Hi everyone!

Lastly, personal attacks against CCP employees are both against the rules and viewed very poorly and may well lead to forum privileges being revoked.

Thanks and fly safe.

PS: As a final note, please note the wording of CCP Fozzie's post; these are tentative plans and as such are subject to change/complete reversal as always. Please consider that before going off on the deep end!

Edit: removed rant

Please feel free to debate this 'tentative' change in a constructive manner.

ISD Suvetar.

I assume you're talking about the Arty Loki and Arty Sleip? Those... are not really common fits. Even still, they're kinda underwhelming. The Muninn would matter except for the whole LRHACs not mattering at all. The Absolution and Legion both need some buffing.

And the HAM NH is actually getting a pretty massive buff. And the HML NH is getting a relative boost next to the Tengu, which I personally find to be a good thing.

-Liang

All missile ships are getting a boost via the TE/TC change. The Arty Loki and Arty Sleip weren't common because they're underwhelming, not because they were particularly hard to fit.

-Liang

Thats it Yaay, rage because you're in an alliance that had one viable fleet comp that just got nerfed into the ground.

You've already been destroyed by Fozzie in the other thread with all your made up ****. Here, let me help, finish you off:


Missile ships will now be forced to make the same sacrifices as turrnet ships to extend the range of their weapons, giving up tank and utility slots to achieve their longest ranges. So while the Nighthawk got a little gimped on its overall range, it can give up a low and or mid and easily get that range back, with the added bonus of being able to hit smaller targets harder if they want.


Also please stop flinging out 4 damage mod fits that nobody but you would ever undock and use in a fight, it makes you look dumb when you post.

Missiles got nerfed and now AAA has no viable doctrines outside of Arty Loki's (you remember, the ship you claim in your post that nobody uses only thats not true and multiple alliances are currently using alpha lokis as a part of a doctrine) and you're mad about it, we get it, but you just keep posting this stupid outright false bullshit to try and save you from that fate. You're like the Fox News of fitting Yaay.

Sounds awfully like you, except you don't get to claim the last part anymore, thankfully.

I like how you post this with no justification, yet I posted (with reasoning) why the Tengu may be solidified further solidified as the best mission runner.

-Liang

Im interested in what DPS your Sliep does at 50km (let me give you a hint, its about 4 dps)

Heh, the original (L4) PVE Tengu was HAM fit. I did a fair amount of campaigning about range and damage application hurting it, but those problems should be getting significantly better with the changes. That was also before the mission MWD changes, so the range really hurt it. The raw damage will go down a bit if you replace one of the BCUs with a TE though.

-Liang

I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.

Ahac HAM Sac's.

No one in PL likes you

your personality is terrible

enjoy -a-

lol

A few comments:
- This particular branch of the conversation is about PVE. People regularly faction fit their Tengus. I personally have multiple PVE Tengus that are faction fit.
- Those stats are not overheated.
- I yelled at you for **** fitting and posting unrealistic PVP fits.

-Liang

You keep talking about the DPS output of artillery, I don't think you get how artillery works.

You need to learn to fit a ship, seriously. Every fit that you have posted has been a **** fit and you've lied about the stats. Furthermore, it's not as though it's particularly hard - someone earlier in this thread was talking about a straight replacement of HML -> HAM and getting 988 out of their current fit.

-Liang

A few comments:
- lmgtfy.com?q=1000+dps+tengu
- http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/55448-High-dps-enough-tank-medium-price-tengu.html (Not how I'd fit it, but it's servicable and I've used a similar fit)
- If you're talking about ratting, make sure that your reload DPS is unchecked. This is also generally true for PVP.
- You straight up said the Bellicose gets 40-50k EHP and 550 DPS. You constantly shift goalposts by using T2 rigs and T3 bonuses for your fits but insist that nobody else can when comparing ****. CCP Fozzie straight ripped you a new ******* for being the shitstain that you are.
- If you're really yaay: what the **** why are you so ******* bad now? Have I really come so far in this game that I've surpassed you so dramatically in general ship knowledge?

-Liang

#216 Posted: 2012.09.14 19:24 | Report | Edited by: ISD TYPE40
I'm sorry, but if you think it's a Paper thin setup on a Belicose because the 4 lows were dedicated to dps, you don't get the point. You can still get this thing upwards of 40,000-50,000 ehp with a bonus ship and still around 500 dps.

I mean do I literally have to theory craft every fit for you just to show you the variety of ways that this is not a good idea?

575 powergrid +25% skill + 15% RC + 10% ancillary = 909 PG. That's easily enough to fit 2 large shield extenders, and a Damage control + 2 slots left for resistance and rigs to boost shielding quite high. Added to the fact that you have high drone + HAM damage you can get 475 DPS just with skills alone. Add in overheating, implants, or other variety of options that ******* rich *people* like me might do, you can see how this quickly gets OP....

This was expected. CCP nerfs ships that have been overpowered so long that when people join the game they're told "train X because it is literally the only thing worth training". Is it any surprise that people would be butthurt over the nerf? The only way to fix these things kinds of problems is to nerf faster. It's a delicate balance though, because you have to be careful not to nerf before the metagame can adapt - and frankly that can take quite a long time!

-Liang

STOP CRYING FFS

stable platform for missiles...

I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.

This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.

These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40.

The drake is not OP because of its resist bonus. Its op because it is cheap and has close range dps at very long range, and huge EHP. With 25% less EHP it is still the crowned king of fleet warfare. TEs will allow it to maintain its existing range for minimal tradeoffs.

You're literally comparing apples with oranges, or rather close range turrets with long range missiles.

Try making the comparison with long range turrets. Then look at the hitpoints these ships can get when fit in this manner. You'll find that the Drake is massively advantaged at range and above average even at close range.

HML's are a long range weapon.. Stop comparing them to short range weapon and stop being so bad.

Compare them to arties/beams if you want a comparison (Also have fun fitting beams on a non gimpy ship)

35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either.

Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values.

so what reason have you kept out the TE's TC's seems a bit odd/unnecessary?

35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either.

Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values.

The velocity buff already makes firewalls a little less powerful, I wouldn't want to nerf them further at this time considering how difficult a really good firewall is to pull off today.

Whenever I listed a change as unifying it means that the different sizes of missiles had slightly different penalties or bonuses in that stat compared to their T1 counterparts.

Yes, because the 500 dps javelin HAM drake has caused so much problems at 30km right

Even with the previous outlined changes you would have been able to use javs with tracking enhancers getting 500 dps at like 40km. I don't see how this buff is unfair, drakes getting max DPS at 70km was unfair, now they get similar dps at 35km, sounds fair enough to me.

I see some of updates Fozzie made to the original post, but will submit my post anyway.

I've said plenty about it in game and figure I might as well get in on this forum. These are just ideas and I haven't done any math or testing to figure out what numbers would be appropriate. That's CCP's job.

RANGE
The HM range nerf is harsh and should be reduced or removed. A recurring argument is that no other weapon system does full damage at their extreme optimals. A few points on that.

- First, missiles only do full damage if the target is not moving and its sig radius is favorable to the missiles explosion radius. There will always be some damage mitigation due to the targets movement, and any large missile will never do full damage to smaller targets without TP.
- Second, while missiles can project reliable damage to extreme ranges, they do absolutely zero damage once you go just 1m out of their range. Turrets have falloff ranges and still maintain chances to hit, and missiles lack this entirely. To rephrase, missiles lose ALL of their damage after their 'optimal' whereas turrets loose a prot
- And finally, delayed damage. The farther out your target it, the longer it takes to apply damage. Targets could potentially warp out before your missiles arrive, or be killed by turrets before your missiles arrive. If you warp out while your missiles are in flight they do no damage.

DAMAGE
The HM damage nerf should be reduced. One point CCP Fozzie has brought up is that this arises when players compare HMs to short range weapon systems. I'm not comparing HMs to Blasters or Autocannons. When I started EVE and decided to use missiles, I looked at HAMs vs. HMs. The small amount of additional DPS from the HAMs doesn't make up for their much harder fitting requirements and much shorter range. Of course, HAMs are the short range version, so the fix that comes to mind is a smaller nerf to HM damage and slight buff to HAM damage, with easier fitting reqs.

TRACKING
I understand that CCP can do as they please with making up stats and having something effect various attributes, but I don't like the idea of tracking disruptors, enhancers, or computers effecting anything to do with missiles. There's no aspect of missiles that involves the launcher rotating in order to track a target. Creating new mods with same effect is fine. It doesn't make sense for it to be an all in one mod. If this change t the very minimum, these should be different mods.

On a semi related note to the tracking changes, from what I've heard from a number of Amarr pilots, it seems like this change was made so that Amarr racial EWAR could effect missiles. This would be in the same vein as making projectiles and launchers use capacitor so they could be neuted out. CCP could do it easily, but it wouldn't make sense.

DAMAGE BONUS
An "advantage" of missiles is that you get to choose your damage type. Being bonused for kinetic makes that advantage less appealing, especially at higher levels when you'll use kinetic over an NPC weakness because the bonused damage simply outweighs their weakness. Further, a 10 second reload time often means you won't be switching to a more effective damage type in the heat of a PvP battle. I see the new Caldari destroyer is getting a kinetic damage bonus. Caldari ships should be moved away from kinetic bonuses and towards general damage bonuses. That would maintain the neighborhood of volley damages that kinetic currently gets. An alternative would be a RoF bonus, lowering volley damage but maintaining bonused kinetic levels of DPS, while making counting volleys harder.

A reduction in reload time for all weapons would make switching ranges for turrets and damage types for projectiles and missiles a practical option. I remember reading in the skill discussion forum a suggestion for a skill that accomplishes that that was called Ordinance Handling. I would add to it that for lasers and mining crystals the skill could reduce damage and extend their lives.

To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over.

Is there something wrong with webbing the fire wall and moving around it?? Firewalls are fine. Sure they can be challenging to deal with for pilots who only know how to align, lock and shoot one target.

I'm told from a reliable source that HML TD'ing Sacrilege fleet can nullify the damage from turrets.

Though I must say, if you actually believe 6 large smartbombs render missile fleets moot, why have Drake fleets been amongst the popular for half a decade?

Your posting shows a calm and sophisticated approach to what should be done. Thumbs up to you.

I got only one question for you - do you think it could help to buff the natural counter for HML (CMs on battleshiphulls) for PvP so they could kill HML blobs?

See this is the problem, those are not the reason for those ships being used (well the minmatar is partly right), you are fundimentally wrong.

Zealot is used because it has the best damage projection of the ahacs by a long way. (going by your way of it it would be sacreleige)
Drake is used because it has the best damage projection of any shield bc by a long way. Those who can afford it use tengu because guess what, it has better projection.
Abaddon and Rokh are used because they have the best damage projection of BS, though the abaddon is being superseeded by the navy apoc by anyone that can afford them as it has better projection (even though it has worse resists and dps).

Even with the winmatar its at least partly about projection, 1400s having great range so long as you have your target webbed and barrage allowing autos to project well even on hulls with no fall-off bonus. Of course the auto ships that do have a fall-off bonus are all pure win, again because of projection (hello machariel).

So ccp thinks the drake/tengu damage projection is too much and nerfs it (mainly i suspect because it isn't hampered at close range like turrets), it has nothing to do with resist bonuses.

I'm not seeing much evidence that many are taking advantage of their destructibility, at least in PvP. Also the Ewar changes aren't coming this winter.

Yeah and there is more than nullsec in the game. Noone is firewalling missiles in lowsec smaller engagements that I've seen. Besides firewalls are not like an automatic missile negator anyway.

Range nerf is not enough. HMs have too much damage compared to other long range weapons. It's been shown a hundred times already probably itt. Keep whining in vain though.

Yeah, ok pro, because turrets have no downsides either. vOv Most of all being that they don't do that HML damage at range.









You seem pretty terrible.

"full damage" Ok, see that is where I question your logic. And then you notice the qualifiers you placed on that. Those same mods increase missile damage. So, what is your point?

Arguing adamantly does not make one right. And those two ships will probably get their own trimming, later. But when you strip down the weapons to just themselves, it's been shown repeatedly in this thread that HM damage is much too high compared to other medium long range weapons. The current nerf will have them still doing the most damage at max range. They just won't being doing as close to those guns at short range.

Then these new weapon stats will be added onto the newly respecced hulls that use them. That's the whole point in the OP. To leave HMs as they are was complicating all the later rebalancing because they left HM boats too powerful. People are not flying Drakes and Tengus only because they have monster tanks. They're flying them because they also do much better damage at long range. That will now apparently be 10% less.

Also, there will be similar mechanics to increase damage application once the tracking mod changes come into the game. This is not the totality of the changes. Recognize we don't have the whole picture yet. Crying over one nerf amongst the mix is stupid, tbh.

I think the problem is that you're using your experience when saying that turrets apply more damage, and thats totally understandable, but not at all how you should go about balancing things.

everything has to be balanced around the best players. Sure against 90% of players, turrets will do more damage than missiles because they *herp* *derp* set approach and press F1, but you dont balance around all of the morons, you have to balance around the best.

I guarantee you'd be far better off in a drake than you would in a harbinger if the frigate tackling you were piloted by garmon

Its just like starcraft, right now im gold league, and I think storm is totally imba, its impossible to dodge and kills me every time, but they dont balance around people like me, they have to balance for the best people in the world, or the super GSL code S players would completely break the game.

Its the same here; they could balance around you fighting me, but if they did that, someone like garmon could use greater piloting skill to be completely unbeatable.

I know Conflag is really bad ammo against fast frigates like Dramiel.



I want to see:
- Rail Brutix doing 400+ dps at 70+ km
- Beam Harbinger doing 400 dps at 100 km

Nevermind... Those don't exist.

Oh, and you probably want to watch this. A lot of info about how turrets work in game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JvfhVXbMgc8

Did you even read the post before responding? seriously, read my post, then read your post again.

My post is not comparing the two ships at all, its talking about their relative damage when shooting at people with different piloting skills.

People have been saying that missiles do less DPS against smaller targets than turrets, because turrets can hit for full damage if the target is coming straight at them. My point is that only happens when the pilot youre fighting is terrible, and a good pilot will avoid WAY more turret damage than missile damage, so in that scenario its always better to be in a missile ship.

Yes it is comparing the two weapon systems not the two ships.

Why not have one T2 longrange missile and one T2 shortrange missile with T1 in between for Cruise/heavy/Light missiles?
This is the pattern used by turrets and by short-range missiles, and it was an option we considered for long-range missile launchers. However in the end we didn't see a good reason to homogenize missiles and turrets in that way. As well, since T1 missiles have comparable range to T2 longrange turret ammo, we would have had to nerf T1 missile range further to keep that system balanced and I don't think you folks want that.

Are you making these changes because you are part of a shadowy dev conspiracy to push the agenda of fat cat projectile conglomerates and stretching back to the original BoB BBQ in 1723?
How do you know? Did someone break the blood oath?

Because if you strip down to the medium long range weapons on a Drake, Harby, or Cane (I won't include the Brutix here because it is tier 1) you can't create anywhere near the same damage at 60-70kkm as you can with a drake all with possibly double the tank for the drake. HMLs are simply better than heavy beams and 720 artys and of course 250mm rails. Even with short range tech II ammo in the turrets the dps advantage is much less than the HM tech II advantage over tech II range turret ammo. Tech II turret ammo that has a 10k optimal and a tracking disadvantage.

Even after the new stats the HML tech II fury will outrange tech II turret ammo by quite a bit.

I don't disagree that the tengu subsystem stats and bonuses are "out of whack" and that Drake tanks are "out of whack". Resist bonuses are precarious things. One could envision a rebalanced and possibly buffed Prophecy and Legion (if they retain resist bonuses) being similarly precarious ships. But the weapon systems are "out of whack" and that is why this nerf is happening.

I missed you old friend. <3

Lol, wtf?

Anyway, you need not bother. You think no numbers and even a little reason were thrown about in this almost 300 page thread already? Get working on your threat to induce the cave I guess.

Why not post the entire top 20 and see most of them are Winmatarr ships ? In fact just shy of 50% make up this list.
And the same thing happens with weapons systems and projectiles.
At any rate the cane was just a start to the bombardment of nerfs that are coming to a projectile winmatarr ship near you.

The fact is DEV made the right call with rebalancing the nerf,
they listened to the people who went onto test and tried the changes for them self and made adjustments.
Fozzie you made the right call I commend you for taking the time to read the forums and make the right call.

Maybe it's because the Sacrilege has a damage bonus only to HAMs.

The Nighthawk has always been gimped due to fitting issues.

The Cerberus has more range than is realistically useful in 99% of situations (who needs 189km range on HMLs?) . Essentially the ship has only 3 useful bonuses.

Does this answer your question how these ships are not overpowered despite HMLs being supposedly overpowered?