These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Heavy Missles Now Useless

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Radhe Amatin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-03-01 08:50:59 UTC
heavy missiles are fine as they are..... they are more inline with the other long range weapon systems now...... the problem of the OP is involving the heavy missiles on a drake......

The post rebalance drake is not as good as the pre one for one reason.... i gets that massive 10% kinetic dmg per level... for a total of 50% at lvl 5..... that forces players to use only kinetic dmg making it useless in pve because u are stuck with guristas rats and for pvp because u know what to expect from a drake to dish out.

To fix the problem ccp need to rethink the bonuses for the drake and any other missile boat that get massive kinetic boost.

Something like 10% to kinetic damage and 5% to em,thermal and explosive dmg per level(same bonus priceple as a hoobkill )
Or remove the dmg bonus and add a 7.5% rate of fire per level ..... or 5% rate of fire.Witch one will keep around the same dps it has with kinetic now.

And saying Fury missiles do crap dmg.....they are supposed to..... the intended use for furys is to boost dmg vs larger targets. Hence the bigger explosion radius and lower explosion velocity.
Scourge fury heavy missile = 241 m explosion radius and 68 explosion velocity no skills.... this will hit BC and BS at max dmg, because the difference in missile exp radius vs ships sig radius will compensate for the target speed.
Scourge fury heavy missiles = 175 m explosion radius and 102 explosion velocity with guided missile precision lvl 5 and Target navigation prediction lvl 5.... and no implants... that will hit all bc bs for full dmg regardless of it using an ab or not.... no point adding mwd to discussion.for signature radius reasons.
Javelins:
Now javelins might need some tweaks to be better at what they are supposed to do:
Caldari navy scourge heavy missile = with maxed missile skills we get 101 explsion radius and 122 explosion velocity.
Scourge precision heavy missile = with maxed missile skills we get 91 explosion radius and 145 explosion velocity....
The tweak part should be incresing explosion velocity and decreasing explosion radius for precision missiles and also decrease dmg output.

So HM works as intended javelins for destroyer and frigs (if they balance the stats for them to actual apply better dmg to those) t1/faction missiles for cruisers/bc and furys for bc/bs.
So in conclusion CCp actually did a nice job with HM rebalance but they screwed up the battle cruiser rebalance.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2013-03-01 10:22:38 UTC
Sure in eft it seems balanced , but then HML-s are not insta hit weapons , which has a huge impact especially at sniping ranges, nobody uses the long range guns for dps but alpha down 1 enemy at a time, missiles crap at this.

Heavy missiles loose about 30% dmg vs cruiser sized ships, look at the graph fe a thorax moves 240mps easily and 120m sig radius,missile dmg is reduced to 70% this is without AB.
Arties dont loose that much at all 15km+ range and if target is closer you are doing it wrong anyway.
With AB the missiles will do about 30-40% dmg only even precision missiles loose more than 50% dmg .... they definetly needs a boost to hit fast/small targets, while arties loose about 50% and this doesnt take into account if the target is not orbiting , where turret dmg can potentially do full dmg ,even if the target is moving, missiles cant do that .

So while HML dmg and range got balanced vs med long range turrets , their delayed dmg is still there , and their dmg reduction is just way larger than turrets. The only advantage hml has it if the target is orbiting at close range , but why would you fight at that range anyway with long range weapons and fit?

In short HM should have better explosion velocity especially the precision type.
30% more to explsion velocity and -10% explsion radius for the precision missile is needed. They hardly do their job at all.
Doing 10% more dmg than caldary navy missile vs small target doesnt rly worth the reload time.
Yeah turrets have no precision ammo other than the med range projectile ones , but they have longer range ammo on the other hand.
Mister Tuggles
Dickhead Corner
#63 - 2013-03-01 10:37:20 UTC
Steel Roamer wrote:


But CCP won't nerf any Minmatar Ship. That requires thinking and not sitting in the laps of nullsec power-block CEO's.



Rifter, Slasher, and the Cane have been bent over in the prison shower and rapped horribly. They are now near the bottom of the pile.


Back on topic: HM's needed a nerf. They were mid range weapons that were doing near full dps at long ranges. Yes, the Tengu did allow you to reach out over 100km, but the Drake wasn't far behind that range. You guys are all just annoyed because it had been like this for years. Get used to it, and either train a new weapon system, or stop playing.
Radhe Amatin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2013-03-01 11:15:35 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Sure in eft it seems balanced , but then HML-s are not insta hit weapons , which has a huge impact especially at sniping ranges, nobody uses the long range guns for dps but alpha down 1 enemy at a time, missiles crap at this.

Heavy missiles loose about 30% dmg vs cruiser sized ships, look at the graph fe a thorax moves 240mps easily and 120m sig radius,missile dmg is reduced to 70% this is without AB.
Arties dont loose that much at all 15km+ range and if target is closer you are doing it wrong anyway.
With AB the missiles will do about 30-40% dmg only even precision missiles loose more than 50% dmg .... they definetly needs a boost to hit fast/small targets, while arties loose about 50% and this doesnt take into account if the target is not orbiting , where turret dmg can potentially do full dmg ,even if the target is moving, missiles cant do that .

So while HML dmg and range got balanced vs med long range turrets , their delayed dmg is still there , and their dmg reduction is just way larger than turrets. The only advantage hml has it if the target is orbiting at close range , but why would you fight at that range anyway with long range weapons and fit?

In short HM should have better explosion velocity especially the precision type.
30% more to explsion velocity and -10% explsion radius for the precision missile is needed. They hardly do their job at all.
Doing 10% more dmg than caldary navy missile vs small target doesnt rly worth the reload time.
Yeah turrets have no precision ammo other than the med range projectile ones , but they have longer range ammo on the other hand.


i agree...... t1 missiles should have an explosive velocity to match cruisers speed and the sig radius for it...after all they were designed to be used against cruisers... having a maxed out velocity of half of a cruiser base speed is bull****....same goes for precision missiles having their the explosion radius twice as big as a frig and a 3rd of its velocity again bull****.

I personally think this explosion velocity thing is a useless stat....i say remove it in replace it with missile tracking ability...meaning a missile has to fly to a target, navigating through space that means it has to turn at some point to fallow its target... if the missiles had an agility factor that it will act like tracking for turrets, meaning if a target has a high tansversal speed and the missile agility is lower then that it will result in missile not being able to fallow the target and miss(just like turrets, it happens in real life).With this it will solve the dmg penalty for hitting at long ranges since u cant put enough transversal to avoid the missiles and it will solve the always hit in close range.

I mean em missiles generate a EMP on impact, emp travels as fast as light speed.... so there's no way u can out run that in sub light speeds.
Kinetic missiles are basically solid piercing rounds or graviton implosion that will direct all its kinetic energy in one direction at very high speeds for maximum dmg.the only way to avoid taking dmg its to avoid the warhead.
Thermal missile have a shaped charge plasma warhead that directs all of that plasma in one direction to melt everything in its path.
Explosion missile as i understand are nuclear warheads.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#65 - 2013-03-01 11:43:48 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Sure in eft it seems balanced , but then HML-s are not insta hit weapons , which has a huge impact especially at sniping ranges, nobody uses the long range guns for dps but alpha down 1 enemy at a time, missiles crap at this.

Heavy missiles loose about 30% dmg vs cruiser sized ships, look at the graph fe a thorax moves 240mps easily and 120m sig radius,missile dmg is reduced to 70% this is without AB.
Arties dont loose that much at all 15km+ range and if target is closer you are doing it wrong anyway.
With AB the missiles will do about 30-40% dmg only even precision missiles loose more than 50% dmg .... they definetly needs a boost to hit fast/small targets, while arties loose about 50% and this doesnt take into account if the target is not orbiting , where turret dmg can potentially do full dmg ,even if the target is moving, missiles cant do that .

So while HML dmg and range got balanced vs med long range turrets , their delayed dmg is still there , and their dmg reduction is just way larger than turrets. The only advantage hml has it if the target is orbiting at close range , but why would you fight at that range anyway with long range weapons and fit?

In short HM should have better explosion velocity especially the precision type.
30% more to explsion velocity and -10% explsion radius for the precision missile is needed. They hardly do their job at all.
Doing 10% more dmg than caldary navy missile vs small target doesnt rly worth the reload time.
Yeah turrets have no precision ammo other than the med range projectile ones , but they have longer range ammo on the other hand.


The issue here is that turret ships can easily fit for improved tracking or range, but missile ships can't do either.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Noisrevbus
#66 - 2013-03-01 12:59:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
These threads are so amusing considering these were the predicted results from the :CCP: of missiles.

That they needed to adress the point-and-shoot nature of HML in large-scale fleet fights was obvious.

That they had no clue on how to do it, so they decided to do a bit of everything, or ...

That most of the playerbase didn't know what the problem was so they were happy with any change without thinking about causality and new issues errupting.

That is sniggeredly amusing.


The reason:

There was indeed a problem with more Drakes fighting less ships of anything, supported by lynchpins.

The thing is, that there was never any problem with HML.

The problem stems from the Damp and ECM nerfs. While those systems may have needed adjustments in some regard, the "nerfs" applied were done without regard to the larger picture: such as how they affected Missiles, or LR weapons as a whole (which HML is apart of), or lower-accuracy weapons (which LR is apart of) overall.

When sensor-based electronic warfare was nerfed, all other forms of electronic warfare lost their counter and became increasingly more powerful, most notably: Stasis webifiers.

Today we take the application of Webs on basicly anything within a 100km sphere as something natural. It's granted.

That on the other hand is why HML soared in popularity: because it, as any guided missile, was a system designed with high potential damage (reach, damage, volley) but low application of damage (travel time, accuracy etc.).

If we assume that it's natural that any target pointed can/should also be webbed, then the drawbacks of those weapon systems are obscured and it may seem as if they are overpowered, because the logic they rest upon is disrupted.


In short:
ECM -> Webs <- HML

The same goes on a broader scale:
ECM/Damp -> Webs/Point/Scram/Neut -> Blap (ie., any low-application weapon system).

This means that HML was not the only trend that came out of those changes: so was Sentries (Slowcats et. al.), Alpha maels (or LR-BS in general), Tracking- Dreads and Titans and so forth. Essentially, everything that is considered (too-) good today, within the same element that HML was considered good.

They are all results of counters being removed while LR Webs (Point and Logi) being applied with relative impunity.

Few other things have done so much to provide advantages to a numerical superior force that just have to sit and push off.

In terms of tactics, there is little difference between:
Drakes + Scimi + Lach + Huginn + Vulture + Claymore + Bubbles.
and
Trackdreads + Slowcats + Proteus + Loki + (Titan-) Bonuses + Bubbles.

The reason Neuts or Scrams have not soared to higher popularity (and instead lost out in the long run) is quite simply because it's difficult to get them up to contending ranges with Webs (and Points). No one flies a Curse at 40km anymore when a Huginn can web him at 60km+ and his friends with 60km+ weapons can volley the Curse. Amusingly enough, that is also the same reason why ECM is not longer a feasible counter to Webs and Logis either - since it operates within their sphere of effect - they are literally shorter ranged than the most powerful range-control and accuracy modifier in the game as well as the most frequently used RR-concepts (allowing RR to be in reach of ships that sit ontop of you, and thus extend their tackle-repair sphere of projection). All of this serves "the blob", and subsiding key elements to lynchpins while pouring on numbers ontop, arbitrarily.

This is also why Damps were never as bad off as some misguided grunts on the forums would exclaim, because at 45+90 they could cut down many range-sensitive effects to a level that could be exploited. The general populce of EVE was just too stupid to capitalize on it Blink.


Secondly, as always, pricing and goalposts:

The second issue is of course the overall cost-effect of the BC class and any cost-effect of other classes that will just continue to provide numerical advantages on a general level. The thing that has in common with HML is that most of the playerbase is still simply blind to it because they can't think further ahead than the extent of their own bias. On one hand they fly Tech I Cruisers, on the other hand they whine about "blobs" without realizing that the Tech I ships are the enablers of "blobbing".

So that's where the amusing bit comes in, because all this senseless whining and effort spent on rebalancing everything on every known factor could have been solved by properly balancing EW and the cost-effect of BC.

Instead we have an array of changes to almost every ship class and weapon system today, and it's all done in a seemingly incomprehensible and chaotic manner. I'm not saying that some changes won't be good. Cruisers are arguably more in line with BC today, but at the same time we get more powerful low-cost ships that will make sure that while the balance between Tech I subcaps is better the overall balance of the game suffers (balance of scales, balance of numbers, balance of tech-levels, balance of economy, balance of multiple-hop classes).

The chaos stems from the fact that no one want to give up their own free ships and high-control offensive (allowing us to kill ships more easily than it is for them to escape). It doesn't matter if you are in a 100 man nullsec coalition fleet or a 10 man lowsec roaming gang - both playergroups are just as spoiled and mindless.

Everything that restores catch-escape balance is also singled out and complained about by the unwashed masses, wether that is oversized afterburners or cloaky ships: the few things left in the game that break the notion of having more ships that can sit still and apply LR tackle + volleys as the answer to every concievable tactic and expenditure.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-03-01 13:10:19 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The issue here is that turret ships can easily fit for improved tracking or range, but missile ships can't do either.


That's true and was one of the reasons I was looking forward to TC/TE affecting them. However, given the state of TD facing Sanshas right now, I'm also kinda happy it didn't go through, because I can fully see light missiles having the explosion radius of torpedos there :p
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#68 - 2013-03-02 02:00:22 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
These threads are so amusing....
Because condescending posts with a forum-alt while stroking one's neck-beard is always a good idea... Roll

While RSD/ECM nerfs were indeed heavy-handed, I think you are giving short shrift to other changes that slowly increased the popularity of HMLs - such as the speed nerf, and change to the missile "tracking" formula so it factors sig radius more heavily than speed, and people slowly realizing both facts. Also the changes to artillery alpha had alot more to do with the popularity of Maels than RSD/ECM nerfs ever did. I believe there are more changes than merely sensor-warfare that have had a significant effect on the game. But if want to cling to EW as a cure-all, then by all means.
Noisrevbus
#69 - 2013-03-02 03:28:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Noisrevbus wrote:
These threads are so amusing....
Because condescending posts with a forum-alt while stroking one's neck-beard is always a good idea... Roll

While RSD/ECM nerfs were indeed heavy-handed, I think you are giving short shrift to other changes that slowly increased the popularity of HMLs - such as the speed nerf, and change to the missile "tracking" formula so it factors sig radius more heavily than speed, and people slowly realizing both facts. Also the changes to artillery alpha had alot more to do with the popularity of Maels than RSD/ECM nerfs ever did. I believe there are more changes than merely sensor-warfare that have had a significant effect on the game. But if want to cling to EW as a cure-all, then by all means.


I guess you know all about condescending posts, it's a shame it doesn't appear to translate into ingame experience.

The speed nerf (assuming you refer to the nano nerf) or the accuracy changes actually had very little to do with the profileration of HML. Quite the opposite really, as both were detrimental to HML (missiles were quite favourable under ludicrous speed, and while todays tracking mechanics take more note of signatures and that speaks against Webs, it doesn't speak for HML). That is of course if we look beyond the fact that neither changed the momentum much in it's respective time or day - you could argue time of adaption, but it only really takes second-rate groups time to adapt.

Also, i did not specificly say that the ECM nerf gave life to Maels, you infer too much there. The ECM nerf gave life to nigh uncounterable Webs and they in turn promote buffer-projection tactics, which in it's turn promote RR and "blap" (also as the premier counter to RR, since other counters have been effectively neutered by the obscurity of Webs). If you actually read the post you were barking over, you'd notice that i made a point of arguing that HML suffered the same issues as any Blap - Maels included - though Maels were only just a tangent in the line of examples so it's baffling that you single it out to attempt some form of ridicule. It would be more newsworthy to pick up and tie it to the "Slowcats are OP" cries over on the news sites. Sentries are BS-sig guns that sit still. Think about that for a second.

Maels grew popular because the Goons realized they could transplate PL's alpha tactics from Munnins and later Machariels onto a more affordable hull, but that's another story altogether.

Then of course, there have been more changes that have impacted the popularity of HML. The cost-effect of BC is more notable than anything else. In the micro of tactics however, the malbalance of EW and poor solutions to EW changes are glaring quite bright and red at the moment. Especially since adjusting that would involve "soft changes" instead of tearing the balance up from the roots while gardening blindly.

If you think my posts are condescending, try reading the array of "Slowcats are OP", "XL guns are OP", "Missiles are OP", "TD's are OP" and whatever else is out there. Hopefully you'll finally reach the conclusion that the common denominator for all of that is EW support without balanced countermeasures. Does that mean "Webs are OP"? Not really, it just means that stupid people are shitting up the game because they don't realize that there's causality and no change ever only affect the direct and immidiate thing you aim to fix when you cry out about "something being OP".

It's difficult not getting condescending then, because this thread is already full of such suggested non-solutions.

At the end of the day, restoring the tactical balance of EW and the financial balance of ship classes are just two of the best solutions since they have low workload, few implementation issues, many positive bi-effects with few negative ripples and little to no targeted changes that would obscure other specific gameplay. It doesn't disqualify existing use, it just provide alternatives.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#70 - 2013-03-02 12:58:51 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
The speed nerf (assuming you refer to the nano nerf) or the accuracy changes actually had very little to do with the profileration of HML. Quite the opposite really, as both were detrimental to HML (missiles were quite favourable under ludicrous speed...
Yeah... ummm... no. You're just plain wrong on that. It doesn't invalidate the rest of your argument, but it certainly does not bode well.

And you keep on going on about these 90km webs. Effective? Yes. Lynchpin of everything and the only thing that make/made arties and HMLs effective? No. Not quite. It helps them out, yes. But Mael/Tornado fleets will still blap BCs+ just fine without super webs. And Drakes were still plenty effective without super Rapiers/Huggins/Lokis in tow. Hell, we used have 90% webs that reached out that far, but we didn't see HML/Arty fleets blotting out the sun back then. Oh right... because the RSDs and ECM kept them in check.... Yeah.

Not quite sure what part of EvE you are flying around in to come to your conclusions. Is it possible you aren't even playing the same game, and are posting in the wrong forums? (Condescension is fun!)
Noisrevbus
#71 - 2013-03-02 14:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Yeah... ummm... no. You're just plain wrong on that.

It's difficult to derive any discussion from that sentence, but i have a feeling you're not looking at it from a point of relativity. Missiles were among the strongest systems in the nano era. Was that because they hit everything at high speeds incredibly well? No, but they generally hit better than Turrets and were as such a relatively stronger system.

Missile boats like the Phoon and drone boats like Domis were extremely popular nano-ships. I'm not saying missiles did more damage then, but relatively speaking they were doing very well in that environment. The same goes for the accuracy discussion. HML and it's respective platforms were already popular and had been so for a good year or two. If anything, the accuracy changes bred new life into various sig, or sig-speed, concepts that did very well against HML within any reasonable numbers. I know, because i flew both in- and against many of the gangs that pioneered those concepts, and i did so even before the changes.

Quote:
And you keep on going on about these 90km webs. Effective? Yes. Lynchpin of everything and the only thing that make/made arties and HMLs effective? No. Not quite. It helps them out, yes. But Mael/Tornado fleets will still blap BCs+ just fine without super webs.

Hm, this segment is a bit entangled. I think we need to begin with defining the terminology. In my book "Blap" simply means shooting with an oversized weapon at an undersized signature. Thus, the example of BS guns vs. BC and up is a somewhat missmatched example.

You are also still very focused on the Arties, and while that is a reasonable example, even within that example there's a quite notable difference between the two ships you bring up. I don't know if you meant to equate them, or if it's just a question of bundling them up for ease of overview, but it should be noted: assuming we are talking about "Blapping"... that there's a quite important difference between Maels and Nados in the hands of an experienced group when it comes to the necessity of Webs or not.

At the end of the day, the issue with "Blap" first begin to manifest itself when you consider XL-guns vs. L-sig and down or L-guns vs. M-sig and down. The fact that defensive use of EW trail behind offensive use of EW, especially within the idea of "Blap" is what enables it.

So how does that pertain to HML? The system was always balanced as a low-accuracy system within a low-accuracy class. It needs to be said again, that was it's balance. Run calcs on anything from fairly quick ships of size +/- 0 to size -X and you'll realize that most of them have hefty reductions to HML damage. I'm not talking some reduction, I'm talking 50% figures both on AB and MWD even for respective signatures. Nevermind actual "Blap".


  • This leaves us with the onset that HML were never overpowered.
  • Without application of EW their applied damage is far from their paper DPS.
  • Drakes were overpowered in terms of the cost-efficiency as a BC. Nothing else.
  • Tengus were never overpowered, and that is also easy to see by simply looking at how good groups countered them.


A group like PL ran 10mn Tengus for years before other groups at that scale caught on. What happened when other groups ran Tengus against PL? Did it help them when they upgraded to 100mn? No.

How did RnK's Tech III AHACs fare against more experienced groups that understood how to deal with transversal? They didn't, and for quite a long time during their rise to prominence RnK simply did not field the sig-speed concepts.

The percieved problems of these two ships or the weapon system they utilized was simply that the vast majority of the game didn't know how to counter it, and didn't catch on until said counters had been popularized behind the curve. Those counters are what reign supreme today.

That leaves us with the question of today: considering the amount of popular counters to Missiles at all scales, was the nerf really necessary? Or did CCP decide to nerf the performance of the Missiles as a surrogate to nerfing the cost-effect of BC and malbalance of defensive-to-offensive EWar? While simultainously reinforcing the real problem by introducing BC3 and improving Tech I Cruisers while considering to meddle even more with EWar and tracking?

The point in there somewhere is that they are poking at the wrong things and continue to create new problems - which is the reason this thread exists, because i can sympathize with Missile users now that their advantages have been slated out while the disadvantages the unwashed masses didn't pay attention to persist.

Another thing to note is that despite certain other concepts already being relatively strong (such as Sentries) CCP have improved on them and continued to do so throughout all this time. It's been well over a year now since i began implying people should look at the performance of Sentries (before DDamps) while they were complaining about Gallente (in early 2012). Only now do we see complaints about Slowcats.

It's the result of designing per popularity rather than potence. You create malbalance. There was no need to introduce DDamps, but appearantly not enough people had caught on how good Sentries already were and now we have DDamps, DCA II's and improved AI/UI ontop on something that was already quite powerful. Not to say that the AI/UI changes were not good for the game, but you should get what i'm leaning at here. In 2010 Sentries were proven potent, in 2011 some people would argue that Sentries met the budding meta very well, in 2012 that began to profile very strongly and in 2013 it's considered a problem.

In that very same sweep i argued for Damps as well. What do you see trending among many forward-paving groups today? Indeed, Damps. It's been over a year though.

Quote:
(Condescension is fun!)
Blink
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#72 - 2013-03-03 02:12:07 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
It's difficult to derive any discussion from that sentence, but i have a feeling you're not looking at it from a point of relativity. Missiles were among the strongest systems in the nano era. Was that because they hit everything at high speeds incredibly well? No, but they generally hit better than Turrets and were as such a relatively stronger system.
....Wut?!! The only thing missiles had going for them was that they almost always hit (some stuff was just too fast). Which is great, except for the fact that a MWD significantly reduced the damage you took from missiles. So they might hit more than a gun did, but your damage was so incredibly reduced that it couldn't even break shield regen. With turrets you could at least get the random wrecking shot thanks to the messed up formula back then. Compare that to now, where missiles will actually reliably catch targets, and do damage highly skewed towards sig radius rather than speed. Even after the recent nerf they are still a hell of alot better off now. Missiles back then weren't even good in comparison to the rest of the game environment. Because there was only one weapon system to compare things to - the blaster. Everything about the game then required you to get a 90% web on your target. And if you could do that, you could apply blasters. Which were a hell of alot more effective than missiles ever were. So I don't see how you can possibly think missiles were better off then. Perhaps if I too were a beard-stroking forum-alt I could achieve your level of delusional enlightenment.

Noisrevbus wrote:
I shall now entirely ignore my 90km Web argument and instead begin to argue what "is" means, and then begin to pontificate about the evolution of the meta.
Great. You go ahead and do that. When you want to address the points you made earlier, you let us know. Blink
Noisrevbus
#73 - 2013-03-03 03:44:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Perhaps if I too were a beard-stroking forum-alt...

When you want to address the points you made earlier, you let "us" know.

You mean to imply that you are not an alt?

The points still stand, feel free to adress them:

  • HML were never OP, they were/are a system balanced around low application.
  • All LR weapons are low-application systems, this include: HML, Arty and Sentries.
  • Offensive EW provide any low-application weapon system with means to overcome their disadvantages.
  • Offensive use of EW have thrived as countering defensive use of EW have been stomped out by onedimensional nerfs.
  • On the tactical side of the game, this is one of the most notable reasons as to why buffer-projection is so popular.
  • This is also one of the most important factors making "Blap" (ie., shooting undersized signatures) as powerful as it is.


  • HML didn't need the nerfs (firing them on Cruiser hulls, both AB and MWD, yield results far from paper damage).
  • Sentries, Dreads/XL-guns or similar do not need further tracking nerfs either.
  • They are fine if we don't assume Webs and Paints with impunity.
  • Oversized propmods are also fine and does not need to be nerfed away from the game.
  • The accuracy mechanics does not need to be rewritten again.
  • Missiles do not need be further tangled up with TC/TE and TD.
  • TD does not need to be nerfed or buffed nore do Neuts.
  • Webs or Painters don't need to be nerfed or buffed either, they are not the problem.
  • Points and Scrams are also largely fine.


What needs to be done is EW not getting further poorly thought-through changes, instead, possibly being looked at as a whole to determine it's role as a class of systems and how they affect other balance (such as weapon accuracy). However, the most important thing to be done is the absolute slaughter of gamebreakingly cheap ships.

Keep doing your smoke and mirrors dance all you like, but i'd rather see you contributing some arguments instead of just grunting at mine and posturing, while pressing your back against the wall and firmly grappling the safety railing. Spend more time building your own arguments instead of putting on some drama performance over my lines.

Ps. In the nano era you didn't need to apply 90% webs from 10km if you could zap your target dry with 25km NOS and knock out his MWD while you kept yours running, as Missile accuracy was not dependent on the motion of release. You know, that module that went into the Phoons and Domis utility highs; which is why the good groups used those ships. The whole point of nano was not having to commit to a slugfest, like one with Blaster ships under webs. Is this where i return a snark comment dressed in blob-coalition lingo? Hurr durr neckburr.
Songbird
#74 - 2013-03-03 03:57:07 UTC
So I didn't read through the 4 pages of posts but again: how many tengus do you see that use hybrids? Blasters were buffed , rails got their pg reduced, and all hybrids got their reload time reduced, also as they're turrets they can use TC, TE , hit instantly and arguably rails are some of the longest range turrets. OTOH missiles got nerfed, less range, less damage, w/e. Yet no one seems to want to go the hybrid tengu path. The whole thread is invalid since even though heavy missiles were nerfed they're still better than rails
Noisrevbus
#75 - 2013-03-03 14:30:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Songbird wrote:
So I didn't read through the 4 pages of posts but again: how many tengus do you see that use hybrids? Blasters were buffed , rails got their pg reduced, and all hybrids got their reload time reduced, also as they're turrets they can use TC, TE , hit instantly and arguably rails are some of the longest range turrets. OTOH missiles got nerfed, less range, less damage, w/e. Yet no one seems to want to go the hybrid tengu path. The whole thread is invalid since even though heavy missiles were nerfed they're still better than rails


How many other ships do you see that use medium hybrids?

That's the route your logic seem to take, and if this game was crawling with Eagles, Deimos and Astartes while Tengus were profiling with HML then it would also hold some bearing. Assuming something must become good simply because it's changed, or become popular just because it's gets potential is a slumped logic though.

The reason that you don't see more Rail Tengus is quite simply that no larger fleets have picked them up yet. In fact, they are not terrible ships in that element - but they do not have the tactical appeal of Lokis that seem to rule the roost at the moment. That doesn't mean that missiles would be favourable in that environment though, they are not profiling.

It's more a question of how the Rails fare, compared to other turrets, larger Rails (Naga, Rokh; and to segway that back to the earlier discussion, using larger guns to blap down is still quite appealing), and within the tactical application of things. Is there some scenario where you'd trade raw/supported output or alpha for better reach with lower dependency and higher application? Then that's where it would be appealing to use eg., Rails.

With blasters it suffers the same questions as the Eagle. Why use it over other blaster options? Gallente are just better equipped to deal with the extreme nature of the weapon system, with it's higher output and more abundant utility and tank-type that free up active midslots. Then again, how many high-cost brawling Cruisers do you see in total?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#76 - 2013-03-03 15:02:09 UTC
So a weapon system that dis almost twice as much damage at much longer ranges than it's equivalents, but had no drawbacks whatsoever was somehow not OP?

HMLs we're not nerfed. They were brought in line with other medium LR turrets. Whether they are all **** is another discussion.

Also, a Celestis (that is a T1 cruiser) with all Vs and a Proteus booster damps 78% lock range with a single damp, from 100+100km. Damping was buffed, so your only sensible point Noisrevbus was that people are stupid.



.
Noisrevbus
#77 - 2013-03-03 15:44:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Roime wrote:
So a weapon system that dis almost twice as much damage at much longer ranges than it's equivalents, but had no drawbacks whatsoever was somehow not OP?


We have all these talks and slurs left and right about paper damage and "EFT". People just love to sling the words around, but when it comes to interpreting scenarios of use even the most simple consideration often seem to be overlooked.

Take your everyday Caracal, put an MWD on it, find yourself a booster and click your heat button and you'll realize that you have affected your sig-speed relative. Not only that, but the top speed of your MWD will also have affected the missile damage in various ways. You won't do full damage to yourself and there are other drawbacks that stupid people overlook.

Next, take your every day Caracal, put an AB on it, and already there you'd realize that you have affected your sig-speed relative. Then you have all other options left ontop of that.

Those are extremely simplistic examples. They don't go into detail and should be easy to understand.

Missiles won't hit you better regardless of who have bonuses, uses heat or runs their propmod etc.

If you can't get this into your perspective on things, then you are among the stupid people.

The appliable output of HML to other LR systems (such as Rails, as with the Tengu-example above) was as such already similar. That of course assumes that we consider an MWD or AB standard while we do not consider the application of a Web or Painter standard. Then we have finally completed a circle, because we are back to my original argument that we these days somehow seem to imply that a webbed (or immobilized) target is a natural occurence rather than a micro-battle of EW over who gains superiority on a grid.

A smaller gang of smaller, speedier, ships does not counter (more-) Webs with (less-) Webs: It's not in their interest.

Worse yet, is if we somehow rebalance weapon systems based on the notion that it's natural to always sit still as either the attacker or target. If somone assume that, then i understand why they'd assume the accuracy equations are bad or why they would want to introduce a number of stupid changes from TD to Sentries. Then again, I just write them off as stupid people who do not understand transversal (the relative shifts in speed and distance between attacker and defender) and want to change the game because of that.

As most players today are brough up in an environment where transversal play a very little role (large fleets, low-mobility ships, anchoring, high access to tackle-support etc.), I can also understand why they tend to overlook transversal - but that doesn't mean we should change the game to accomodate them.

Turrets on the other hand are balanced around the idea that your own flying can either mitigate or execerbate (+/-) the flying of an opponent. This is why speed-superiority is a strong factor among turret ships, since control over speed also assumes a relative control over both your own accuracy and your target's accuracy.

Now, if we somehow assume that missiles should be nerfed because there is a possibility of going full etard with turrets and ruining your own accuracy twice as much - then we are also pandering to idiots. It's not a disadvantage in the system that you can screw yourself over, but it is an advantage that you can overcome sig-speed relatives through your own flying. That advantage, among other things, is why you can't compare paper damage of HML to that of Rails, for example.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#78 - 2013-03-03 15:54:56 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
Roime wrote:
So a weapon system that dis almost twice as much damage at much longer ranges than it's equivalents, but had no drawbacks whatsoever was somehow not OP?


We have all these talks and slurs left and right about paper damage and "EFT". People just love to sling the words around, but when it comes to interpreting scenarios of use even the most simple consideration often seem to be overlooked.


HML damage against battlecruiser:

100% with MWD on because of sig bloom
100% with MWD off because of speed (or rather lack of it)

Yes, smaller ships and ABs will reduce missile damage, just like it does turret damage and this is nothing new to anyone.


.
Noisrevbus
#79 - 2013-03-03 16:10:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Roime wrote:

HML damage against battlecruiser:

100% with MWD on because of sig bloom
100% with MWD off because of speed (or rather lack of it)

Yes, smaller ships and ABs will reduce missile damage, just like it does turret damage and this is nothing new to anyone.


Indeed, but what is the Battlecruiser class?

It's an intermediate size between BS and Cruisers that uses Cruiser weapons. It's just a poor comparison, same as when some other poster made it a couple of posts back in this very thread. That hasn't changed.

HML is not a BC weapon system, it's a Cruiser weapon system (that BC happen to use, as well).

You could equally take a BS and point out that HML will do full damage to them, as that too, is a larger class of ship.

You could also take a Raven and point out that it has a good damage output on capitals. Some groups have even capitalized on that when using Torp-platforms as Capital-welp concepts.


Is that good in general though?
Was HML extremely powerful against good groups in Battleships? Heh, not really.

Turrets on the other hand function in the opposite, which is much more powerful, in that they retain damage better down in classes than up. They can Blap.

Was missiles (shooting up) somehow better in general than turrets (blapping down) prior to these HML-changes? The good groups in this game have never really stopped utilizing their understanding of accuracy. They were already using Slowcats, Trackdreads, Baddons, Maels and the like.

I've already used this example in this thread: PL had immense success with their "Thundercats" for almost two years, fighting people sitting still without a conceptual idea of transversal. What happened when it popularized and was used against PL? To mirror it at smaller scales i also gave you an example of RnK a few posts back.

So you more or less just confirmed that missiles do not have equal accuracy on it's respective class or size, while having the ability to apply their full potential damage while shooting up and losing out even more when shooting down.

AB's do not even reduce turret damage, that is only if you are stupid and sit still. If your target have an AB you can even have an MWD sig bloom all you like because that doesn't change your accuracy on him. Your superior speed will overtake his transversal and the amount his AB mitigates will be nothing.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Webs on the other hand makes sure that stupid people don't have to move their ships or mind transversal as much.

It makes shooting HML on smaller ships much more powerful and it makes sitting still with Large turrets much more powerful. So why do you think so many fleets sit still and fire LR-weapons at each other?


On top of all of this is what i mentioned in the last post:

What happens to the BC's missile damage upon itself when you apply heat and bonuses? I haven't run the exact details of the calc in a long time, but i have a faint recollection that even a Drake wouldn't do full missile damage to itself under heat and bonuses, and that's the BC (a size up) with the worst sig-speed base relative.

Where is the problem, or rather, where is the overall problem for Turrets in that scenario that would lead you to nerf both damage, range and accuracy of HML? P

As always, these changes are a poor surrogate to fixing the cost-efficiency of Tech I subcaps. It's identifying a problem, blaming it on the wrong thing and then continuing to cause ripples as you let the real problem(s) persist.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#80 - 2013-03-03 16:38:32 UTC
Idk how you can disregard BC class in HML nerf discussion.

Anyway, the reasons for rebalance were not relative, or spanning over ship classes- HMLs were simply superior in every way to their turret counterparts. Will they become under/unused now like medium beams and rails? Possibly, but then the whole weapon class needs to be reviewed.

Btw do you think medium lr turrets hit cruisers well?

.