These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1801 - 2012-09-20 01:47:45 UTC
OT Smithers wrote:

You'll have the Caracal, but with these changes you will be pushing T1 frigate DPS against stationary non-TD fitted large targets -- less or much less against something smaller or moving. If the idea of an "attack cruiser" pushing 1 hundred DPS against a frigate sounds interesting, then this is the boat for you. If you go with light missiles you will have what looks on paper to be a decent frigate killer, until you realize that you have no drones, no neuts, and no DPS. You'll be able to tickle frigates from range and die to them if they get close. Few people fly these things today -- they certainly won't post nerf.

Caracal proposed changes give it 2 lows which can be used for damage mods or damage application, an ROF bonus instead of a single type damage bonus, a fitting/speed/HP buff and 2 drones at the same time this is happening. It will be an all around better ship than before.
Isaiah Harms
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1802 - 2012-09-20 01:49:05 UTC
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
Missiles have always needed to be looked at and now I feel that they have gotten the love that they deserve.

The TE/TC/TD Bloc has been needed in missile combat for a long time and many nay sayer's don't realize how much this will effect missile combat in general.

The hurricane has also needed to be backhanded like a redheaded stepchild for a very long time and I for one am glad that they are making it apart of the first iteration rather than waiting.

Powerbloc's and alliances will now have to think farther than where's the nearest drake to jump into a fleet with. I for one am very interested to see what the new fleets will be based on. It's good to know that CCP is interested in shaking things up, the stagnation right now is frustrating. I hardly log on anymore because all I see in low/nullsec are the same ships over and over, (not so much anymore, but still annoying that there are so many canes/drakes). I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly. This rebalance is a good thing and I know that I will be playing more often when Winter has come.

CCP Fozzie o7!!!


So we should ruin a GREAT ship because YOU are bored? Instead of being proactive let's go backward and turn the bloody Hurricane into an Omen: Stupid.

Gerrick Palivorn wrote:

I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly.


Hmmm... The problem with your game is you. Not the game. But hey... you "BLLLEEETT" loud enough like all the other sheep the devs will change the sandbox for you.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1803 - 2012-09-20 01:54:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniel Plain
Sigras wrote:

This change I would probably go with in addition to the current changes, it makes no sense that HAMs which are short range are harder to fit.

That would be like making it easier to fit beam lasers than pulse.

at any rate, this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered
how so? the tengu is already only ~50% in front of the loki on eve-kills. raising the PG reqs of HMLs should effectively kill 100mn fits as you cannot really use them with hams, and it would nerf the brick on regular tengus somewhat so that they should be well in line with the loki and proteus. as for the drake: its tank is already kaputt if the resistance bonus goes. making its powergrid even tighter wll get the EHP to reasonable levels considering its stupid sig and horrible velocity.

Quote:

the HAM bonus is an amaarian thing
drone bonuses are a gallente thing and other races still have them.
Quote:

Daniel Plain wrote:
3.
- reduce heavy missile flight time
- switch rage and precision ranges

this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered, most people dont use the T2 missiles anyway cause theyre utter crap
if fury is crap then so is scorch and barrage. as for precisions, part of why they suck is their range. with a substantial nerf to HML base range, fury/faction/precision could be made into the usual slope of DPS vs range that we knnow from turret ammo.
Quote:


While this is a good work around, the problem is that it still only effects your ship. What defender missiles really need to do is defend your allies, you should just be able to keep the missile pods cycling and when a missile is launched against anyone youre blue to, and is in range, the defender should auto launch and attack the offending missile.

This would create point defense ships as another role in the fleet, the problem is that the number of calculations this would require would cook the servers.

who said anything about protecting other ships? just imagine anybody could fit an ancillary shield booster into their HIGH slots, only that it would 'repair' missile damage only.

I should buy an Ishtar.

Errand Girl
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1804 - 2012-09-20 01:55:06 UTC
Fozzie, will you release the numbers you're using to determine that 20% is an appropriate damage nerf? Most of the numbers I've seen thrown about in this thread are frankly wrong. It's easy to compare blasters to ACs or Arty to Rails, but comparing guns to missiles is apples to oranges - simply looking at EFT DPS does not even come close to telling the whole story.

Most of the main differences between missiles and guns have been articulated pretty well, such as delayed damage, smartbombs, ability to control transversal via manual piloting, etc. However I think the difference that ammo makes has gotten short shrift. The ability to switch ammo to receive higher damage, longer range, or better tracking is huge and is unavailable to missiles. With T1, faction and T2 ammo guns have more versatility in how and at what ranges they deal damage. Most of the damage comparisons I've seen in this thread have been between HMLs and sniper ammo, where the DPS difference is quite drastic. However, when using long range weapons with short range, high damage ammo the DPS comparison is far from dramatic. I think that's an appropriate place for HML damage to be - lower than with short range ammo, higher than with sniper ammo. It's not overpowered - it's a middle ground.

I think the range nerf is fine, I see no issues with it. I would be more open to a HML damage nerf if it was well supported, but in my experience HML damage is not anywhere near 20% too high. A 5% or 10% reduction would be drawing a LOT less fire from people, but 20% is rather severe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I've not seen anything remotely resembling extraordinary evidence. Please provide the numbers that you've used to determine that a 20% damage nerf is appropriate.

Has splitting missiles into high damage/short range and long range/low damage ammo been considered? I'm not talking about HML vs HAMs, I'm talking about new ammo types for each. For example, both AC and Arty have high damage/short range and long(er) range/low damage ammo available. Multiple ammo range/damage profiles would make missiles much more similar to guns and would have a less dramatic effect on HML ships as a whole. I was thinking something along the lines of a sniper missile that kept the current HML range but reduced damage by 20%, and a shorter range missile that kept the current damage, but with a 30-40% range reduction. Similar ammo should be available for HAMs and other missile types too, IMO.
Eckyy
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#1805 - 2012-09-20 01:56:20 UTC
Sigras wrote:

1.
This change I would probably go with in addition to the current changes, it makes no sense that HAMs which are short range are harder to fit.

That would be like making it easier to fit beam lasers than pulse.

at any rate, this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered

2.
The HAM bonus is an amaarian thing

3.
this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered, most people dont use the T2 missiles anyway cause theyre utter crap

4.
While this is a good work around, the problem is that it still only effects your ship. What defender missiles really need to do is defend your allies, you should just be able to keep the missile pods cycling and when a missile is launched against anyone youre blue to, and is in range, the defender should auto launch and attack the offending missile.

This would create point defense ships as another role in the fleet, the problem is that the number of calculations this would require would cook the servers.


I don't think it's terribly important that "HAMs are an Amarrian thing", it's not too different from saying "Blasters are a Gallente thing" when blasters work quite well on Caldari ships. However I agree that change #2 probably isn't a good way of handling things.

I would be quite pleased if they fixed defenders but I'm open to other solutions.

Here's what I posted earlier:

Post #1:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944915#post1944915

Post #2:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944918#post1944918

Summary:
Eckyy wrote:
What I propose:
1. Swap HAM and Heavy fittings. This will bring missiles in-line with other weapon systems. Rockets are easier to fit than light missiles, blasters are easier to fit than rails, HAMs should be easier to fit than Heavies. I feel that this is reasonable because close-range ships need additional fitting room for tanking modules, and with medium-sized missiles it's currently bass-ackwards. Various adjustments may need to be made to the ships themselves such as grid or CPU tweaks, but I stand behind this change.

2. Missile disruptors - you already have these in game. If you're going to nerf the damage and range of heavy missiles, please consider the consequences of leaving defenders as they are in PvE. However in PvP, there is currently no real option for missile disruption as, frankly, defenders suck and need addressing. There have been several good proposals so far on this topic, but here's my take: Either fix defenders, or remove them and add in a new missile disruptor module. Give it to Gallente or Minmatar ewar ships. At the very least, if you're set on adding this effect to tracking disruptors, make them require a special script to effect missile ships, perhaps even separate range and explosion velocity scripts. I feel that adding this effect to TDs puts too much ewar power in Amarr ships though (which are already fantastic in their roles), and this is a wonderful opportunity to fix Gallente's weak ewar ships.

3. Look at the ships themselves! Obviously you already are, but consider how terrible all of the other ships in EVE that primarily have to use medium missiles are - ships such as the Caracal and Caldari faction cruisers, the Damnation and Nighthawk, and the Lachesis. Also, consider that there are a lot of ships that have missile hardpoints and spare highslots, and already don't generally opt to use missiles in them - ships like the Rupture, Cyclone, Stabber, Curse, Ferox (it got an extra turret though), Bellicose, Blackbird, Moa, Vagabond, Muninn, and perhaps others I've missed. Even ships like the Lachesis which have a bonus to both hybrids and missiles tend to ignore their missiles. I fear that these hardpoints, which are already overlooked, will become more than useless.

I've noticed (what is to me) a disturbing trend for CCP to tie weapon systems very closely to ships and take away fitting variation - things like giving the Ferox and Moa another hardpoint instead of making missiles actually valuable in its spare highslots. When Minmatar ships were not doing so well, CCP opted to boost autocannons rather than improve supplementary damage systems in their ships. This is obviously a perfectly valid way to improve these ships, but the result is that every cruiser has 5 turrets and every BC has 7 turrets and all of them fit only the weapon systems in their highslots that they're bonused for. Please consider at least trying to make missiles a valid supplementary weapon system.


^ I feel OK with the missile changes overall so long as every other ship that relies on these weapon systems is looked at.
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#1806 - 2012-09-20 02:05:30 UTC
Eckyy wrote:
^ I feel OK with the missile changes overall so long as every other ship that relies on these weapon systems is looked at.


see this is the problem. why doctoring withthe weapon system AND ALL the hulls when you could instead just fix the obvious issues?
aside from that, do you really think CCP will rework ALL caldari hulls just so they fit into their wacky new missile mechanics? no they won't and so the nighthawk&co get shafted even more until it is finally their turn in the tiericide.

I should buy an Ishtar.

ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything.
#1807 - 2012-09-20 02:07:26 UTC
Isaiah Harms wrote:
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:
Missiles have always needed to be looked at and now I feel that they have gotten the love that they deserve.

The TE/TC/TD Bloc has been needed in missile combat for a long time and many nay sayer's don't realize how much this will effect missile combat in general.

The hurricane has also needed to be backhanded like a redheaded stepchild for a very long time and I for one am glad that they are making it apart of the first iteration rather than waiting.

Powerbloc's and alliances will now have to think farther than where's the nearest drake to jump into a fleet with. I for one am very interested to see what the new fleets will be based on. It's good to know that CCP is interested in shaking things up, the stagnation right now is frustrating. I hardly log on anymore because all I see in low/nullsec are the same ships over and over, (not so much anymore, but still annoying that there are so many canes/drakes). I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly. This rebalance is a good thing and I know that I will be playing more often when Winter has come.

CCP Fozzie o7!!!


So we should ruin a GREAT ship because YOU are bored? Instead of being proactive let's go backward and turn the bloody Hurricane into an Omen: Stupid.

Gerrick Palivorn wrote:

I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly.


Hmmm... The problem with your game is you. Not the game. But hey... you "BLLLEEETT" loud enough like all the other sheep the devs will change the sandbox for you.

as opposed to the sheep who think bleating laud enough will make the devs cancel beneficial changes to the game :)
Agent Xena
Doomheim
#1808 - 2012-09-20 02:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Agent Xena
Bravo, Fozzie!! These changes are 100% home run!!!

Cane change is a no-brainer. There is no reason why it should be able to fit full tank, 425s, 2 med neuts, and have grid to spare.

And those who are saying HMLs should not get damage nerf are DEAD WRONG. Their damage is PRECISELY what's wrong with them.

There are a LOT of medium weapons that can shoot past 80k. The issue is that at those ranges, HMLs out damage all of them. Furthermore, even within point range, they usually outdamage all short range weapons as well, if they can stay outside of optimal (which they generally can).

Oh yes, and I do fly a 100mn Tengu so I'm not just a hater...
Shanudar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1809 - 2012-09-20 02:12:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Aliventi wrote:


For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
DPS: 17
Alpha: 242
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24

Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3

This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.





Quoted this one because I'm tired of looking for the original.

lasers, hybrids, and projectiles all share support skills where as missiles require a completely different set of skills, they should be better to a certain extent.
OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#1810 - 2012-09-20 02:12:43 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
OT Smithers wrote:

You'll have the Caracal, but with these changes you will be pushing T1 frigate DPS against stationary non-TD fitted large targets -- less or much less against something smaller or moving. If the idea of an "attack cruiser" pushing 1 hundred DPS against a frigate sounds interesting, then this is the boat for you. If you go with light missiles you will have what looks on paper to be a decent frigate killer, until you realize that you have no drones, no neuts, and no DPS. You'll be able to tickle frigates from range and die to them if they get close. Few people fly these things today -- they certainly won't post nerf.

Caracal proposed changes give it 2 lows which can be used for damage mods or damage application, an ROF bonus instead of a single type damage bonus, a fitting/speed/HP buff and 2 drones at the same time this is happening. It will be an all around better ship than before.


No, it WOULD have been a better ship than before (which is a good thing as almost no one uses them now) prior to this nerf.

The HML Caracal post patch, with perfect skills, is gonna be pushing something like 200 DPS against a large target sitting motionless. Or about half what a good AF pushes out today. Against a frigate, the improved Caracal will do far less. Add in a 20% damage nerf to HM's plus the unknown nerf from TD's (which are going to be everywhere) and you have what left?

People aren't flying the Caracal NOW. With this patch CCP is making every T1 Frigate and Cruiser in the game significantly better than they are today, and the Caracal's man weapon system is getting a nerf.

A Caracal fitting 5 T2 HMLs loaded with faction ammo and 2 T2 BCUs pushes out 210 DPS with all level 5 skills (248 heated) against a stationary large target. This damage is, of course, significantly reduced if the target is smaller, moving quickly, or both. In other words, you probably aren't killing anything with it -- which is why no one uses them. CCP plans to nerf this already pathetic DPS by 20% -- plus add in additional damage reduction in the form of TD's.

Now personally I don't fly Drakes or Caracals so this change doesn't really impact me all that much. But let's not pretend that Faildari pilots aren't once again getting screwed by CCP. Like I said in the previous post, they aught to be used to it by now. If you are a Caldari PvP pilot and you haven't gotten around to training something better, either do so or cancel.

OT Smithers
A Farewell To Kings...
Dock Workers
#1811 - 2012-09-20 02:22:22 UTC
I think the simplest HM balance option is to simply reverse the fitting requirements of HMs and HAMs and nerf the range of HM's by a decent amount. That, and nerf the hell out of the Tengu.

But what I think doesn't matter. The point of all this isn't "balance" anyway, it is to remove HM spam from blob warfare, and the only way to make that happen is to castrate HMs.

I don't really have any problem with this (I fly Minmatar and have never done the alliance blob thing) but I am a bit tired of CCP screwing Caldari missile pilots.
Travis117
Valkyrie Consortium
No Visual.
#1812 - 2012-09-20 02:31:12 UTC
Ima wait and see most likely sell my tengus for a proteus
................................................................
Narcotics Dealer
G U N D A M
#1813 - 2012-09-20 02:31:15 UTC
fully support these changes
damage and range reduction for HM is not too excessive, its appropriate
drake and tengu shouldnt be what they are atm and this brings them inline
anything that nerfs tengu is good
RIP
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1814 - 2012-09-20 02:37:13 UTC
Narcotics Dealer wrote:
anything that nerfs tengu is good

Boy won't you be disappointed.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

XxRTEKxX
256th Shadow Wing
Phantom-Recon
#1815 - 2012-09-20 02:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: XxRTEKxX
Cheap tengu in missions with hml's is pushing 500dps+/- depending on fitting. Much more dps with hams. Problem with hams is range. Chasing targets in a mission to apply damage takes a long time. Instead of neutering hml's, why not buff other weapons and ammo to match? I've always wished a loki or legion or proteus performed like a tengu in missions.

If it comes down to chasing targets in a ham tengu, or **** hml dps in a tengu after nerf, ill just sell the tengu and go back to a rigorraven.

Nerfing for reasons of pvp balance affects pve as well. Nerf the tengu when you finally release a tech 3 battlecruiser or battleship.
RAGE QU1T
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1816 - 2012-09-20 02:52:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rommiee wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone?
We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.


Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ?

That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?


I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.


Opened mind?,I you mean roll out the changes and walk away and off the nerf another mechenic??? I can tell you based on your numbers the nerf is way too high to begin with, you are basing these changes because a large group of individuals are playing in a sandbox and can field the same doctrine and chew threw their target.

Now here's the progression i see moving forward, winter comes and the HM changes are implemented, a certain group individuals will just adapt and change their doctrine to something else, after bout 6 to 12 months some EMO ragin and tears will go on from some unkowns (You know who you are) crying to CCP begging for a nerf because flava of the month is SO called "Overpowered" and it''s killing "Emergent gameplay" or "small gang warfare", Again CCP follows direction and nerfs said mechenic and said individuals adapt to new doctrine again, It's an endless cycle you see......... My question How many nerfs to this game until you make this game unplayable.? discuss


Terik Deatharbingr
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1817 - 2012-09-20 03:01:58 UTC
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Cheap tengu in missions with hml's is pushing 500dps+/- depending on fitting. Much more dps with hams. Problem with hams is range. Chasing targets in a mission to apply damage takes a long time. Instead of neutering hml's, why not buff other weapons and ammo to match? I've always wished a loki or legion or proteus performed like a tengu in missions.

If it comes down to chasing targets in a ham tengu, or **** hml dps in a tengu after nerf, ill just sell the tengu and go back to a rigorraven.

Nerfing for reasons of pvp balance affects pve as well. Nerf the tengu when you finally release a tech 3 battlecruiser or battleship.


That's what I've been saying...alter the other weapons/guns to balance it out.....basically, just give them a little more range....switch the pg requirements of HM's and HAM's.....if you want switch fury to lower dps/ long range and precision to higher dps/shorter range, fine....but everyone is assuming that they hit for full damage everytime....at least with guns, you may not hit full every time, but you've got a chance....with missiles, good or bad, you're going to hit for the same amount everytime whether you're a peeping tom or dry humping their hull.

nerfing the range by 25% and damage by 20%...those numbers are just asinine.

Instead of bashing an entire weapon system making it utterly worthless, espcially considering the alternate weapon system, HAMs, are absolutely utterly worthless....try balancing it

I've got straight tank/dps fits for all 4 T3 cruisers....and honestly, the Tengu is near the bottom in head to head competition on the DPS graphs.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1818 - 2012-09-20 03:08:58 UTC
Quote:
Actually, it's easier for them to read if it's all in one thread. And since there's already a missile thread up, please use that so we don't have an entire front page of just missiles. Feel free to repost what you're written here in that thread. Thank you.

Locked for redundancy.


Well, since they killed my thread that had a good suggest, I guess I'll spam my suggested change until it catches hold and someone notices.

So, with ALL PRECISION MISSILES swap their ranges so that precision becomes long range and fury becomes shorter range.

This is on par with every other weapon system in game.

So, with this change, then the drake and cane would be on par in range and dps when comparing them in a weapon and ammo comparison
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1819 - 2012-09-20 03:25:17 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Quote:
Actually, it's easier for them to read if it's all in one thread. And since there's already a missile thread up, please use that so we don't have an entire front page of just missiles. Feel free to repost what you're written here in that thread. Thank you.

Locked for redundancy.


Well, since they killed my thread that had a good suggest, I guess I'll spam my suggested change until it catches hold and someone notices.

So, with ALL PRECISION MISSILES swap their ranges so that precision becomes long range and fury becomes shorter range.

This is on par with every other weapon system in game.

So, with this change, then the drake and cane would be on par in range and dps when comparing them in a weapon and ammo comparison

Even with this done it's only a tech 2 ammo change. The tech one ammo system on increasing ranges with decreasing DPS still doesn't exist for missiles.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1820 - 2012-09-20 03:26:17 UTC
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
XxRTEKxX wrote:
Cheap tengu in missions with hml's is pushing 500dps+/- depending on fitting. Much more dps with hams. Problem with hams is range. Chasing targets in a mission to apply damage takes a long time. Instead of neutering hml's, why not buff other weapons and ammo to match? I've always wished a loki or legion or proteus performed like a tengu in missions.

If it comes down to chasing targets in a ham tengu, or **** hml dps in a tengu after nerf, ill just sell the tengu and go back to a rigorraven.

Nerfing for reasons of pvp balance affects pve as well. Nerf the tengu when you finally release a tech 3 battlecruiser or battleship.


That's what I've been saying...alter the other weapons/guns to balance it out.....basically, just give them a little more range....switch the pg requirements of HM's and HAM's.....if you want switch fury to lower dps/ long range and precision to higher dps/shorter range, fine....but everyone is assuming that they hit for full damage everytime....at least with guns, you may not hit full every time, but you've got a chance....with missiles, good or bad, you're going to hit for the same amount everytime whether you're a peeping tom or dry humping their hull.

nerfing the range by 25% and damage by 20%...those numbers are just asinine.

Instead of bashing an entire weapon system making it utterly worthless, espcially considering the alternate weapon system, HAMs, are absolutely utterly worthless....try balancing it

I've got straight tank/dps fits for all 4 T3 cruisers....and honestly, the Tengu is near the bottom in head to head competition on the DPS graphs.


This is wrong.

Missiles do not always hit targets for the same damage.

I will hit a stationary target harder than a moving target and I'll hit an approaching target harder than I'll hit an orbiting target.
Also, they'll hit a wmd battleship harder than a bs with no prop mod, and them less so than an afterburner bs.
Now, they'll hit a frig, but less so a frig with an afterburner, and no chance of hitting a mwd frig in orbit.

So, anyone who says missiles always hit for the same damage has either never used missiles, has no clue what they're talking about, or are making things up just to ensure a missile nerf