| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
75
   |
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
Very interesting changes.
I do like the idea of gaining more fitting options for missile boats. Many Caldari boats have already been discussed but one thing that sprung to my mind is a Torpedo Typhoon using these updated Tracking Enhancers.
Depending on how much they increase the range and reduce the explosion velocity this could turn into one mean Battleship, even more so than it is now. Especially since TEs benefit ACs as well.
The new Bellicose likewise seems to open some interesting options. Combining these new Tracking Enhancers with a bonused Target Painter will probably do very, very nasty things to frigates, even with the reduced HM damage.
I don't fly Caldari, so I'll leave other to comment on that. But I like how this will benefit Minmatar Ships with split weapon systems.
Could this possibly even be a buff to the Naglfar? And, seeing as TEs would provide exactly what Citadel Torps need, maybe even the Phoenix? |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sellendis wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Sellendis wrote:One working weapon system nerfed with range and dmg? Ok, what do we get in return?
Can we get 20% DPS and range buff for minmatar ACs? It would only be fair. You might have a future at CCP. You should put in an application. Well, some buff to most under-used race in PvP would be nice. Did anyone even see a minmatar BC or Comm. ship in the AT X? They need some love, and no, i am not just saying this couse i have AC trained to hell. I dont think Heavys need a nerf this strong, nerf range...ok. Nerf dmg by 20% is WTF? How is that balancing when blasters were almost useless and a minor buff of 5% makes them ok, but this deserves range and dmg nerf of 20% each....i dont see the logic here.
I don't think what you watched was the Alliance Tournament...
Were there like robots with a moving red light in the place of eyes?
Or maybe lightsabers? |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:17:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:
Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
There's this thing called tracking, you might've heard of it. It reduces your damage if your target is moving in any direction but directly towards or away from you. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
Long Range Tech 2 missile ammo?
You do realize that both T2 missiles have shorter range than T1 and Faction missiles right?
Faction Missiles are the ones used for long range engagements. They are the more expensive long range ammunition of choice, just like the T2 ammo is. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
77
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Compare Tech II long range ammo across the board.
Compare Faction DPS ammo across the board.
Compare Tech II high DPS "tracking" ammo across the board.
There are no Tech II long range Heavy Missiles.
Faction DPS Ammo has optimal ranges of under 20km, providing around 50 more base DPS on BC hulls (no damage mods or rigs), compared to Faction Scourge.
Tech II DPS Ammo has optimal ranges of under 10km, providing around 25 more base DPS on BC hulls (no damage mods or rigs), compared to Scourge Furies.
Those comparisons would be even more in favour of missiles due to their extreme damage projection. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
You know, the more rage posts I read the more I think this nerf may not be too much.
All these rage posts talk about ALL missiles and ALL caldari now being useless.
Yet only Heavy Missiles have been changed and the TD change has plenty of counters (webs, painters, TCs, TEs).
If HMs really were so good that any other weapon system isn't even worthy of the consideration of Caldari players then I think the nerf might just be needed. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 14
Alpha: 66
Optimal: 58 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -0.8
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!:
DPS: 15
Alpha: 65
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.2
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO:
DPS: 12
Alpha: 174
Optimal: 48 km
Falloff: 22 km
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 23 (previously 29)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo compared to Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo cherry picked data for desired outcome ??
Updated with FACTION ammo.
You're right. It does indeed look like the results where cherry picked.
Nerf HM range by another 10% and damage by another 25%?
|
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns?
How am I cherrypicking stats?
Would you rather compare to shorter ranged faction ammo? With ranges under 20km and outclassed by short-range turrets in about every single aspect?
Also fine by me, I guess that'd mean changing Heavy Missiles so that they're worse than Javelin Assault Missiles in every single way.
|
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9)
Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
Range: 63 km (previously 84)
Cap/sec: 0
PG: 94.5
CPU: 41.3
Sweety, why don't you leave Mathematics to those who've finished primary school?
I'm sure there's a wonderful cartoon on television right now that'd be much more interesting. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Cpt Gobla wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns? How am I cherrypicking stats? Would you rather compare to shorter ranged faction ammo? With ranges under 20km and outclassed by short-range turrets in about every single aspect? i would rather compare the type of ammo that is ACTUALLY USED in the respective situation. which is not close range faction ammo.
My post was in response to someone feeling that using T2 long-range ammo, the ammo that's actually used, was unfair and that a comparison of faction ammo vs faction ammo should be made.
I did as requested. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:28:00 -
[11] - 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. |
| |
|