These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Heavy Missile Rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenshae Chiroptera
#21 - 2015-07-11 01:04:56 UTC
Reddit, form Voltron!

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Mario Putzo
#22 - 2015-07-11 01:14:35 UTC
Heck even reverting the +12% increase to HM Explosion Radius would be a good start...and better than a 5% Flat Damage buff.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#23 - 2015-07-11 02:59:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
I compared the damage application for the different long range missiles:
T1 light missiles apply 80% of their damage to frigates.
T1 heavy missiles apply 65% of their damage to cruiser.
T1 cruise missiles easily apply 100% of their damage to battleships.
T1 cruise missiles apply 66% of their damage to combat battlecruisers.
As you can see, cruise missiles have the best application, followed by light missiles, followed by heavy missiles with the worst application. In fact, heavy missiles apply worse to its own ship class than cruise missiles apply to a ship class below it.
This is why heavy missiles are bad.

Solution:
Increase all heavy missiles' explosion velocity by 50% and reduce their explosion radius by 16.5%. This will put heavy missile application right between light missiles (worst application) and cruise missiles (best application).

Here's some examples comparing new and old numbers:
T1 heavy missiles now apply 97% instead of 65% to cruisers.
T1 heavy missiles now apply 54% instead of 36% to cruisers with an afterburner.
T1 heavy missiles now apply 100% instead of 68% to 1x webbed cruisers with an afterburner.
T1 heavy missiles now apply 100% instead of 84% to 1x webbed, 1x target painted cruisers with an afterburner.
T1 heavy missiles now apply 67% instead of 45% to 1x target painted cruisers with an afterburner.
T1 heavy missiles now apply 56% instead of 38% to destroyers.
T1 heavy missiles now apply 74% instead of 61% to 1x webbed destroyers.
T1 heavy missiles now apply 100% instead of 85% to 1x webbed, 1x target painted destroyers.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 36% instead of 24% to frigates.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 47% instead of 39% to 1x webbed frigates.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 47% instead of 39% to 2x webbed frigates.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 45% instead of 30% to 1x target painted frigates.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 51% instead of 34% to 2x target painted frigates.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 65% instead of 54% to 1x webbed, 1x target painted frigates.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 77% instead of 65% to 2x webbed, 2x target painted frigates.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 20% instead of 14% to frigates with an afterburner.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 38% instead of 25% to 1x webbed frigates with an afterburner.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 47% instead of 39% to 2x webbed frigates with an afterburner.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 25% instead of 17% to 1x target painted frigates with an afterburner.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 28% instead of 19% to 2x target painted frigates with an afterburner.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 47% instead of 32% to 1x webbed, 1x target painted frigates with an afterburner.
Precision heavy missiles now apply 77% instead of 56% to 2x webbed, 2x target painted frigates with an afterburner.

Here's a pretty graph!
Heavy missile launchers are now better than rapid light missile launchers against cruisers.

Numbers are based on unbonused missiles with max skills against the average signature radius and velocity for T1 ships with max skills excluding logistics and exploration ships: 37m and 456m/s for frigates, 65m and 315m/s for destroyers, 127m and 277m/s for cruisers, 280m and 189m/s for combat battlecruisers, and 439m and 135m/s for battleships.
Modules are T2 and propulsion modules are based on the maximum velocity bonus and signature radius bonus only.


That's some serious number crunching ability you have there, and I'm sure some developers in CCP have the same ability. Which means they are well aware of how bad Heavy Missile Launcher suck as compared to the other launchers and are content on keeping them this way. Afterall when HML were OP, CML sucked and everyone opted to use torps for both PVE & PVP. So all CCP did was reverse their roles to keep the status quo. Even CCP is well aware that If every other missile launcher was as good as cruisers are now, you'll be seeing nothing but missiles flying all over the place in eve.

Still +1 on the changes even though I'm sure CCP would rather keep them in their suckage state.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#24 - 2015-07-11 04:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Arla Sarain wrote:
Andy Koraka wrote:
It's almost like they just gave us a new class of modules which improve the damage application stats for missiles.

It's almost like slots are not in abundance.


Speaking of which I'd really like it if the cerb exchanges a low to a mid. That would make the ship much better.



That lost its window of opportunity. When the rapid bonus was deemed too good at initial release ccp oddly enough adjusted that with a quickness. Apparently ccp back then had staff who saw an issue right away and said what did we change? Oh yeah....maybe we should adjust that a little.


Unlike our friend Mr. Ishtar. Who keeps questionable bonuses...and gets "nerfed" by getting +1 low slot for one less mid. More DDA for damage or more armour tank....hell of a "nerf".
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2015-07-11 06:00:14 UTC
+1

Truth be told, even before the nerfs, the only thing HMs had going for them was range.
I had though that was the only issue, but then CCP beat them with the nerf bat like the goofy kid on the playground...

Though, I think if they buff the application, they'll likely nerf something else, like more range, or knock their damage back down....
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-07-11 07:35:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Joe Risalo wrote:
+1

Truth be told, even before the nerfs, the only thing HMs had going for them was range.
I had though that was the only issue, but then CCP beat them with the nerf bat like the goofy kid on the playground...

Though, I think if they buff the application, they'll likely nerf something else, like more range, or knock their damage back down....

CCP thought heavy missiles were OP because they forgot to take away a weapon slot on the Drake when they decided to give it one more mid/low slot than the other tier 2 battlecruisers. They thought 7 weapons with 7 high slots was somehow weaker than the others which had 7 weapons with 8 high slots. Since the Amarrian tier 2 didn't have the resist bonus and it was an overpowered 5% back then, and the Myrmidon had the weak 5% rep bonus, and the tier 1 battlecruisers were stupidly underpowered, CCP assumed it was heavy missiles' fault that the Drake tanked like a battleship while almost matching offensive power with other tier 2 battlecruisers. They ignored the general irrelevance of the Cerberus, Caracal, and Sacrilege which had nothing to do with their very reasonable attributes.

Heavy Missiles were never overpowered. If Drakes had had just 6 launcher hardpoints, they could have been given a proper missile damage bonus, either 5% to all or 10% to kinetic, and everything would have been fine. Drake blobs would still have happened, but that's because hit points were too low across the board, causing tanky ships to be the best in general, and the Drake was the only tanky tier 2 battlecruiser. If the tier 1s had lower sig radius and higher agility/velocity to match their lower price, hit points, and fitting, there would never have been an issue, and people would have flown blobs of either Drakes or Prophecies. And if the resist bonuses had been 4% and the rep bonuses 10% (where they should be now), then there would have been fleets of Cyclones or Brutixes and Myrmidons, too--although pre-hit point buff, even a proper rep bonus would have been vulnerable to alpha fleets.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2015-07-11 08:39:57 UTC
HML were a bit whack back in the day, the nerf was slightly OTT, but not a killer.

What killed them, was the massive buff to all other LR medium weapons not six months later, as well as tiericides making everything faster and smaller.
L5 gen
EVE Marshals
#28 - 2015-07-11 08:53:26 UTC
lol its k m8, lets buff off grid boosters, snakes and garmurs too yeah?
Kaldi Tsukaya
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#29 - 2015-07-11 09:43:32 UTC
+1

Reading about Wolfs Brigade and FIRST GENERAL is what got me into the game (and into Caldari).

Since then I haven't even bothered to train my heavy missile skills, go figureUgh
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#30 - 2015-07-11 15:10:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Mieyli
Totally agree with the idea of this thread, however is it reasonable that only 1 web is needed to get 100% application to afterburning cruisers? All a missile fleet would need is 1 huginn to never miss or never lose any damage against targets their own size. Afterburners should be a "counter" to missiles at the cost of low max speed. I think that the application should be balanced that with no prop or with a mwd on your target you need a web or two or maybe 2 TPs to get 100% application. Rigs and application mods should reduce the amount of mid-slots needed to reach 100% application.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2015-07-11 21:42:44 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Totally agree with the idea of this thread, however is it reasonable that only 1 web is needed to get 100% application to afterburning cruisers?

Considering how short their range is? Yes, it's reasonable! Everybody has a prop mod, but you don't always get the chance to apply webs/paints. The OP is suggesting even less than 100% application against a cruiser WITH NO PROP MOD.

I don't see how you can even object.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#32 - 2015-07-11 22:40:06 UTC
This is a good start, but I think your analysis needs to go a little further. I agree that heavy missiles need to be changed, but the whole weapon system needs a close look.

I can make the argument that light missiles have better application than cruise missiles. The reason is the DRF which causes the application of cruise missiles to scale poorly. Basically the damage of cruise missiles drops rather quickly due to a high DRF, but this is hidden because the explosion radius matches a battlecruiser instead of a battleship. I don't think the examples given at the beginning tell the whole story because the explosion radius of cruise missiles is surprising low.

Actually, it would be better to compare rockets and cruise missiles because they both have the best application in their size class. I have no idea why missiles are balanced this way, but rockets are better than light missiles. Heavy assault missiles and heavy missiles are about the same (hint: look at the DRF for HAMs). Cruise missiles are better than torpedoes.

Where does this leave heavy missiles? They exist in strange middle ground along with HAMs between small missiles and large missiles. Why are missiles even balanced this way? My best guess is the application of cruise missiles at long ranges was usually only affected by rigor rigs (flares are borderline worthless but that is another can of worms) before the addition of the new missile modules. To compensate, cruise missile have a explosion radius that matches a battlecruiser instead of a battleship. Otherwise, the application of cruise missiles would be terrible, and sniping with missiles isn't exactly optimal to begin with. To a lesser extent, the same can be said of heavy missiles.

The solution you presented might make a lot of people happy but it would just be a bandaid. Something I am sure most people have not noticed is the application of small missiles against destroyers is about the same as medium missiles against battlecruisers. With the suggested changes, battlecruisers would not be able to get under 100% application. You could also forget about HAMs because HMs would be much better. Remember the DRF of HAMs that I mentioned? Basically, my point is comparing between different missile types to balance them without the whole story is fraught with problems.

Note: I think the battleship signature should be 431 not 439.



Missile Rebalance
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#33 - 2015-07-11 23:55:45 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
..T1 heavy missiles apply 6,5% of their damage to cruiser..


I have no objections and corrected a tiny typo in your list, you're welcome.


LOL
stoicfaux
#34 - 2015-07-12 18:49:37 UTC
Yes, but...

Is application enough of a metric to look at? What about missile damage versus the average EHP of frigates, cruisers, and battleships?

Meaning, T1 Lights may apply 80% damage, and T1 Heavies may apply only 65% damage, but if it takes 100 Lights to kill the average frigate, and 100 Heavies to kill the average cruiser, then is there a problem?

We probably should be comparing the average TTK (time to kill) of the various missile types against various generic targets. And we should then (somehow, i.e. bell the cat) compare missile TTKs against gun TTKs (while somehow weighing the various advantages/disadvantages of the different gun types.)

As underwhelming (disappointing) as the missile balance pass was, we're going to need some really solid numbers if we're going to convince CCP Rise that the missile balance pass needs a do-over. Especially if CCP's attention is be on the Sov overhaul (which, let's be honest, Sov Overhaul is a huge deal over a missile re-balance.)

Finally, for all we know, missiles were balanced with Fleets in mind, e.g. the numbers were based on missile fleets bringing bonused TPs (e.g. Hyena, Bellicose) hence the pre-nerf of the MGC.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#35 - 2015-07-12 19:56:48 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Yes, but...

Is application enough of a metric to look at? What about missile damage versus the average EHP of frigates, cruisers, and battleships?

Meaning, T1 Lights may apply 80% damage, and T1 Heavies may apply only 65% damage, but if it takes 100 Lights to kill the average frigate, and 100 Heavies to kill the average cruiser, then is there a problem?

We probably should be comparing the average TTK (time to kill) of the various missile types against various generic targets. And we should then (somehow, i.e. bell the cat) compare missile TTKs against gun TTKs (while somehow weighing the various advantages/disadvantages of the different gun types.)

As underwhelming (disappointing) as the missile balance pass was, we're going to need some really solid numbers if we're going to convince CCP Rise that the missile balance pass needs a do-over. Especially if CCP's attention is be on the Sov overhaul (which, let's be honest, Sov Overhaul is a huge deal over a missile re-balance.)

Finally, for all we know, missiles were balanced with Fleets in mind, e.g. the numbers were based on missile fleets bringing bonused TPs (e.g. Hyena, Bellicose) hence the pre-nerf of the MGC.



Agreed, missiles across the board need to be looked at and compared with guns as not only is application worse but also damage by a large margin. Missile boats may have a lot of lows but they are almost REQUIRED to be filled with BCUs to get damage somewhat reasonable. Missiles should have a choice between high damage and poor application (except with the use of webs and TPs), or good application and lower damage leaving more mids free for tank. This gives a meaningful difference between high damage / low tank fits and low damage / high tank fits.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
Iain Cariaba
#36 - 2015-07-12 19:59:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Iain Cariaba
Mr Mieyli wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Yes, but...

Is application enough of a metric to look at? What about missile damage versus the average EHP of frigates, cruisers, and battleships?

Meaning, T1 Lights may apply 80% damage, and T1 Heavies may apply only 65% damage, but if it takes 100 Lights to kill the average frigate, and 100 Heavies to kill the average cruiser, then is there a problem?

We probably should be comparing the average TTK (time to kill) of the various missile types against various generic targets. And we should then (somehow, i.e. bell the cat) compare missile TTKs against gun TTKs (while somehow weighing the various advantages/disadvantages of the different gun types.)

As underwhelming (disappointing) as the missile balance pass was, we're going to need some really solid numbers if we're going to convince CCP Rise that the missile balance pass needs a do-over. Especially if CCP's attention is be on the Sov overhaul (which, let's be honest, Sov Overhaul is a huge deal over a missile re-balance.)

Finally, for all we know, missiles were balanced with Fleets in mind, e.g. the numbers were based on missile fleets bringing bonused TPs (e.g. Hyena, Bellicose) hence the pre-nerf of the MGC.



Agreed, missiles across the board need to be looked at and compared with guns as not only is application worse but also damage by a large margin. Missile boats may have a lot of lows but they are almost REQUIRED to be filled with BCUs to get damage somewhat reasonable. Missiles should have a choice between high damage and poor application (except with the use of webs and TPs), or good application and lower damage leaving more mids free for tank. This gives a meaningful difference between high damage / low tank fits and low damage / high tank fits.

Oooor, they could fill their lows with BCUs/new application mods, and get friends to bring webs and TPs, leaving mids free for tank. Shocked

The concept of bringing friends simply boggles the mind, I know.
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#37 - 2015-07-12 20:09:52 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:


Agreed, missiles across the board need to be looked at and compared with guns as not only is application worse but also damage by a large margin. Missile boats may have a lot of lows but they are almost REQUIRED to be filled with BCUs to get damage somewhat reasonable. Missiles should have a choice between high damage and poor application (except with the use of webs and TPs), or good application and lower damage leaving more mids free for tank. This gives a meaningful difference between high damage / low tank fits and low damage / high tank fits.

Oooor, they could fill their lows with BCUs/new application mods, and get friends to bring webs and TPs, leaving mids free for tank. Shocked

The concept of bringing friends simply boggles the mind, I know.


Other weapon systems are not equal gimped and can manage to get good application by devoting a few slots to tracking computers and still have pretty good damage. Missiles already have limp-noodle damage and can't-hit-a-barn application; getting damage to a remotely competitive level involves devoting most lows to BCUs leaving little for the new application mods (hint: damage is not competitive since nobody flys missile ships in pvp and pve can be done in literally anything)

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#38 - 2015-07-12 20:12:16 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
...Oooor, they could fill their lows with BCUs/new application mods, and get friends to bring webs and TPs, leaving mids free for tank. Shocked

The concept of bringing friends simply boggles the mind, I know.


You and your blobbs approach everytime..

It is no challenge to outblobb someone, zero. However it is a challenge of your skill to engage a blobb and be able to kill stuff before you go down or manage to bail.

You can do that in any turret boat but CCP come with the sledgehammer if someone dares to bring missiles instead.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
stoicfaux
#39 - 2015-07-12 20:24:41 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Oooor, they could fill their lows with BCUs/new application mods, and get friends to bring webs and TPs, leaving mids free for tank. Shocked

The concept of bringing friends simply boggles the mind, I know.

Using the MGC in place of fleet provided TPs/Webs is one of the few use cases that everyone agrees on.

Even so, Webs and TPs work with guns as well. If you heavily web your target, guns will do full damage as transversal drops to (near) zero, but missiles have their damage capped by the first part of the missile damage formula (S / E) aka target sig versus missile explosion radius..

Do you and your friends consider battleship guns doing full damage to a heavily webbed frigate to be balanced against battleship missiles having a damage cap against the same frigate? Yes, you all do bring up a good point about how falloff could be a potentially equivalent damage cap, but what about guns (or hulls) with large optimals? Etc., etc.

Roll

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2015-07-12 20:39:41 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
stoicfaux wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Oooor, they could fill their lows with BCUs/new application mods, and get friends to bring webs and TPs, leaving mids free for tank. Shocked

The concept of bringing friends simply boggles the mind, I know.

Using the MGC in place of fleet provided TPs/Webs is one of the few use cases that everyone agrees on.

Even so, Webs and TPs work with guns as well. If you heavily web your target, guns will do full damage as transversal drops to (near) zero, but missiles have their damage capped by the first part of the missile damage formula (S / E) aka target sig versus missile explosion radius..

Do you and your friends consider battleship guns doing full damage to a heavily webbed frigate to be balanced against battleship missiles having a damage cap against the same frigate? Yes, you all do bring up a good point about how falloff could be a potentially equivalent damage cap, but what about guns (or hulls) with large optimals? Etc., etc.

Roll



Or the tl;dr:

No amount of numbers makes missiles work. At any level.

Eve players will ALWAYS use what works on a fleet scale. Yet no one, but NO ONE uses missiles.

Nooooooooooooo one.


This is not because the whole of Eve misses a trick, rather because they're a godawful weapon system at volumes and ALWAYS will be.
Previous page123Next page