Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 213 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:09:00 -
[1531] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PetersmithII wrote:i have two question if ccp can answer do it please 1, if heavy missiles are so uber why is cerberus so ussles ?
Its a bad ship and has been for some time now.
The problem with the Cerberus is why fly a 200m ISK drake?
And why care about a range bonus when you can already reach 80km?
Cerberus Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage and 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level
Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Assault Missile and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level
Drake Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and assault missiles per level
Drake resistance bonus balances out with the fact that Cerberus has HALF (50%) of shield EHP of the drake.
You get more damage bonuses with the cerberus but... only 5 hardpoints versus 7, so your rate of fire bonus gets you from having 5 launchers... to 7 launchers, like a drake.
So on.
Why fly a 200m ISK Drake? Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
356
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:11:00 -
[1532] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit.
Fit an ACR, easy. In fact the more I play with Hurricane fits the sheer absurdity of its ease of fitting becomes clear. It's very easy to argue that more PG needs to come off. |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule Test Friends Please Ignore
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:12:00 -
[1533] - Quote
The arguments in favor are strong, but some questions still remains for me:
Range turrets (Rails, Beams, Artillery) have multiple types of ammunition and changing that ammunition lets you trade damage for range as needed. Missiles, while having all four damage types available, do not get this luxury. T2 gives some options, but forcing players to train T2 just for any options at all does not seem good for the game.
- The assumption had always been that missiles were given such a good range because their are no "range vs damage" variants. With a general lowering or range and damage at the same time are you concerned that options for missiles will be too limiting?
- This change will give turrets better range and better damage in almost all cases? Have you considered this? What will be the value of ever using missiles?
- Missiles have travel time. This is actually a severe disadvantage in large fleets and skirmishes. Have you considered this as an inherent weakness for which missiles must have compensation?
I think some changes are needed but overall this seems too drastic. This is one change where slow, careful steps with monitoring is needed, not a massive bomb dropped once every 6 months. The problem here is just as much development cycle oriented as the change itself. None of us want to see an entire weapon system ruined and then not touched for another 5 years.
I applaud you for taking decisive steps in an attempt to solve a clear problem. Eve needs this because there are too many issues with core game play holding it back from becoming truly fun to play and expanding its user base. However in this case the remedy is drastic and probably worse then the illness -I suggest a less invasive approach.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2231
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:13:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit. Gypsio III wrote:Onictus wrote:...and forget an armor cane. its pretty much dead. Viva la Cyclone. I just made a future armour cane with 425s, 1600 plate and dual neuts, it took a single ACR. I was surprised at how easy it was, maybe a 1600 Hurricane should at least have to drop to smaller guns. The only difference is that the neuts are now small ones. But if you think that it should be able to fit the biggest guns, an oversize plate, MWD and dual med neuts, then you simply don't believe in fitting restrictions. To be fair I usually used 220mm to facilitate the medium neuts (sans fitting mods or implants), but that is a judgement call.
The biggest fear you should have when flying that ship are long range tackle interceptors (regular frigs die) and close range frigates. Small neuts are superior for capping out the close range frigs and the medium neuts aren't going to bother a long range tackle inty. It's not even a noticeable nerf to the fit.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
541
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:13:00 -
[1535] - Quote
Spanish Aquisition wrote:Someone at CCP apparently had their poop pushed in by a drake recently
If you think the drake needs a DPS nerf you are bad at Eve and you should feel bad.
THIS =) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:13:00 -
[1536] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P In other words. Never. But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong.
So, you'd never fit any other long range platform that can reach 80km. So the Drake is the same now.
Thus it is balanced. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2231
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:13:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P In other words. Never. But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong.
The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:14:00 -
[1538] - Quote
More a comment in support of CCP Fozzie:
I think this is going to be one of those tough changes we're just going to have to swallow. Like the old nano speed nerf. Remember the days when vagas were THE ONLY Assault Cruiser worth flying? We're in the same situation with missile boats atm. I think we're going to need to wait until it hits Sisi before being able to judge the final impact.
On the other hand I welcome the changes this will have on fleet theory crafting. One of my hopes is that we'll see more cruiser sized fleets where appropriate. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:15:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Onictus wrote:Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit. Fit an ACR, easy. In fact the more I play with Hurricane fits the sheer absurdity of its ease of fitting becomes clear. It's very easy to argue that more PG needs to come off.
Won't hear me whining about it.
The fact that it was already the fastest hull in the class (pre -tier3) with dual weapon bonuses AND 6 free low slots always challenged the realm of believably, and the justification for that excursiveness was the Drake.
Well, that is getting knocked down a rung, so I'm not terribly worked up.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:17:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
The biggest fear you should have when flying that ship are long range tackle interceptors (regular frigs die) and close range frigates. Small neuts are superior for capping out the close range frigs and the medium neuts aren't going to bother a long range tackle inty. It's not even a noticeable nerf to the fit.
-Liang
Agreed, I'm also stuck in a lecture looking up numbers and stats on my phone, so I haven't gotten to deep into exactly hwo it will work out.
|
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:17:00 -
[1541] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
We know that's why so many of us are upset. CCP will screw up missiles and BCs just like so many other things in the pass. You will disreguard what we say. Just as in WIS, ISD, NEX(I don't have a problem with) that inventory crap and so many other things. We invest alot of time and money into the game you guys seem to be set on destroying.
Imagine you just spent hundreds of dollars and months studing something, and than the university decided that it's no longer a valid subject. Yeah that's what playing eve is like. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:18:00 -
[1542] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Kesthely wrote: The same is going to happen if they force the HML in this direction but then towards tank, with a +10% bonus to light missile damage and -20% penalty to Heavy missile, a Rapid light missile setup for ships that give bonuses to both weapon systems gets you within 15% of the new HML damage while freeing up a lot of power for a heavier tank. If the Tracking enhancers would give a 10-15% bonus to missile range i could get a Rapid light missile caracal over 100km have it at 36k effective hp, and only do less then 15% damage difference between a HML variant. Also the Explosion velocity and exlosion radius would probably give me against many targets more effective damage then the HML variant would.
Doing the HML change to promote HAM use is not going to work.
The Drake doesn't have that luxury because it doesn't have a bonus to AML. Furthermore, the Caracal getting decent performance out of a bonused weapon platform? Blasphemy. But to humor you: what's the pct DPS difference at 30km with 3 BCU HAMs? -Liang
For your amusement the Ham would get 98% more damage then the rapid light at 30 km with your setup, 100% damage vs 200% range isn't a bad tradeoff on paper, but the RML has a better overal damage when factoring speed and sizes. Also the Effective hp on a RML caracal is 77% higher. If you try to go ranged HAM with Javelins, its dps suddenly drops to only 40% Higher compared to a similar RML setup while still only haveing half the range and half its effective hp
This would eventually result in the same Range + Effective HP vs Damage we've seen on the drake |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:19:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P In other words. Never. But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong. So, you'd never fit any other long range platform that can reach 80km. So the Drake is the same now. Thus it is balanced.
If i'd never fit another 80 km range missile boat, it means it's dead. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
356
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:19:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Onictus wrote:The fact that it was already the fastest hull in the class (pre -tier3) with dual weapon bonuses AND 6 free low slots always challenged the realm of believably, and the justification for that excursiveness was the Drake.
Well, that is getting knocked down a rung, so I'm not terribly worked up.
Nor me, and pretty much for the same reason. There's far too many Drakes and Hurricane in space, and I've long advocated cutting t2 BCs down to t1 levels, which would impact the Drake and Cane much more than Myrm and Harby. Well, this isn't quite t1 levels, but the principle is there.
|
wondering darkness
The Suicide Kings Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1545] - Quote
Use tracking disruptors on a missile are you serious, they use their own guidence systems thats why they are built with guidence systems, as for reducing damage that is ******** in itself, a missile takes an age to reach a target while all other weaponry does instant damage, this gives retards at least a chance to get away and still makes jewing time consuming. if anything the range on the missiles should be reduced but certainly not the dps as it sucks balls neway. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1546] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:
Imagine you just spent hundreds of dollars and months studing something, and than the university decided that it's no longer a valid subject. Yeah that's what all MMOs are like.
Fixed that for you. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P In other words. Never. But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong. The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field. -Liang
Fine, Make the ham drake better.
Edit: Or one medium missile launcher with different range amo. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1548] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:baltec1 wrote:PetersmithII wrote:i have two question if ccp can answer do it please 1, if heavy missiles are so uber why is cerberus so ussles ?
Its a bad ship and has been for some time now. The problem with the Cerberus is why fly a 200m ISK drake? And why care about a range bonus when you can already reach 80km? CerberusCaldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage and 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Assault Missile and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level Drake Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and assault missiles per level Drake resistance bonus balances out with the fact that Cerberus has HALF (50%) of shield EHP of the drake. You get more damage bonuses with the cerberus but... only 5 hardpoints versus 7, so your rate of fire bonus gets you from having 5 launchers... to 7 launchers, like a drake. So on. Why fly a 200m ISK Drake?
^^^ This.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2231
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Kesthely wrote: The same is going to happen if they force the HML in this direction but then towards tank, with a +10% bonus to light missile damage and -20% penalty to Heavy missile, a Rapid light missile setup for ships that give bonuses to both weapon systems gets you within 15% of the new HML damage while freeing up a lot of power for a heavier tank. If the Tracking enhancers would give a 10-15% bonus to missile range i could get a Rapid light missile caracal over 100km have it at 36k effective hp, and only do less then 15% damage difference between a HML variant. Also the Explosion velocity and exlosion radius would probably give me against many targets more effective damage then the HML variant would.
Doing the HML change to promote HAM use is not going to work.
The Drake doesn't have that luxury because it doesn't have a bonus to AML. Furthermore, the Caracal getting decent performance out of a bonused weapon platform? Blasphemy. But to humor you: what's the pct DPS difference at 30km with 3 BCU HAMs? -Liang For your amusement the Ham would get 98% more damage then the rapid light at 30 km with your setup, 100% damage vs 200% range isn't a bad tradeoff on paper, but the RML has a better overal damage when factoring speed and sizes. Also the Effective hp on a RML caracal is 77% higher. If you try to go ranged HAM with Javelins, its dps suddenly drops to only 40% Higher compared to a similar RML setup while still only haveing half the range and less then half its effective hp This would eventually result in the same Range + Effective HP vs Damage we've seen on the drake
I was following you right up until you claimed that a 36k EHP tank was equivalent to a 100k EHP tank.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:21:00 -
[1550] - Quote
I think CCP needs to have a hard look at HAM fittings if they go through with this so if we decide to use the short ranged alternative we can have more PG and CPU to put towards tank or gank. |
|
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:22:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Fozzie I call you a madman and a hero for reading through all this so I think its only fair I make an attempt at a reasoned response.
all told... I approve of the suggested changes hand over fist and I'm more than happy to accept that caldari WILL be getting better pvp platforms based on the continuing balance changes in the form of the upcoming "combat" moa and the eventual rebalancing of the ferox as well. the cane needed a kick in the teeth I reckon as did the drake and tengu, these changes handle this nicely. after all, just because caldari don't have "viable" pvp platforms now at least by the standards of nullblob types it doesn't mean that they WON'T come these changes, after all its impossible to argue that the merlin isn't by far the most dangerous of the "combat" frigate platforms at the moment and I'm eager to see how the Moa is going to shape up as a possible upgrade of the Merlin hull with 5% hybrid damage/RoF and 5% resist/level.
in compensation however I do agree that slightly more love might be in favour of the heavy assault launchers as they take over the roll as primary "close range" missile platform. while this may be covered by the changes to tracking enhancers and tracking computers I think an improvement in explosion speed might be worthwhile regardless in order to support other ships which will be equiping this weapon, most notably the new caracal which will no doubt be adopted by us RVB types as a 30-40km dps support platform for our gudfights.
its also an interesting point that these changes may leave heavy missile operating ships with little recourse in closer ranges where gun platform ships may switch down to close range ammo to help deal with closer targets. it would seem like a reasonable suggestion then to offer an alternative ammunition type with higher damage but significantly reduced range. the T2 missiles would seem like an easy choice for this though their harder to access nature may restrict them. what I would personally propose would be taking the "fury" missile concept and pushing it to a further extreme with the missile changes fluffed along the lines of "rapid burn" response missiles for defense. much shorter range, higher damage but with a vastly accelerated flight speed (the missile doing a quick short burn then adding its remaining fuel to the payload). some way for the heavy missile equipped ships to defend themselves at closer ranges would be most welcome to a lot of people in this threadnought. cut the range a little bit more, buff the damage but keep a large explosion radius so that fury missiles act as a defense against other battlecruisers (or even cruisers if you've got TE's/TC's to improve ER/ES) but at substantially shorter ranges while precision ammo still acts as the anti frigate option. the T2 ammo types adding versitility to the platform as it were :)
I would also like to propose that with the addition of tracking enhancers and computers now providing the "counter balance" to this nerf that ballistic control systems receive a reduction in CPU cost to bring them in line with the other weapon upgrades. with the dps nerf to the heavy missiles coming into effect I would think that the improved CPU would go a fair way to allowing missile using pilots to equip their ships to adapt accordingly with the additional costs for both tracking computers and tracking enhancers for the "improved" preformance making up the difference, much like fitting 2 magstabs and a TE to a blaster moa it would make sense that 2 BCU's and a tracking enhancer would be an ideal choice for a caracal pilot (at least on the new hull).
as for tracking disruptors I think that your own suggestion for splitting the disruptor into two separate blends, one for missiles and one for guns, would solve a lot of the balance concerns with the tracking disruptor becoming some form of "wundermod". it would make sense from a lore perspective as well as it would make sense that a dedicated missile countermeasure system would be developed to take advantage of a missiles weaknesses, most notibly its internal targeting and navigation systems causing preemptive detonation (missiles exploding at much shorter ranges) or messing with the payloads (explosion radius/speed). of course both disruptor types should be effected by pre-existing bonuses and the idea of TD equiped ships bringing a mix of missile and gun disruptors sounds like a most excellent way to avoid the TD becoming a mandatory module on every hull as you won't always know what the opposition has.
that's just some suggestions however, I'm more than happy to work with what's coming and eagerly wait to see what the masters of fit foo will come up with to fill the void and hope to the gods that I'll be able to contribute to that when it happens :)
TL:DR like the proposed changes, but some more love for HAMS, BCU's and the "split" tracking disruptors seems in order Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2231
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:22:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: Fine, Make the ham drake better.
Edit: Or one medium missile launcher with different range amo.
The HAM Drake is getting better at the same time that the HML Drake is being brought down to where the rest of the long range weapons are. Arguably, it's still better than the other long range weapons because you can't get under its weapons and even up close it'll have pretty fantastic damage application.
But then it's just different instead of wtf why would you fit anything else?!?!?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:23:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lord Ryan wrote:
Imagine you just spent hundreds of dollars and months studing something, and than the university decided that it's no longer a valid subject. Yeah that's what all MMOs are like.
Fixed that for you. Glad this is the only one I play. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:25:00 -
[1554] - Quote
real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)
Quote: 250mm Railgun II + Spike M DPS: 9 Volley: 52 Optimal: 52km Fall-Off: 12km
250mm Railgun II + Javelin M DPS: 14 Volley: 92 Optimal: 7.2km Fall-Off: 12km
Heavy beam Laser II + Aurora M DPS: 10 Volley: 58 Optimal: 43km Fall-Off: 8km
Heavy beam Laser II Gleam M DPS: 17 Volley: 101 Optimal: 6km Fall-Off: 8km
720mm Howitzer Artillary II + Quake M DPS: 8 Volley: 153 Optimal: 43km Fall-Off: 18km
720mm Howitzer Artillary II + Tremor M DPS: 13 Volley: 268 Optimal: 6km Fall-Off: 18km
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Fury Missile DPS: 16 Volley: 192 Optimal: 33.8km
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Precision Missile DPS: 11 Volley: 130 Optimal: 18.8km
The only glaring issue I see is that the DPS/Volley data on Fury/Precision needs reversing, or the Max Range (either works), everything else is just fine at this point. eg
Quote: Change to: Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Fury Missile DPS: 11 Volley: 130 Optimal: 33.8km
Change to: Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Precision Missile DPS: 16 Volley: 192 Optimal: 18.8km
All the imbalance comes from 1 of 2 areas, and in some cases both of these. Unbalanced Ship/Module/Subsystem Modifiers Skill Bonus Modifiers |
Azual Skoll
The Tuskers
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:25:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Fine, Make the ham drake better.
By making tracking enhancers/computers affect missile range, that's exactly what they're doing. HAM drakes with Javelins (which will have no speed penalty) and a couple of TEs/TCs should hit out to around 45km. Eve Blogger at www.evealtruist.com Formerly Director of Agony Unleashed's PVP-University |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:28:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Azual Skoll wrote:Bloutok wrote:Fine, Make the ham drake better. By making tracking enhancers/computers affect missile range, that's exactly what they're doing. HAM drakes with Javelins (which will have no speed penalty) and a couple of TEs/TCs should hit out to around 45km.
I can't wait to jam a stack of TEs and BCSs on a nano-phoon
May not be the best ever, but it's going to look ****. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:28:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. Of course. However, one point that has been mentioned several times already without any response has been that this change to HMLs is attempting to rebalance two of the several ships that use them. If the whole point of rebalancing ships is so that all ships have a viable use, isn't it counterproductive to then make ships like the Caracal, Nighthawk and Cerberus again undesirable due to the changes made to their primary weapon system? Heavy Assault missiles are often not an option either due to poor tank (the caracal/cerberus hulled ships) or fitting consideration (can be an issue with any ship, especially since HAMs use more PG than HMLs). If you want to rebalance the drake and tengu, rebalance the drake and tengu. Don't pack all the desired changes in the weapon system.
They want the Drake and Tengu to have 25% less range and 20% less damage.
How would you achieve this by nerfing the hull? It's already got a single damage bonus that only applies to a single damage type.
Start removing high-slots? That would just screw up other fitting options and ruin the balance between BCs even more. Give it a negative role bonus? Needlessly complicated. Remove a launcher slot? Needlessly nerfing HAM Drakes.
The only way to do this is: - Nerf HMs. - Buff unused HM ships. - Tweak previously overpowered HM ships to work with the new HMs. |
Sophia Ban'ki
Adhara Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:32:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Well, even if I expect noone from CCP to read this, I want to point out, that there are also a few other things to be nerved if missiles are supposed to be turrets.
Surgical Strike (rank 4) 3% damage bonus on all turrets per level Not just that the missile counterpart gives only 2% damage bonus per level it is also a rank 5 skill, meaning that it takes even longer to train.
Solution: Nerv/Adjust: the Surgical Strike skill to 2% bonus and make it a rank 5 skill as well.
Rapid Firing: 4% RoF per level Same again, Rapid Launch is one again lower with 3% RoF bonus.
Solution: Nerv / Adjust Rapid Firing bonus to 3% RoF, to make them more eqal.
Missile Projection: (rank 4 - skill) Bonus to all guided missiles, leaving unguided missiles unaffected. Related Gunnery skills would be Motion Prediction, if we look at the planned TD changes. Motion Prediction is just a rank 2 skill and it affects all turrets.
Solution: Nerv Motion Prediction, so that it no longer affects short range weapons (as unguided missiles are all considered short range) and rank 4 or adjust Missile Projection to affect all missiles.
Requirements for T2 need to be changed as well, T2 medium turrets require more skills than Heavy Missiles. You should make sure that it also requires T2 Light Missiles in order to use T2 Heavy Missiles, otherwise it wouldn't be fair, would it?
Disclaimer: This post might contain traces of irony and sarcasm.
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:32:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
I was following you right up until you claimed that a 36k EHP tank was equivalent to a 100k EHP tank.
-Liang
In the initial post on wich you replied i clearly stated that these changes to HML will not promote HAM use on ships that have bonuses for HAM RML and HML Takeing in range and damage in consideration RML with these changes allow for better tanks on those ships and are still able to shoot to (extreme) long ranges Also due the light missile vs the heavy assault missile, the real damage difference vs verry fast and / or small ships will be significantly closer to eachother On these ships i don't think anyone would chose for the HAM.
The reference to the drake was only to show what would happen if people were to chose range + effective hp vs damage NOT to compare the caracal with the drake |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:34:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Onictus wrote:Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit. Fit an ACR, easy. In fact the more I play with Hurricane fits the sheer absurdity of its ease of fitting becomes clear. It's very easy to argue that more PG needs to come off. You just proposed a setup with an ACR and not one but two frigate sized modules, and you're using that to argue that the ship's too easy to fit? Riiiiiight. Let me tell you about the excessively generous fitting room on the Brutix, as demonstrated by a setup with a co-processor and two light neutron blasters! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 213 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |