These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

Heavy Missile Rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#41 - 2015-07-12 21:46:29 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.


While I agree that application is probably not enough, we need to start somewhere, and adding more variables like ship EHP or TTK would quickly complicate things. I believe in starting somewhere basic and fundamental like application and trying to see if my initial impressions translate to more realistic situations. I think HMs vs HAMs is a great example of this. The application of HAMs drops very quickly due to a high DRF of 4.5, but you could argue that this is offset by the higher damage of HAMs. The damage helps (strangely the extra DPS for HAMs peaks at ~60% for cruisers at 200 m/s instead of 0), but it also quickly disappears just like the application. HMs actually can overtake HAMs in DPS against smaller targets, and this behavior is very similar to torpedoes and cruise missiles. If HMs receive a substantial buff, I think HAMs would be in the same situation as torpedoes are now.

I mentioned above that the OP's changes to HMs would make HAMs worthless. HMs would overtake HAMs in DPS at around 300 m/s for cruisers.

Missile Rebalance
stoicfaux
#42 - 2015-07-12 22:19:54 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:

While I agree that application is probably not enough, we need to start somewhere, and adding more variables like ship EHP or TTK would quickly complicate things. I believe in starting somewhere basic and fundamental like application and trying to see if my initial impressions translate to more realistic situations. I think HMs vs HAMs is a great example of this. The application of HAMs drops very quickly due to a high DRF of 4.5, but you could argue that this is offset by the higher damage of HAMs. The damage helps (strangely the extra DPS for HAMs peaks at ~60% for cruisers at 200 m/s instead of 0), but it also quickly disappears just like the application. HMs actually can overtake HAMs in DPS against smaller targets, and this behavior is very similar to torpedoes and cruise missiles. If HMs receive a substantial buff, I think HAMs would be in the same situation as torpedoes are now.

I mentioned above that the OP's changes to HMs would make HAMs worthless. HMs would overtake HAMs in DPS at around 300 m/s for cruisers.

I agree that any detailed focus should initially start with cruiser HMLs and HAMs.

However, TTK isn't that big of a deal. I've done it before for NPCs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NZt797WnDfuqDJL-l_8bX_nEgdQjLLWMDDwrZ2JE4-s/edit#gid=565144802 (Unhide columns C thorugh AB for details.)

The only real impediment is time and will.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#43 - 2015-07-12 22:41:27 UTC
+1

Thanks for putting detailed maths to the argument I've been bringing up every time missiles come up
(Disclamer, I actually fly guns but still get how bad Heavy Missiles are)
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#44 - 2015-07-12 23:56:26 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Speaking of which I'd really like it if the cerb exchanges a low to a mid. That would make the ship much better.


Losing a BCS, assuming you want to keep a DC, doesn't seem to make much sense. You in fact lose versatility because of it.
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#45 - 2015-07-13 02:30:09 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:

I agree that any detailed focus should initially start with cruiser HMLs and HAMs.

However, TTK isn't that big of a deal. I've done it before for NPCs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NZt797WnDfuqDJL-l_8bX_nEgdQjLLWMDDwrZ2JE4-s/edit#gid=565144802 (Unhide columns C thorugh AB for details.)

The only real impediment is time and will.


Maybe it is not that hard, but it would definitely take too much time for me at least. I just do not want to spend that much time on a weapon system that I believe is broken and that no amount of tweaking will fix. I have spent time on what an alternative might look like, but I have had a hard time gathering any attention or feedback. There is a link in my signature if you are curious. However, I wholeheartedly agree that we must give some numerical proof that a change needs to happen.

Missile Rebalance
Previous page123