applicable in full range )
- short range precision ammo intended to hit small targets

Gun boats can compensate for speed/sig with piloting while missiles boats cant so you need to have ammo, which makes it easier to hit smaller targets. That ammo ( precision ) cannot be stronger for obvious reasons.

You actually missed the boat as far as what the issue is. It's not that HM's are over powering. If you nerf HM's, then a nerf to Large projectiles is in order as well as the I'm the comprise most of the leftovers of the top 11 weapons used in game. The only reason most people use lasers is because there's no reload time. But the range on hybrids and lasers blow compared to HM's and projectiles. If you truly look at the stats as far as why people use these 2 types of weapons....it's for the volley damage....HAM's have only marginally better dps, a much lower volley, and takes more CPU and PG to fit...therefore, people avoid them. Common sense....Also, since you are going to nerf the range and dps of HM's, will you be increasing the cycle time as that was the 2 benefits of going with guns, instant dps, which is an immeasurable stat, and a quick cycle time compared to the missiles, meaning you broke someone's tank faster...in Fleet battles, the person you are targetting is already getting reps before the first volley hits him....not so with guns....

Secondly....instead of nerfing the Drake and Hurricane...ask yourself why do people flock to these two ships...not because of the DPS....but the ability to maximize DPS while getting a solid omni-tank, of which both are shield fitted.

How about fixing armor fitting to be in line with Shields....why is ONLY boosted through low slots, while shields mainly boosted through mid slots....my mid slots go to tanking, my lows to dps, because aside from tracking computers for guns, all your DPS upgrades are through your low slots, so right off the bat you are hindering your armor tanking abilities.

You really want to equalize the playing field, try moving everything to shield tanking because at least there is a regen. With current fitting capabilities, to get a decent omni tank on an armor, you have to sacrifice a lot of dps, and it has to be buffer fit as you won't have the cap for a repper, and there is no passive repper like for shields *shield power relays*

Bottom line, it makes more sense to boost HAM's, as well as long range hybrids and lasers to get them range comparable to projectiles. When I talk to FC's about doctrines, it's more about the volley as you might be dead at any minute than the DPS. Hence why I challenge you to show me the statistics of Torando usage compared to the rest of the teir 3 BC's. It's all about the Volley and Range...

Guess I'll have to stop my caldari cross-train and switch to minnie.....long live the large projectile turret....

Missiles... suck more than ever now. Pro. Well Done.

Commencing a slow hand clap.

Was the drake OP or something? 300 dps too much?

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN

The problem I see with splitting out the anti-missile module from the anti-turret module is one of what race gets the ewar bonus for this. Things have been settled in eve as ecm-caldari, damps-gallente, TDs-amarr, and painters-minmatar. Frankly amarr and minmatar got the short sticks in this draw and Caldari the longest. Minmatar got a short stick since TPs effect is rather weak and also unlike the others it can't be used defensivley.

TDs have always been weak in that they only effect one particular weapon system that all the other races could side step by just using launchers. Now if the anti-missile ewar were a seperate module it would have to stay with amarr ewar as bonused for it. I suppose it might work to require amarr to fit two modules to cover the weapons that might be arrayed against it. It would be similar to racial ecm modules. But even ecm has multispecs (granted they are weak and not often used). I suppose the use of a missile script in a turret TD (and vice versa of a turret script in a missile TD) could be disfavored such that it would be like using a weaker ecm a la a multispec.

But it gets sorta odd looking and is more coherent to have one weapon disruptor module with two turret scripts and two missile scripts.

As for the strengths of all these that is where the real balancing must come. Currently unbonused use of a TD on a turret ship is op imo. The new Caldari frigs are laughing it up fitting these to a spare mid and turning them on a turret ship such that that turret ship can't do any damage to the disrupting frig. Who even needs an asb if the gunship can't hit you from the td effect. Maybe it's because you know how effective an unbonused TD is on fubaring turrets that so many missile boat pilots are on here yelling against a td effect on missiles.

The whole point though is it shouldn't be that way against either weapon system. Unbonused use should have a rather weak effect, like unbonused ecm does currently. But each weapon type should fear the appearance of a bonused amarr ship with TDs. I also argue that the base strength on painters and damps should similarly be reduced such that the ships bonused for those are equally feared and respected.

If the numbers are done right, we shouldn't see a flood of everyone fitting TDs. And ironically, having the other ewar ships buffed in this way will be to the advantage of ecm boat pilots in that they may no longer be the automatic primary in any engagement.

Not to mention his numbers are wrong....the max range of a non-bonused HM is 75.9km, and the dps is 32.

Also not mentioned in his numbers are the following
Projectile
+no cap usage *which does go well for missiles as well
+high volley damage

Lasers
+ minimal reload when a crystal breaks
+cycle time

Hybrids
+ cycle time

Not to mention that at 75k range...I have 2 more volleys in the air just as the first one is hitting the target....whether you are in close or at max range....while guns may not always hit for max dps, don't underestimate the power of an instantaneous hit whether you are at 2k or at 50k...

CCP Fozzie,

I think the changes you have suggested will become accepted in time. I think there needs to be adjustments on the specifics but overall, I approve of the idea behind these proposed changes. For everyone who thinks these changes will ruin the game and specifically for Caldari pilots, I understand where you are coming from. I was under the same belief when I first read through the coming "changes" but after sitting on it, and holding my tongue, I now see the brilliance behind these proposed nerfs. Being born into the Caldari State, I have spent extensive time training both missile skills (Over 8.2 million skill points in missiles) and Caldari ships.

I am loving the changes to the following sections in your opening post:
Hurricane Adjustment
All Missiles
Light Missiles
Tech Two Missiles

The changes to Heavy Missiles and Tracking Disruption needs a little love though.

Starting off with the tracking disruptor change, I would honestly prefer to see a different modules affect missiles; specifically considering the other negatives to missiles that turret based ships do not have to deal with (defenders, smart bombs, travel time, etc). However, every modules should have a pro and a con. That is why certain damage platforms are better at close range and others are better at distance. If you are determined to implement these changes to tracking disruptors then please hear me out. For the tracking disruptors to receive this buff, they would become godly. My proposal for altering tracking disruptors would be to drastically reduce the effectiveness of tracking disruptors, unless used by a bonused ship such as the Sentinel or the Curse. This way, the module would become similar to unbonused ECM. To keep the effectiveness on bonused ships the same as they are now, would require a change in the specific ship bonuses to tracking disruptors. Perhaps increase the bonuses for those ships closer to 20% per level assuming that the base values for the tracking disruptor were indeed low enough.

The heavy missiles do need altering. They are indeed very useful (and some would argue OP) on TWO Caldari ships out of their entire armada, the Tengu and the Drake. The Drake needs adjustment: the 5% bonus to shield resistance per level is supposed to be for the Ferox only. You need to swap out the current 5% shield resistance bonus on the drake for the 10% velocity bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles per level (which would give it the same bonuses as the Raven and the Caracal) as it should have been from the get go. I think that the range bonus is appropriate to put it in line with the other battlecruisers (using long range weapons) and especially if it is given the 10% velocity bonus, there won't be much change in range compared to the current Drake. Since you are boosting all missiles in general (maybe change the proposed Drake bonus to 5% velocity bonus instead) but I am not sold on the 20%.

I understand that heavy missiles are currently working better than they are supposed to but I think a 15% damage reduction would be better. Most people have been showing various statistics for the range and DPS of long range ammo on medium sized long range weapons. However, I don't think anyone showed the statistics of those long range weapons using close range high damage ammo. Turrets are able to change out ammo based on needs of distance (close or far) and can even change damage types when using projectile ammo. Heavy missiles have more or less, one type of ammo to use for targets, in regards to range. The only close range heavy missile ammo (currently precision because of its negative to speed) is designed to counter smaller sized ships rather than dealing higher DPS. Yes, I know the T2 missile negatives are being removed and I love that.

One last thing to note and it has been said before, but the fitting requirements for heavy missiles to heavy assault missiles are backwards and that needs to be adjusted. By changing that, that will also essentially help balance the use of heavy missiles in regards to being overpowered. I did some math to compare the difference between power grid fitting of medium sized short range weapons and their long range counterparts based of their based stats. For this, I grouped the following weapons:

Close Range vs Long Range
425mm Autocannon II and 720mm Artillery Cannon II
PG = 154 PG = 275
154/275 = .56 which means that 425 Autos II use 56% of the PG needed by their long range counterparts

220mm Autocannon II and 650mm Artillery Cannon II
PG = 110 PG = 220
110/220 = .5 = 50% of PG needed

Heavy Ion Blaster II and 200mm Rail Gun II
PG = 158 PG = 189
158/189 = .836 = 83.6% of PG needed

Heavy Neutron Blaster II and 250mm Rail Gun II
PG = 212 PG = 236
212/236 = .898 = 89.8% of PG needed

Heavy Pulse Laser II and Heavy Beam Laser II
PG = 231 PG = 275
231/275 = .84 = 84% of PG needed

Focused Medium Pulse Laser II and Focused Medium Beam Laser II
PG = 132 PG = 165
132/165 = .8 = 80% of PG needed

Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II and Heavy Missile Launcher II
PG = 126 PG = 105
126/105 = 1.2 or 120% of PG which means that the close range weapon here is using 120% more PG than its long range counterpart. This needs to be reversed. And when it does, the numbers will switch:
105/126 = .833 or 83.3% of PG needed, which puts it in line for fitting purposes with the other weapons of its size.

Continued in next post: