Sounds like a caracal nerf to me :(

Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?)

What does ccp have against the nighthawk is the real question, 2 hml bonuses lol. Such an awesome looking ship too ...... shame.

why a damage reduction of 20% and not 10% or 15%, what was your main line of though and calculations that lead to this final number?

This is also my view. Guns and missiles should have separate countering modules.

oh the goon and cfc tears, enjoying this thread

so instead of 800 blob drakes what you going to do now goon faggots

I think the Drake and HML changes are ********. Really not impressed.

An option to refund SPs now wasted in Missiles would seem appropriate.

No. I'll ******* moan until CCP realise they are stupid and leave things as they are.

QQ, cry more blah blah blah.

I couldn't give a **** about the Tengu, I was talking from the perspective of the Drake. Yes, happy for the Tengu to have a nerf - it should never have been allowed to fit HMLs in the first place, but nerfing HMLs on the Drake is so ******* ******** I can't think even straight.

****.

This is a good post.

False. Missiles behave that way. Turrets don't unless that fast moving target is at close range and moving transversal to the attacker.

Not really.

He ignores the fact that all ships are going to be changed.

Congrats Fozzie. You've just made Caldari, just as useless as Gallente is. Can I get my 5mill SP+ in Missile Operation back? Cause this is stupid as f***.

You do realize that missiles are DIFFERENT than turret based weapons.

I'm glad I'm quitting this sh*t tastic game. You guys swing the nerf hammer, and break it into a billion pieces, then takes a year or LONGER to fix it. My god, when will you imbeciles LEARN.


Furthermore, why don't you stop this stupid "ship rebalancing" and balance large scale PvP? Since thats what EVE has evolved into, or are you just going to continue to let blob warfare ruin the game?

Um, Fozzie... what about the Cerberus, Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Nighthawk?

I would rather see the Drake lose a launcher than to see the Caracal et al. get hurt this badly. The Cerberus is now out classed by the Sacrilege. The Nighthawk needed a buff, not a nerf. The Caracal heavy missile damage was always just decent, never a problem. Since when was the Navy Caracal ever a problem? (Yes, I understand that these ships we will need to be balanced, but the HM change that addresses the Drake hurts ships that needed a buff.)

Frankly, HML's are going to be pretty useless for everything now. PVE and PVP.

I'd have rather you'd have removed 50% range than 20% damage. At least Turrets have the OPTION to vastly increase their damage close up.

So, unless that Fury ammo has a 40% damage increase, you've pretty much nerfed it into the ground.

Not to mention you're already gearing up to further nerf the drake into the ground.

Stop flailing around randomly with a sledge hammer, and start carefully adjusting things.

Fitting a full rack of 720's already requires a PG implant or ACR. Moron.

"Lets nerf the drakes ****** damage even more" - Said no one ever.

Here's a thing:

why couldn't they buff the other medium sized long range weapons? They're pretty underutilized as it is, with the exception of arties.

Where does doing the easy thing come into any of this?

Except that as has also been stated repeatedly, missiles don't behave in the same way as turrets do and so you can't make direct comparisons between them, at least not as simply as you're doing.

I'm sorry, but when does "brought back in line" mean "now on par damagewise with railguns in addition to having other factors that severely cripple their damage output"? You do realize also that this is going to be their raw DPS that's breaking through the floor here, not counting anything lost because a target is moving. And cruisers very rarely fight stationary targets.

"Brought back in line" would mean keeping some semblance of being able to do damage, but losing a large chunk of range. Not what's happening here. And if they absolutely HAVE to lose damage, then between five and ten percent, not twenty.

Why do we never worry about what is supposed to keep the target in place at 80km and 50km?

Well keep in mind you also have to take into account the relative velocity. Turret ships can mitigate the effect of the target's velocity by minimizing absolute velocity (you do know how vector addition and subtraction works, I'm assuming). Missile ships can't.

Oh yeah you're changing it. What you didn't tell everyone is the Hurricane with a typical 1600mm plate can only fit 5 180mm
autocannons. P.S. That's with a 5% powergrid implant.

Kind of pathetic. Oh... and very sneaky of you CCP. What's the deal? Don't like the Whelp Cane? Have to save your precious supercapital friends at the demise of every other player in-game?

Can we just eliminate Minmatar and Caldari from the game. I'd like those skillpoints back.

TY.

You're not really thinking this through, are you? Unless your goal happens to be "MAKE ALL DE SYSTEMS DE SAME".

No, this change doesn't make any of the other options more viable except for a mild buff to fitting. That's my entire point.

Let's play a game.
See how many pages we can go before you start putting words in my mouth again.

Seems you conveniently ignored the part where I said the range nerf was fine but the damage nerf was over the top.

So you're more or less saying that because nobody ever uses the other long range weapon types, they shouldn't be buffed at all?

No, nobody uses them because they're ******* awful.

No, they're just awful. Even if HMLs never existed people wouldn't be using beam omens, rail thoraxes, or arty ruptures any more than they do now.

The ONLY reason medium artillery gets used is because of its high alpha.

*wonders how many subs CCP is going to loose over this"

Personally, if this were my game, I'd make everyone happ... less irritated by balancing ships up rather than nerfing them down. But hey, it's your game, your subs, your risk. I just hope I get an SP refund, because I'm not going to retrain my account on the clock over some lazy nerf.

"CCP; fixing things by ruining other things since 2003."

You guys sure know how to overkill will the nerf bat, seriously.

Hows about fixing the broken things instead of nerfing the working as intended parts just because its easier and less work to do?

Probably even less but their only seems to be 3 or 4 of the usual people supporting this and everyone else hating it.

What happens when the "new thing" that replaces the Drake and Tengu becomes too popular... It's the same old crappy circles that CCP do instead of concentrating on things people have actually asked for.

Then tweak the ships not the missles.

Now if you hadn't said "5 or 6" etc, I might have taken your comment seriously, considered it. It's all about trolling, pvp and F* everyone else, eh? wtg, get ccp into a nerf frenzy rather than actually fixing this game. Think it'll be more than 5 or 6 just on that reason alone.

Which is nonsense, my two 100MNAB PVP Tengus (active and a passive tanked one) with lvl 5 sub skills and fours or fives in most missile skills, do about 400dps with faction launchers and BCUs, these are ships that I've spent billions of ISK on.

On there own Tengus are overpowered because of the tanks that you can achieve on them and the fact that the prop mod allows you to achieve high speeds without a corresponding sig radius increase, so you can run away from anyone you can't fight most of the time, not because of the dps output which is frankly underwhelming.

Lowering damage on these ships would take them to something like 320dps with faction fittings and decent skills, it makes one of the most popular ships in the game untenable in PVP and PVE.

Hey weren't you that guy that was like 14yo or something? Yeah I remember you. But anyhoot, lad, I'm not that same sort, I object to your illogical and irrational generalizations. In fact I don't fly a drake, I don't even use missiles, but I see how wrong this is for all missile boats as it doesn't just effect one or two of them. This has nothing to do with "balance" and only makes things more complicated across the board, even broken, son.

And unfortunately this is why CCP knows it can 90% of the time push through any old crap. As as for the nerf yes nerfing two things is better than doing everything so nerf the Drake and the Tengu not everything else that uses HML.

Ode to the days when you had to be 18yo to play mmo's ...well not that anyone took the tos' seriously *shrugs*. But yes, doesn't apply here.

But really is everthing supposed to be equal? There is always going to be something that is better than something else, it's a never ending circle when you try to make everythign the same.

The problem with the drake is its tank and projected damage and its cheap, which is great for new players. The tengu is the same but you pay a much higher price for it and you like everyother T3 lose SP if you lose it.

To nerf them some more? Great...

I don't disagree with the HML range nerf, but a 20% dps is reduction is full ret@rd.

Yes and in that is the problem it isn't affecting one ship it's affecting lots.

Yea, and a vindicator can get 2200dps. An enyo can get 500.
I wanna see the tengu fit with 800dps...let me take a guess its ham fit? And please, dont even bother posting a 6 launcher setup for a "standard fleet fit"

Damn .Liked the Tengu AND the Drake but i'm aware that were OP .The thing is the other HM boats were not OP and this weapon system nerf is hurting them more , without reason . Maybe an adjustement to the kin bonus of the drake and tengu would have sufficed (2% per level for ex instead of 5).

Anyway crunching hard HAM's in EFT :)

On a ship that cost over half a bil and you lose sp when you die... nice.

Not really. The extra slots get cancelled out by the missile nerf. Plus, you know, T1 cruisers.

Still wondering why the don't just change the resist bonus/slot layout on the drake and balance the accelerated ejection/fuel catalyst on the tengu. I mean instead of changing all heavy missiles. Wouldn't that make more sense?

Then what is the point of different races different modules different ships, everything will be the same in your Utopia so it won't matter what we turn up in. I see that the people who don't agree with this now have a name or a label. First rule of dehumanisation.

Bringing into line in this case means 'make useless'. You never see rail feroxes or brutixes, beam harbingers or eagles at all for a good reason. The intended effect might be to encourage people into using the other LR medium guns, but in reality people will just switch to tier 3 battlecruisers (and maybe arty canes).

The intended effect might be to encourage people into using the other LR medium guns, but in reality people will just switch to tier 3 battlecruisers (and maybe arty canes).

Did you seriously just post a 10mn ab 6 launcher setup after i specifically told you not to bother posting a 6 launcher setup? Yes they use that...against arty maelstorms because they cant track abing cruisers for **** and tengus have a good tank. Not because HMLs do trollolo dps.
And this fit is outdated anyway. current apoc navy doctrine smashse this.

See again you're for the nerf for HML but everytime you counter an argument you use bonuses or lack of bonuses on the ship to say why its a good idea.

But again you cant have everything equal, it doesn't work.

No, that post is from me. The guy expecting close range damage from a long range weapon was you by stating a tengu does 800+dps, which it does not.

Pulse lasers have more optimal than hybrids and autocannons, nerf that to bring it in line.
Arties have too much alpha compared to other systems, reduce it to bring it in line with other systems.
Hybrids do way too much damage at 1km compared to other systems, reduce it to bring it in line with other systems.

You see where this goes?

The reason they have more _base_ damage because other systems in the first place is that they suffer heavy penalties from anything that is not a standing still battleship and which, unlike with turrets, you cant compensate for by flying your ship in a certain way. The resulting real damage that is applied is almost never 100% and can be as low as 10% or less, not being able to break a frigates passive shield recharge.

Let me tell you how I don't think it's hilarious when I come across a rail brutix.

Range nerf is OK, but damage nerf is bad joke - 220 dps on drake with EM missiles (CN mjolnir, no drones)? Nobody fly this **** solo or in small gang. CCP what's wrong with you? Why you supporting drake blobs?

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?

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 (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.

do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?

Do they factor in firewalls?

This would prevent nerfing under powered ships, give the Caracal a buff instead of a nerf/buff, and at least nerf the Nighthawk less.

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 ??

When looking at these numbers keep in mind turrets can change ammo types to take advantage of closer range situations, Heavy Missile users can't.

Yes with the 20 % damage 25% range nerf the HML launcher will have aproximatly the same dps at long ranges. However unlike all other long range weapon systems HML does not get the option to load Short range High damage ammo (unless the Rage missiles are changed that drasticly) and even if there changed to short range high damage, they still won't compare to eg Javelin ammo, wich gets a TRACKING bonus as well (as the Rage will get a explosion velocity and radius penalty)

Comparing HML to long range weapons ONLY with the long range ammo loaded makes no sense

At short range the Guns based long distance weapons greatly outperforms the HML launcher, and with the relative low speed of pure missile ship (Most of them are caldari or amarr) a gun based ship can dictate the range in most cases.

If you truely want to change the HML launcher to be comparible to a gun, make the (TII) ammo comparable as well Rage could be short range with the same damage mitigation as the current short range TII gun ammo compared to tracking, and the Precision could be the long range ammo then. The normal missiles could then get the medium range as eg the standard crystals and even then i think the dps should be slightly higher then a guns to calculate in travel time. (1 or 2 dps per launcher above average should be adequate)

have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0.

and also: it has been stated quite often that the long range versions of medium weapons are lacking. do we now need to make heavies suck just because beams suck?

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

here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?

By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate.

by eliminating the only decent weapons system that Caldari have.. I see..

So are we going to get bigger drone bays to help augment the DPS of the hybrids like gallente do?

hml being better is not the problem. rails and beams being **** and underused is the problem.

and short range blaster does more DPS..

To dictate range, you need to move faster.

bullshit. no one in their right mind would use medium beams over pulses and rails over blasters except in a few select situations. sniping with medium weapons is just not competitive except with artillery because of its great alpha, cap independence and damage selection. if you nerf HMLs the law of the land will be go artillery or go brawler. nothing in between.

I cannot outspeed a cane.... I tried. 2 nanos and still that cane was 100 m/s faster then me. I have all speed related skills to 5 and i use zor's thingy.

Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve.

How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????

Ahh.. soyou're talking about your FUTURE caracal. Cause your posts made it seem like you were talking about one in the game already..

Just a respectful question, Fozzie. At what point do you either go ahead with the proposed change or do someting different?

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"?

I think HM should get a range nerf. I think that nerfing their damage is a bad idea. Drake is already widely regarded as the monster tanker with the anemic dps. I can and do fly both HM and HAM.

By radically nerfing HM, you are basically hamstringing ALL the ships that use them (as has been stated in the previous 74 pages). Buh bye Caracal and Nighthawk.

IMHO, more thought should be given to handling the Drake, not the weapon.

That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.

No its not. A drake does 350dps and has about a 80k tank.

A Battleship usually starts at about a 90k tank and goes to 160-180k tank. Its high on the terms of sub battleship sized tanks sure but not firmly inside.

i have two question if ccp can answer do it please
1, if heavy missiles are so uber why is cerberus so ussles ?

Gun boats can compensate for speed/sig with piloting while missiles boats cant so you need to have ammo, which makes it easier to hit smaller targets. That ammo ( precision ) cannot be stronger for obvious reasons.