| 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) |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
55
   |
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:26:00 -
[331] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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.
You're suggesting that the shorter range, higher DPS, faction HML ammo should be able to be projected consistently farther than the falloff of most the other long-range turret platforms?
Its fair, considering that at shorter range LR turrets will outdamage Heavy missiles with faction high damage ammo.
"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Matsudaira Takuma
Legio Prima Victrix
Imperius Legio Victrix
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:26:00 -
[332] - Quote
Hey CCP, lay down the crack pipe, slap the **** out your ears and maybe start thinking straight.
You're going to nerf the Drake and the Cane instead of bringing say the Myrm and Harb up to par. That's bullshit, what about all the low SP null sec players, Alliances like TEST, GOON, Fcon etc are going to be hit incredibly hard because suddenly all those low SP players can't even fly a semi-useful drake because welp, it's toilet now.
Also, wtf, nerfing the Drakes damage, it doesn't have any. If you're going to balance anything on that ship, balance its retardedly high tank.
I actually can't write exactly how bad this set of changes looks right now without resulting to petty name calling so I'm just gunna leave it here, **** heads. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo
WHY so Seri0Us
155
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:26:00 -
[333] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.
Grideris wrote:Mother of god.
Not empty quoting.
WTF!!!!!!!!
I am a pod pilot:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Ensign X
235
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:29:00 -
[334] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:Dhaaran wrote:love the changes, tengu & drake had their years of dominance, now its time to spin the wheel once more You forget the other ships that use Heavy Missiles, those are going to be hit hard as well. They never had any dominance either. CCP is applying a terrible blanket nerf.
Essentially, this. The Nighthawk is already one of the worst and least used Command Ships. This will gut it. The Cerberus is already one of the worst and least used HACs. This will gut it. Not to mention the world of hurt this heavy-handed nerf will have on the Onyx, Rook, Navy Caracal and any other ship that dared use HMLs.
We get it, the Drake and the Tengu are too strong (they aren't, really, but we get that you think they are). But why be so lazy and choose the most inelegant way to nerf these 2 ships by nerfing the entire weapon system? It makes no sense to nerf this way. What you did to the Hurricane was a far better solution to that problem. Why not just nerf the CPU on the Drake so it can't fit a full rack of HMLs and such a huge buffer? Why not just nerf the subsystem bonus on the Tengu?
Laziness, that's why. |
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
Elysian Empire
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:32:00 -
[335] - Quote
This is a bit ridiculous, heavy missiles were the only missiles that were viable for PvP now there are no missies except torps on bombers.
This nerf is too extreme it should be small changes, like a 5-10% nerf and then see how it is, then nerf more if there still considered OP.
What is the justification for nerfing heavies anyway? Is it because they are too strong in PvE? If people were worried about drake blobs its just gonna be some other kind of blob in nullsec. heavy missiles were a way that alowed smaller groups to take on larger groups through kiting, skill etc rather than just F1 the primary in alphabetical order, all this encourages is a different kind of blob.
And in wormholes the effects are even worse, currently its armor T3's and guardians everyware, there were a few viable shield ships that relied on heavy missiles, shield ships basically just got deleted from wormholes. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
645
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:32:00 -
[336] - Quote
CCP showing their usual prowess at ship balancing ITT
EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
206
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:33:00 -
[337] - Quote
I don't normally use missile boats because I don't like them so I'm probably wrong on this but I just checked my old T2 nano drake and it gets 400dps with 7 launchers and 2 BCUs using LR scourge.
I switched my blaster ferox to use 6x 250mm rails with two MFSs and it gets 300 dps with javelin.
For faction ammo I get 350 on drake ( CN scourge ) and 295 on that Ferox ( CN AM ).
Even when I added third MSF it is still has less dps than Drake.
All gunnery/missile support skills at level 4.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
Late Night Alliance
2942
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:33:00 -
[338] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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.
You're suggesting that the shorter range, higher DPS, faction HML ammo should be able to be projected consistently farther than the falloff of most the other long-range turret platforms? Are you suggesting that missiles should be instant damage?
No, not really. I'm just pointing out the many advantages missiles have had to offset the fact that they are not instant damage. I would certainly agree that there's a lot of variables in motion here to be considered.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:34:00 -
[339] - Quote
People seem to be forgetting the impact of the tracking enhancer buff. It makes missiles as a weapon family much more viable. Why are you complaining about the HML nerf if your HAMs can reach necessary ranges with better damage?
It means making torps viable, a mod that both increases their range, and effectiveness against smaller targets. Rockets, HAMS, and torps all become super awesome. I am very excited to see torp ships on the field, stealth bombers, the caldari BS lineup, and the typhoon are going to be mean.
My suggestion, (someone commented this earlier) is make a separate mid and lowslot module for missiles instead of just adding more effects to the TE and TC. Missile users shouldn't have to train high end gun skills to use a TC, it should be a missile skill and a mod solely for missiles. It will help retain the diversity and flavor of eve. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
Dead On Arrival Alliance
1228
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:34:00 -
[340] - Quote
ITT people who don't realize that HMLs are still the best medium sized long range weapons.
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Luc Chastot
Moira.
Villore Accords
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:38:00 -
[341] - Quote
Changes are terribad.
I fly Drake. |
Aglais
Liberation Army
BricK sQuAD.
92
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:38:00 -
[342] - Quote
When you said, "bringing heavy missiles in line with other long range cruiser weapons" did you have beam lasers in mind?
Because you've turned Heavy Missiles into the new Railguns. Bottom of the barrel here, we're going to. Now if HMLs only lost maybe 5% of their damage, but kept their -25% current range like you propose, that'd probably be ok. But this change is reducing a fifth of their current damage output from them. That's kind of significant. Unless you're going to boost their RoF to try and compensate slightly (for maybe a net 5 or 10 percent loss in damage output), which I don't think is going to happen.
It doesn't seem like you guys are very good at balancing things. If something is too effective you don't take your tools to it and chisel away, reshaping the role and powers of a ship, which is generally a rational approach.
You take a sledgehammer, and you smash out the metaphorical legs of the construction, and leave the wreck of what could've still been something decent to rot.
That's Caldari medium missile platforms right now. I'm fully aware that you can still boost the range back to how it was before. But this is at the cost of now utterly **** poor DPS compared to other long range weapon systems. The problem with the Drake wasn't sheer damagedealing potential. It was damage projection. Which isn't something you fix by making the damage that they project nearly irrelevant compared to other weapon systems. So now the Drake is going to have average at best defensive capabilities, but utterly awful offense.
So with this horribad blanket nerf you've thrown over Caldari, you've axed the Caracal's ability to strike at things it's own size or larger (somehow I don't think it's going to be that great with HAMs), the entire Caldari HAC lineup is overwhelmingly useless for a multitude of reasons, the Nighthawk? Oh well.
Why not just remove Caldari from the game? It's not like they're going to have much of a presence after all is said and done anyways. Unless you guys somehow manage to make the Moa and Ferox truly awe inspiring in a balanced fashion. |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate
Imperial Protectorate
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:38:00 -
[343] - Quote
Short question:
Nerf on Heavy missiles doesn-¦t affect heavy assault missiles. Right? |
Ensign X
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:39:00 -
[344] - Quote
Roime wrote:ITT people who don't realize that HMLs are still the best medium sized long range weapons.
With the plethora of evidence you've submitted to support this claim, I don't know how we could ever have doubted this. Thank you, Roime, for helping us all see the clear light of day.  |
rofflesausage
State War Academy
Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:39:00 -
[345] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.
Hi CCP Fozzie.
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
Their travel time, reload time, being reduced by smartbombs (a genuine problem when in capital warfare), and having vastly reduced damage by anything moving are serious problems.
Their biggest advantage is their range - which often means being out of tackle range and offering alpha support, thus being later into the battle anyway when in small cloaky fleets.
I simply can not see why you think they are over powered. It feels like someone has taken a look at a DPS spreadsheet and ignored everything else about them. This isn't far off 2 BCUs worth of damage.
Please take a look at the ships that use Heavy Missiles and check out their actual use in PvP - it's small compared to other damage systems. Caldari HACs are massively underused, The Nighthawk is barely used, and I've seen many Onxy just fit as many bubbles as they can with scripts because they are so bad.
I would urge you to look at what players are actually doing, and not what a spreadsheet is saying.
Regards
|
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
562
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:40:00 -
[346] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Are you suggesting that missiles should be instant damage?
no but they should still be the highest dps... but not by that much...
20% might be to harsh... perhaps 15% would be better...
but look at advantages for missiles
damage selection...
no decrease of damage over range
sure it has delayed damage but thats ok....
its just td's are now kind of OP and should have thier base bonus reduced...
i would reduce base bonus on TD to 15% for falloff optimal range and tracking...
but inkind i would increase the bonus on amarr special ships to 10% to compensate...
that way TD will be good but only on amarr special EW ships...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1541
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:40:00 -
[347] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sarah Schneider wrote:You must have realized that missiles have their own problems, a blanket solution and saying that missiles should be brought to the DPS level of other weapon types doesn't make sense.
- Aside from bombs, missiles (and it's variants) are the only weapon type that doesn't deal instantaneous damage
- the only weapon type that can be firewalled
- the only weapon system in which target sig penalty always applies, regardless of whether they're moving or not
- and it is the primary weapon system for most caldari ships in which : a lot of new players are using/training into and a lot of older players invested into, and it uses launcher hardpoints, so it's not interchangeable to other weapon types like guns do.
I don't disagree with the nerf, but the damage reduction is too much considering the other nerfs are also put in place. I understand where you're coming from, missile have some inherent disadvantages, but these changes STILL leave HML's as king of DPS in their optimal range, even after damage and range nerfs. "Too many nerfs at once" is itself an arbitrary sentiment - these changes should be evaluated based on where they leave missiles in comparison to other weapons systems. There is no magic number of nerfs (1? 2? 3?) that is "too many" for any change that needs to happen to any ship. It all boils down to whether they achieve the desired results.
Why does where I'm coming from got to do with anything? I wasn't talking about pvp/fleet battle pov of missiles. I was talking about missile mechanics in general, regardless of the application. The point was that missiles are different, people treat them differently because they are different, we can't really compare missiles to other weapon types only by reviewing their dps potential, they have different mechanics.
The only thing missiles are really good at, is it's potential range for a medium weapon platform and how the changes in range affects the dps projection in which missiles have none, as you know it already, as long as it's in range, they deal the same amount of dps regardless of range and transversal, as for the rest, they are worse than the other, they have travel times, signature penalties in which still applies even to static targets and can be countered in a way that gunnery weapons can't.
"I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose."
-Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
The Djentleman Paulson
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:41:00 -
[348] - Quote
BUT MY HURRICANE |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
562
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:41:00 -
[349] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote:
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP...
stopped reading at that point
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point?
-áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:42:00 -
[350] - Quote
Roime wrote:ITT people who don't realize that HMLs are still the best medium sized long range weapons.
Because making everything **** is preferable to making everything viable. |
eVRiAL
Pact Of Honour
Red Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:43:00 -
[351] - Quote
CCP, why not give the missiles instant damage if you encourage rebalance them with guns. |
rofflesausage
State War Academy
Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:44:00 -
[352] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:rofflesausage wrote:
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP...
stopped reading at that point
Helps if you get into PvP to be fair. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit
Jokers Wild.
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:44:00 -
[353] - 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. |
2ofSpades
Medic.
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:44:00 -
[354] - Quote
This looks cool as long as the damage doesn't get nerfed too much in the end. I thought the idea was high damage ammo is made made to hit big targets hard but little targets not so well. |
Inggroth
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:45:00 -
[355] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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 increases explosion radius
Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Please please please reconsider this. Its one huge step towards making every weapon system the exact same, which makes for a shallow game.
HM nerf was waiting to happen for a very long time - i'm sure you'll have to correct the exact numbers a bit but the overall idea is fine in my opinion.
I interpret the Hurricane PG nerf and Arty PG requirement tweak as a nice little Muninn buff, so thats cool 
|
Fras Siabi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:45:00 -
[356] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote:
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
What?
Have we lost Fountain yet? |
darius mclever
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:47:00 -
[357] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Malcanis wrote:
Are you suggesting that missiles should be instant damage?
no but they should still be the highest dps... but not by that much... 20% might be to harsh... perhaps 15% would be better... but look at advantages for missiles damage selection...
To some extend. most of the time you will be using the bonused missiles.
Quote:
no decrease of damage over range
sure it has delayed damage but thats ok....
* even in flying away from your attacker in a straight line will reduce the incoming dps. with turrets you will just give them perfect tracking until you manage to run out of their range.
* smart bombs.
* and soon to be tracking disruptors.
Quote:
its just td's are now kind of OP and should have thier base bonus reduced...
i would reduce base bonus on TD to 15% for falloff optimal range and tracking...
but inkind i would increase the bonus on amarr special ships to 10% to compensate...
that way TD will be good but only on amarr special EW ships...
|
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1541
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:47:00 -
[358] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote:
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
You are wrong. It's exactly the opposite.
rofflesausage wrote:
Their travel time, reload time, being reduced by smartbombs (a genuine problem when in capital warfare), and having vastly reduced damage by anything moving are serious problems.
Their biggest advantage is their range - which often means being out of tackle range and offering alpha support, thus being later into the battle anyway when in small cloaky fleets.
I simply can not see why you think they are over powered. It feels like someone has taken a look at a DPS spreadsheet and ignored everything else about them. This isn't far off 2 BCUs worth of damage.
Please take a look at the ships that use Heavy Missiles and check out their actual use in PvP - it's small compared to other damage systems. Caldari HACs are massively underused, The Nighthawk is barely used, and I've seen many Onxy just fit as many bubbles as they can with scripts because they are so bad.
I would urge you to look at what players are actually doing, and not what a spreadsheet is saying.
edit - you might want to also factor in that rails are still poor, meaning Caldari are really getting hit hard here.
You are right.
"I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose."
-Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
None ofthe Above
324
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:48:00 -
[359] - Quote
Tanaka Aiko wrote:huuu wait both a range AND a damage reduction for heavy missiles ? isn't that a bit too much at the same time ?
and 20% o_O
I hope the damage increase on fury will mitigate that a lot... cause this seems like too big a nerf.
i'm okay will losing some range, cause honestly they have too much, but losing range and damage at the same time, and for this much... that's too much :/
you should only tweak the numbers a bit for now, and with for full BC rebalance to change more these, cause nerfing hurricane and drakes/tengu for that much for 3 months ago will have a lot of repercussion on farming and pvp on high low null and wh...
This has always been the CCP way. After all, if something can be balanced by a 5% decrease, surely it must be more balanced by a 20%? And yeah lets throw in another "balance", and another! There! We've balanced it! Yay! Wait...what do you mean its useless? It's just heavily balanced.
Lighten up on the nerf sledgehammer CCP!
Or better yet, leave working ships and weapon systems alone and fix the broken ones. Missiles as a whole are pretty broken and largely laughable. HMLs were the one bright spot.
Thank you so much for the "end-game content", from a disgusted now destined to be Faildari pilot.
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Alexandr Archer
Astral Industry Service
ROL.Citizens
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:52:00 -
[360] - Quote
First of all i must apologise for my English, it is far from perfect.
But i have proposition have to resolve this problem with HM:
1.Fury modification of missiles :
a)cutoff half from range
b)damage remain the same as it is now
c)Remove penalties on signature of ship
Concept of using: VS slower then you,but more survivable ship
Exaple: Drake vs BSips,
2.Precision modification of missiles:
a)range of current Fury/Faction/T1 missiles
b)damage remain the same as it is now
c)remove penalties of ship's speed
Concept of using: VS faster and smaller targets,less dps but with improve range.Also work as longrange modification of another t2 ammo.
Exaple:Nighthwak vs intercepter(with Fury you even willn't scratch it)
3.Faction modification of missiles
a)33% cutoff from range
b)damage reduced by 10%
Concept of using:Vs medium ship types.
Exaple:Drake vs Hurricane,Harbringer.
4.T1 modification of missiles:
a)33% cutoff from range
b)damage reduced by 10%
Concept of using:Vs medium ship types.
Exaple:Drake vs Hurricane,Harbringer.
Bloobs cant get same DPS with the same range.Medium and small scale pvp is still an option.PVE don't lose all,but only half of range.All caldari ships still will be in using.
Thanks for reading! |
| |
|
| 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 |