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) |
Tarithell
Rim Collection RC Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:23:00 -
[271] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread. I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible. I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons. The meat of this thread however is about missiles. There's a number of missile changes we have planned for the Winter, including the already announced buff to light missiles, a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles. All MissilesIncrease missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players. Light Missiles-Explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40 -Damage increased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant light missiles, including FOF. Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF. Tech Two Missiles-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar-Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Is ccp prepared for the sh1tstorm is causing with missile nerf? |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
105
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:24:00 -
[272] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Bad Messenger wrote:there will be lot of TD on every ship after this change. How? Will someone please tell me how we get free TDs on all the ships?!
The answer: Because people won't be flying primarily HML ships now. |
whaynethepain
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:25:00 -
[273] - Quote
Didn't want that drake anyway, insta-canes with an LSE II only increases it's sig.
But yea, thanks CCP, I really was getting fed up of the drake, nice ship, but it's place as the primary choice for a large fleet, was an insult to my training queue.
Of course we will need a T II combat BS with Jump-Drives, to fill the void, but that's another thread. Getting you on your feet.
So you've further to fall. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:27:00 -
[274] - Quote
20% is waaaay to much. If you add to it that people will have to swap one BCS tor low slot tracking module damage nerf goes into 30's %
You should consider lowering HML nerf and FIX HAM's explosion velocity, missile velocity and explosion radius so that they can actually deal their damage, maybe add a small buff to their damage.
Instead you just killed entire Caldari ship line.
Also - With missiles we have to wait a loooong time to deal damage, while all other weapons are instant. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:28:00 -
[275] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently. DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5 Time to hit: instant Affected by range outside of maximum range+falloff: Yes Contains random elements to damage: Yes Can choose damagetype: Nope, fixed. Reload Time: 5s
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8 Time to hit: instant Affected by range outside of maximum range+falloff: Yes Contains random elements to damage: Yes Can choose damagetype: Nope, fixed. Reload Time: Instant
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 Time to hit: instant Affected by range outside of maximum range+falloff: Yes Contains random elements to damage: Yes Can choose damagetype: To a great degree yes. Reload Time: 10s
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 Time to hit: 10 seconds Affected by range outside of maximum range+falloff: Nope Contains random elements to damage: Nope Can choose damagetype: Yes, bonus may or may not apply. Reload Time: 10s
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. fixed
Aaaaand once we sprinkle some additonal stats and intellectual honesty to it...
Oh hey, that looks good, on paper at least, guess we should slap this ***** on Buckingham and give it a spin.
(That said, all medium weaponry suck, but now they can suck equally!)
And hey, if you want to hit moving targets then you better load precision, because god knows I have to load stuff other than Javelin, Conflag, Void etc. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
880
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:29:00 -
[276] - Quote
having recon and eaf at 5 and loving the pilgrim and sentinel i somehow do not like the new omni powers of TD.
firstly it renders defender missiels from useless to officially useless. Secondly ships like sentinels are already good enough in solo mode, i don't see why its good to increase the range of potential victims. Whats really left after the patch are gallente drone boats which would beat a sentinel solo.
Last but not least its difficult to justify that a module targeted at a ship influences the flightrange of a missile... this won't work even in star trek.
Instead of making a TD into a WD (weapon disruptor) i would rather like to see a new, medium slot, anti missile mod which is useable for solo and fleet support. Remove defender missiles and add something what works please.
(and if you really give the change a go, please rename TD into WD) a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Wicked Princess
D00M. Northern Coalition.
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:31:00 -
[277] - Quote
BEST...NERF...EVER.
Thank you, CCP!!! :) |
Tover Chris
Suicide Kings
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:34:00 -
[278] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Since I don't use dreadnaughts, what is the implication of this change with regards to pilots using Phoenix's?
The Phoenix excels at one thing, shooting towers. I think the tracking will be a-ok. |
Smoke Adian
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:37:00 -
[279] - Quote
Why doesn't CCP just give every ship a permanent TD slot already prefitted? Will save a lot of clicking. TIA |
Royal Hammer
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:38:00 -
[280] - Quote
So anyone that has spent months training up skills to use drakes or tengus just gets completely shafted? Was anyone complaining about heavy missiles being too powerful? The drake already does **** for damage. And now it's going to be worse? CCP, please do not go through with a huge nerf that gives a big middle finger to Caldari pilots everywhere. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2936
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:39:00 -
[281] - Quote
For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
OlRotGut
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:39:00 -
[282] - Quote
HAM's already were quite blah, and now they are worse.
Missile speeds only increased 6.66%? Should be much more. Range nerf is totally fine with me, but please fix bonuses on ships that prefer one damage type.
I also think that you should clarify the changes to the T2 missiles. It says you increased fury damage, but how does that translate with the 20% damage nerf of all Heavy missiles?
|
Vincent VanDamme
EVE University Ivy League
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:39:00 -
[283] - Quote
So,
*looks at all the time spent on missile skills*
Any chance of a Respec? Because I think I wasted some time on a soon to be useless weapon system.
I mean i could try Hybrid..no..wait...hybrids still suck.
So , if you can let me know what weapon systems wont be colossally nerfed to innefectivness , that would be super. And a respec, so i can get out of the Caldari niche, and go into a niche that actually will allow me to scratch other things.
P.S. I woudl suggest your game design team doing staged Nerfs to see how it works as opposed to just destroying the viability of several Caldari ships.
|
djswitch47
Double-Down Transmission Lost
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:42:00 -
[284] - Quote
Let all the bears shed tears we will be sitting back collecting them with 5 gal buckets to water our ganja plants with |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:43:00 -
[285] - Quote
Why don't you stop thinking about just the drake and tengu and consider the other ships that use Heavy missiles:
Caracal Bellicose(future suggestion by CCP) Navy Caracal Nighthawk Rook Cerberus
What I don't like is the blanket nerf, that not only nerfs the drake and tengu, but nerfs ships that were never OP, and mostly UP in the first place. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:44:00 -
[286] - Quote
The fitting is still backwards for all launchers except frigate-sized. Rockets and torps still have not enough launcher capacity. Hams and torps still don't hit stuff well enough. Torp range is still too low. Heavies still hit small stuff too well. Would be cool as well if GMP skill and rigor rigs affected all types. |
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:44:00 -
[287] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story.
Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok. |
Roderick Grey
Assisted Genocide Black Legion.
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:46:00 -
[288] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Canes suck drakes suck.
That's great and all but what about the cyclone? dual XLASB and great DPS and cheaper... and by extension what about ancillary shield boosters, are they going to be nerfed?
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1174
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:49:00 -
[289] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently. DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8 Time to hit: instant
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 Time to hit: instant
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 Time to hit: 10 seconds
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. fixed
Keep in mind you've listed every gun with its equivalent long-range but ****** dps ammo - except for the HML. With the HML you included faction ammo. This skews things a bit.
Instead of normalizing for distance, normalize the DPS, and highlight the disparity in range.
On first glance, I think the 20% nerf on damage may be a bit excessive - its the range that was out of line.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2936
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:50:00 -
[290] - Quote
Athena Themis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok.
Of course it doesn't.
I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:51:00 -
[291] - Quote
So....
Tracking Disruptors will decrease the range/explosion radius/velocity of my missiles?
Therefore, in the interests of balance, which I assume you have thought about, you will be allowing me to fit tracking enhances/computers to re-enhance these things?
I'm curious as to the reasons behind these changes. Is this an attempt to control ISK flow into the game from ratting/missioning or because you genuinely believe they are OP?
I don't see how they are generally OP, this can only be an attempt at controlling ISK income. You don't see so many Drake gangs around now-a-days.
Also.... if you are nerfing missiles, just what are Caldari ships going to be good at?
If you believe that they are OP, just how on earth have they been left like this for so long? and if they are OP now, how insanely OP must they have been before the recent buff to guns?
Terrible decision if you ask me....... but then, you're not going to are you.
Regards
Barrak |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:52:00 -
[292] - Quote
This change hits on so many levels, it is wonderful This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:52:00 -
[293] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?
If that were the case, every single long range ship would be a missile ship. Last time I checked, they were not.
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:52:00 -
[294] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Athena Themis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok. Of course it doesn't. I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?
Because those long range systems can outdps HML at closer ranges? Isn't that not obvious?
How did a dummy like you become CSM? "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:53:00 -
[295] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:I In terms of skill training ......
It just hit me, isn't it time to streamline missile training? Right now if you training guns, you get close range and long range guns of given size from 1 skill, and tech 2 variations come from 2 different skills.
For missile you have 2 skills for each branch of each size + specialization. Are ppl ok with it? |
Iri'yana
Corvus Technologies
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:53:00 -
[296] - Quote
I'm currently not sure, how I should feel about those changes. Sure, the Tengu and to some extent the Drake are doing too well right now, with esp. the Tengu outperfoming even more dedicated ships in their roles. But I'm not sure if CCP's way of changing things is the correct one. I would have prefered a change to the ships themselves, rather then to (only one of) their DPS systems.
And regarding that change itself ... well, it seems to be a nerf according to the CCP way of nerfing. I.e. if you take out the nerf hammer, then make damn sure that it hits critically. And leaving HAMs unaffected will really just make a lot of pilots shift to them and thus not really affect the Tengu and the Drake as much as probably desired.
On the topic of tracking disruptors (TD), I'm howver fairly entrenched in my objection to this particular change. Mostly based on the fact, that it will have a lot of negative side effects on missile boats and missile using playstyles in general:
1) Guns right now have their "nemesis" in TDs. Missiles on the other hand had their (intended) counter in speed and defender missiles. Speed works, defender missiles ... not so much too put it lightly. Defenders cost you a lot of your own DPS and are on top of that not very effective at their task, just taking out one of the incoming flight of missiles and thus reducing incoming DPS in no degree to their effect on outgoing DPS. Not really a wonder, that nobody uses them really ... well, apart from NPCs. Which brings us to the side effect of making missile based ships relatively less effective in PvE as they are right now. They get double-countered by NPCs if that change should go live. And while that might be somewhat okay, to get the Tengu of its pedestal of "King of Mission Runners". it will put Raven based hulls more behind their gun-based equivalents.
2) Leaving PvE, missile based ships will become even less desirable in PvP as they are (with the exception of Drakes and Tengus ... but see the heavy missile changes for that) right now. On top of their previous issues, they will now have to handle TDs as well.
3) Ships with bonuses to TDs will receive an (unintended) buff, potentially upsetting the balance with the E-war hulls ... altough I'm not sure if that is a bad thing, as I don't fly those too much. Maybe TD ships could need a bit of love.
4) Points one and two will put the missile launcher skill tree even further behind gunnery as it is right now. Esp. if you consider that most pilots got into it, due to the Drakes and Tengus, which will have their potential already reduced by the heavy missile changes.
So what could be an alternative to the TD changes? Two come to mind. One is to let TDs affect missiles, but then to get rid of the non-used defenders (to put guns and missiles on the same footing here) and to compensate missiles in other ways ... and not in the way that heavy missiles get "compensated" right now.
Another approach could be to change defender missiles. Instead of being just an alternative charge for regular launchers, why not turn them into a mid-slot based "point defence system" or charges for such a system. This would make defenders more effective to use, getting rid of the DPS reduction that using them entails. Yet, such a PD system should maybe be more effective in the reduction of incoming DPS as it (compared to TDs) affects a lower percentage of potential damage soruces, with only less then 25% of the combat ships in EVE being missile based.
Iri'yana
PS: What about the other missile types? Are cruise missiles and the unguided missiles (rockets, HAMs and torpedos) working as intended or are changes planned for |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch
254
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:54:00 -
[297] - Quote
Royal Hammer wrote:So anyone that has spent months training up skills to use drakes or tengus just gets completely shafted? Was anyone complaining about heavy missiles being too powerful? The drake already does **** for damage. And now it's going to be worse? CCP, please do not go through with a huge nerf that gives a big middle finger to Caldari pilots everywhere.
drake has been most used pvp ship for a several years, time to change FOTM |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:56:00 -
[298] - Quote
At what point did TD need a buff?
What are your plans for SD, which were previously the only sure way to counter missile ships. Will they now affect turret optimal range as well?
These recent changes, together with the rebalance of T1 Frigates (which saw a homogenizing of fitting slots across all ships) is a sign that CCP has absolutely no idea what to do, besides bringing all ships closer in line to each other and removing any variety between races and fitting choices. First it was frigates, now weapons (missiles vs. turrets).
Where is the variety, where is the choice and decision making involved in fitting my ship or choosing a race? Previously, Slasher and Condor has different slots. Now they have the same slots, but differetn weapons. And in the future you plan on removing any differences whatsoever in these weapons?
Realistically, why then would I choose a condor over a slasher now? |
StevieTopSiders
Evolution The Retirement Club
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:56:00 -
[299] - Quote
So being on the other side of the battlefield from Goonswarm's Tengu and Drake blobs, I was like, "OMG, yes!" But I think the nerf needs to be aimed less at HML's and more at the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem.
(NB: These numbers come from T2 HML's with CN Scourge being shot on an All V's character in the latest version of EFT.)
The 25% range nerf:
This allows Tengus to hit at 90km for 570 DPS. (3 BCU) This allows Drakes to hit at 63km for 370 DPS. (2 BCU)
The 20% damage nerf w/ range nerf:
This allows Tengus to hit at 90km for 455 DPS. (3 BCU) This allows Drakes to hit at 63km for 296 DPS. (2 BCU)
The alpha numbers:
Before:
Tengu hits for 2.2k Alpha every 4 seconds. Drake hits for 2.4k Alpha every 6.7 seconds.
After:
Tengu hits for 1.8k alpha every 4 seconds. Drake hits for 2k alpha every 6.7 seconds.
Now let's take a look at Accelerated Ejection Bay bonuses:
5% bonus to Kinetic Missile Damage per level 7.5% bonus to Heavy, Heavy Assault and Assault missile launcher rate of fire per level 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault missile velocity per level
The Drake gets one more Heavy Missile Launcher than the Tengu, and they both get the 5% Kinetic damage bonus. Where they differ, however, is the Tengu's ability to shoot these missiles 37.5% faster and at 50% more range.
When we look at the alpha numbers from a fleet combat perspective, we find ourselves really not losing a great amount of performance. When we look at the DPS number from a solo/small gang perspective, however, we find ourselves really lacking for damage.
I propose the following:
A 10% Heavy Missile Damage nerf.
Our Tengu now hits for 2k alpha every 4 seconds for 513 DPS. Our Drake now hits for 2.16k alpha every 6.7 seconds for 333 DPS.
A 10% Heavy Missile Range nerf.
Our Tengu now hits out to 102km Our Drake now hits out to 68km.
A 5% bonus to missile velocity for the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem:
Our Tengu now hits out to 85km.
A 5% bonus to missile launcher ROF for the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem:
Our Tengu now hits for 2k alpha every 5 seconds for 400 DPS.
These changes limit the sheer alpha/DPS power of the Tengu, while still keeping the Drake a viable and cheap T1 alternative.
Also, buff the other ships that use HML's.
Cerberus I love you. |
Vincent VanDamme
EVE University Ivy League
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:57:00 -
[300] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:Why don't you stop thinking about just the drake and tengu and consider the other ships that use Heavy missiles:
Caracal Bellicose(future suggestion by CCP) Navy Caracal Nighthawk Rook Cerberus
What I don't like is the blanket nerf, that not only nerfs the drake and tengu, but nerfs ships that were never OP, and mostly UP in the first place.
Caracal has gone from useless to utterly useless. And it is in dire need of a buff.
The lackluster buff to it here only adds to the fact it is being nerfed to the stone age.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |