undeniable proof that CCP is staffed by ncdot and nulli :\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

While the nerf to HML nerf to range i can agree with, the nerf to damage is pretty dam awful 20% and is a terrible terrible idea imo. Cerebus HAC has just went from bad to Eagle bad, and trust me there now both worst HAC there is.......

Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

250mm Railgun II with Spike:
DPS: 20
Alpha: 92
Optimal: 65 km
Falloff: 15 km
Cap/sec: -1.1
PG: 187.2
CPU: 31.5

Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
DPS: 21
Alpha: 91
Optimal: 54 km
Falloff: 10 km
Cap/sec: -3.8
PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
CPU: 27.8

720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
DPS: 17
Alpha: 242
Optimal: 54 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
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.

Seriously nerfing HML's as a whole is way too excessive. What about us null-sec ratters who have come to rely on the Tengu because it is the only somewhat effective ship to make money while the low-high sec guys get to play FW and incursions for big isks.

I agree Drakes have become too OP for a BC ship and they should have their bonus's reduced or changed accordingly but nerfing HML's entirely is like chopping off an arm because of a broken finger.

If you're going to change them anyway, at least for the love of god give us null-sec grunts a way to make some decent money. You've already nerfed tech, which is fine.. but you didn't replace it with a bottom up way for us grunts to make money (and please don't say sigs, i'm not flying around for hours in the hopes to find a decent site and then hoping a ton of other people haven't found it first in the hopes that I have a slim chance of getting a module that is worth something if I can survive hauling it to Jita).

Have you ever seen that actually done?

You can correlate that with the Drake being the top ship.

Do a 1000dps 50k range HAM Tengu then
Problem solved
ISK to Inggroth

Oh yeah, anyone want to talk about the double wammy of ratting in the south where rats Tracking disrupt and spew defender like no other. Guess Missiles are worthless ratting platforms through and through and through down there now.

Good thing they haven't ****** over drones yet.

Power Creep is indeed bad.
These generic missiles changes are, too.

All these changes got one thing in common: it streamlines missiles into more like the gunnery platforms. This has been mentioned by numerous posters here already, I shouldn't need to elaborate, but: a) HML changes are non-stop argued by comparison to gunnery dps stats, completely ignoring the innate differences between missiles and guns. b) TD/TE/TC affecting all weapon platforms.

It's a worrysome development, as it hints on CCP (and CSM, if you guys are involved in this) either 1) don't know enough about the innate differences between missiles/guns, 2) don't care and/or have a secret agenda to streamline this (if this is intentional, but not mentioned to players, this is virtually deceiving and no better than lies).

Just see how this thread pans out.
* HML nerf pro-posters compare a mid-range platform that has several innate counters guns don't (travel time - and you can outrun missiles too, defenders, smartbombs), with long-range gunnery that operate on completely different terms/mechanics
* HML nerf pro-posters tend to even post long-range gun ammo and compare it with optimal ammo type on HML, skewing numbers (and this even disregards the point I just did above, which is quite major)
* HML nerf pro-posters tend to ignore that there's alot more natural HML ships that are in a "bad" (not very much used, at all) shape, than there is those two (Drake, Tengu) ones that is. They also fail to present why the Drake and Tengu respectively is being so "overpowered", while, if they had done that, they could identify issues with those ships (and the role they are given) themselves, rather than the HML themselves.
* TD/TE/TC affecting all weapon types will have a major impact on the game, it's not something that should and could just be brushed aside as a side-note in a post about missile changes. This is a major game mechanic uphaul that could potentially change the whole shape of PvP as we know it. It deserves as separate thread, and should be broadcasted better to the public.

Yes, you are right that Power Creep is bad. The suggested game mechanic changes here, too, are. Not because the intention is bad (it isn't). Not because, like you suggest, that we somehow are against nerfing overall (not all of us are). But rather because CCP seems to either shoot from the hip and chance with potential game-overhauling changes, or have some hidden agenda is equally game upsetting.

I too think all CCP employees are delicious chocolate and marshmallow treats, ready to be dipped into a fire and eaten deliciously.

HAMs will be the new kid on the block and they'll do well. Deal with it.

Yes.

And as I've said several times, the weapons system itself can be balanced, I just think CCP is going about it a bit too heavy handed. The only difference I'm proposing from Fozzie's nerf is reducing the damage nerf from 20% to 10%.

I'm curious as to how the TE/TC changes will pan out, but those stats haven't been released yet so I can't really say whether I'd be happy using the tracking script on HAMs, for example.

I see that we've moved from denial and rage on to the bargaining stage of grief. Keep at it. You're almost at acceptance.

On a side note, I would love to start seeing T2 FOF missiles :)

But seriously guys do you not think that CCP has
got plan for the rest of the caldari missile boats that never get used that
would balance this out ?

For example the cerb which could be a awesome long range missile boat with wicked speed
Or maby they have a suprise for the ferox ?
This is EVE anything is possible , just be positive

If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?

Or did i miss something here?

Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers...

CCP must be doing something right.

Why aren't you considering Delayed Damage/Firewalls/Defenders?

Another excellent question and the answer is that we have not forgotten them at all. Missiles are very different from turrets in a lot of ways and that's both a big part of their appeal and part of the reason that the arguments in this thread seems to be going in circles.
Aspects like the delay on damage, vulnerability to firewalls, defenders, using their own formula instead of tracking and selectable damage types are all hard to put on paper since their importance changes greatly based on the specific ingame situation.
"Bringing in line" may not have been the best choice of words since it can be misunderstood to mean that everything will be the same. Missiles will still have certain advantages and disadvantages inherent to their mechanics, and part of the compensation for those differences is the fact that even after this proposal heavy missiles would continue to be by far the best cruiser weapon for damage projection at mid to long range. I am not proposing making heavy missiles match guns in damage or range, I'm proposing reducing the advantage they have over guns slightly. That being said this is a tricky balance area since so much of their performance is dependent on all these other factors. We're not taking the challenges here lightly and that's one of the reasons we're reaching out to you all for your feedback on the proposal.