EVE Search - Sticky:[Winter] Missile Rebalance + Hurricane tweak

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Winter] Missile Rebalance + Hurricane tweak

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Tover Chris Suicide Kings 10	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:00:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time Hello Drake, this is Pilgrim. It's about time we met.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy 204	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:02:00 - [32] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: -Explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40 Ahemm... Psst it's Explosion Radius I'm sure?
LakeEnd FinFleet Raiden. 24	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:05:00 - [33] - Quote Could you take a look into Defender missiles at some point? if those worked at all, they could allow lots of new stuff fitting and tactics wise.
Blawrf McTaggart GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1436	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:07:00 - [34] - Quote undeniable proof that CCP is staffed by ncdot and nulli :\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Shiroh Yatamii Alexylva Paradox 31	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:07:00 - [35] - Quote Sonya Amminen wrote: wow 20% reduction in heavy missile damage is a bit too excessive IMHO. Considering the range is also nerf'd a fair bit. I actually tend to agree with this, particularly since TDs will be able to impact them as well. Here is how I currently view cruiser-sized weapons, as they are now: Autocannons: Kite from range with falloff, laugh as you use superior speed. Artillery: BLAP! Ganked with alpha! Blasters: NomNomNom DPS Railguns: Medium-sized rails are pretty bad. Very poor damage as compared to small and large rails. Proportions are all wrong. Pulse Lasers: Haven't flown enough laser boats to know, but they seem pretty awesome on certain ships. Beam Lasers: Same as above; I'm not really sure what to think, though they seem to do less DPS in comparison to pulses. HAMs: Not much DPS gain compared to HMLs, particularly when you consider the fact that it costs more PG and CPU and has much less range. HMLs: Great range, mediocre damage as compared to other weapons systems once we take into account the damage application delay between launch and hit So really just buffing HAMs would be better IMO. Nerfing HML damage will only make them even more mediocre, though I do agree with range nerf.
Blawrf McTaggart GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1436	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:07:00 - [36] - Quote "vince draken" is even an anagram of "hilmar peturrson"
Nicholai Sanse League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda 15	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:08:00 - [37] - Quote Blawrf McTaggart wrote: undeniable proof that CCP is staffed by ncdot and nulli :\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ :smug:
Blawrf McTaggart GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1436	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:09:00 - [38] - Quote (3:08:05 PM) Don Peyote: Blawrf you should look into this further (3:08:16 PM) Don Peyote: who knows, in a few years' time, we could be posting on Blawrf.com (3:08:22 PM) Blawrf: who knows how deep the rabbithole goes (3:08:27 PM) Marivauder: i'd vote for that (3:08:29 PM) Don Peyote: about CCP's heinous spawning of T2 Tech Moon BPOs for NCdot (3:08:41 PM) Blawrf: "blawrf mctaggart" will be a censored name for years (3:08:48 PM) Don Peyote: The more things change, the more they stay the same (3:09:11 PM) nicholai_sanse: wait who told you about those bpos?! it's all coming out now fozzie
Warde Guildencrantz TunDraGon 36	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:10:00 - [39] - Quote for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!
Bilaz Fremen Sietch DarkSide. 26	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:10:00 - [40] - Quote First thing that i find strange - is range decrease on Precision missiles - when shooting something small and fast you need extra range so your missile can hit some over-nanoed dramiel/vagabond on high orbit (and if it is webbed - no reason to use them anyway). So i would rather have less damage and more range on them. Also what about heavy assault missiles? if they are affected by tracking disruptor - maybe they should be guided ?
Takeshi Yamato Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 429	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:10:00 - [41] - Quote This looks good, but I suspect there will be a proliferation of Tracking Disruptors on unbonused ships. It might become necessary to weaken them on unbonused ships.
Ravcharas GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda 181	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:12:00 - [42] - Quote Warde Guildencrantz wrote: for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD! Unless you fit a td or a tc.
Fatyn AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 12	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:12:00 - [43] - Quote Fozzie I think what you and the team are doing is pretty breathtaking. It's been so good to see CCP rumble into gear on ship balancing over the last year or so. The tentative, glacial changes of the past have been replaced by a much bolder approach - the core game of EVE pewpew always deserved so much more than one dev in a broom cupboard. I hope you guys feel the power in your fingertips because you are supercharging our awesome game with every new balance patch.
Daneel Trevize Give my 11percent back 190	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:13:00 - [44] - Quote Btw, when are medium rails going to become in any way usable in PvP? Arty clearly is, HMs have been, beams too. Rails are just godawful on Gal or Cal ships.
MisterNick The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance 109	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:13:00 - [45] - Quote I can hear the tears from FOTM pilots across the cluster "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
NiGhTTraX FISKL GUARDS Nulli Secunda 160	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:13:00 - [46] - Quote The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS. The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... CCP Frozie wrote: 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. No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho. If you're gonna post here thinking your idea is the greatest thing since bacon and that it will save EVE and possibly all humankind with it, you're gonna have a bad time.
Hosiden The Drunken Empire Fatal Ascension 9	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:14:00 - [47] - Quote I expect this giftcard to arrive in fozzies mailbox as the winter expansion arrives. "Superpilots everwhere hopes you are happy with that extra "Christmas bonus"" Signed Nerfed hurricane
MisterNick The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance 109	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:15:00 - [48] - Quote NiGhTTraX wrote: No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho. Not flown a Brutix recently then, I take it. "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
Tyrus Tenebros Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:15:00 - [49] - Quote I virtually never post to eve-o forums but the missile changes are way to excessive. While I generally never join the whines of "don't make everything the same" I have to agree that the move to make missiles "more inline" with other weapon types is misguided. Missiles have always done low-ish to moderate dps in exchange for being reliable and difficult to stop barring outranging them. Shoving them in to the TE/TD paradigm dramatically affects the character of missiles. While I understand the desire to increase the use of HAMs and promote the LR/CR dichotomy, I also don't think needing HMLs in ti the ground is the way to go with that either. 1) DPS reduction is too high. 10% would be a better start. 2) Range reduction is slightly too significant. 15-20% base might be better... missiles don't have falloff and are subject to chase distance against fast targets 3) TE/TD paradigm will likely reduce DPS further as some lows are swapped to TEs. While I "get" how the reduced dps is supposed to be compensated for slightly by increased applied damage to small targets, I don't think it will play out very well. 4) TDs themselves become extremely powerful. I suggest dropping the TE/TD change entirely, there's no reason for it. As they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.. and the balance of missile damage actually applied is fine as is, even if tweaks need to be applied there'sno need for a wholesale shift. The 10% damage nerf should be sufficient to promote the use of HAMs. Slightly increasing damage applied by HAMs would also promote their use. Edit: well played dropping the cane nerf in front of the overboard missile changes to derail the thread from that discussion.
Daneel Trevize Give my 11percent back 191	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:15:00 - [50] - Quote NiGhTTraX wrote: CCP Frozie wrote: 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. No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho. Who said the intended purpose was 2 medium neuts? Or that BCs were balanced? Or that a Brutix can fit Neutrons while using its active tank bonus?
DeBingJos Weirdo Asylum Shadow Rock Alliance 367	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:16:00 - [51] - Quote NiGhTTraX wrote: The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS. Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range? Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.
Warde Guildencrantz TunDraGon 36	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:16:00 - [52] - Quote Ravcharas wrote: Warde Guildencrantz wrote: for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD! Unless you fit a td or a tc. Yes, as if shield tanks have enough slots for random crap, its enough that armor tanks can fit ECCM and TCs and everything they need to combat ewar while shield tanks just die in a fire.
Shiroh Yatamii Alexylva Paradox 31	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:17:00 - [53] - Quote Warde Guildencrantz wrote: for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD! Drones. Hurrr.
Goldensaver Vorbild Industries Inc. State Section 9 4	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:18:00 - [54] - Quote On to the attack cruisers thread to see if they've killed the Caracal with these HM nerfs. I do hope that they changed the Caracal with that in mind, I always found it difficult to fit HAM's, HM's had pathetic DPS, and Light Assaults were... Oh god. But I'm happy to see change, so HUZZAH! On with change!
adopt Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore 416	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:20:00 - [55] - Quote 20% damage nerf is far too much. Same with the Hurricane PG Nerf. I think you should reduce damage by 15% not 20%, and cut the PG by 150 rather than 225. If you follow through with these changes you're making the entire BattleCruiser class obsolete. Shadoo > Always remember to fit Cynosural Field Generator I, have 450 Liquid Ozone in your cargo and convo a friendly Pandemic Legion member if you have a capital or super capital ship tackled. FREE XOLVE ~ THE HERO TEST NEEDS
Haargoth Civire V0LTA Verge of Collapse 12	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:20:00 - [56] - Quote Hey Null sec blobs... get it right round yees..
Haargoth Civire V0LTA Verge of Collapse 12	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:23:00 - [57] - Quote Fatyn wrote: Fozzie I think what you and the team are doing is pretty breathtaking. It's been so good to see CCP rumble into gear on ship balancing over the last year or so. The tentative, glacial changes of the past have been replaced by a much bolder approach - the core game of EVE pewpew always deserved so much more than one dev in a broom cupboard. There will always be some whiny fucks whose favourite ship / tactic / fitting is now superceded, but if the objective of making EVE PvP broader, deeper and more balanced is achieved most people won't care. I hope you guys feel the power in your fingertips because you are supercharging our awesome game with every new balance patch. But fatyn all the blobs in null sec will now have to get skills for decent ships and they will have to spend isk on better hulls.. what are they gonna doooooooo..
Lili Lu 434	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:24:00 - [58] - Quote Interesting. And to all the folks who put so much effort into saying there is nothing wrong with HMs, Tengus, or Drakes . . welp. Anyway, if I'm reading these changes correctly it is only a nerf to current kiting tactics with Drakes and other heavy or heavy assault missile boats. A ship that has such a sturdy tank should not get a pass with range advantage as well. Ironically it may signal that the resist bonus might be staying (but that is not to say the same hp or regen stats will be there). Basically you are losing damage with standard ammo at range, and you are losing base range. You will be gaining damage with Fury, if you fit for it, i.e. painter or painter support, and rigs to overcome the drawbacks (thus competing with tanking rigs). If you want to retain the present Drake sweetspot of 70km you will need to fit TE or TC and thus lose either tank or damage mods. And just like turrets you will be wary of TDs. Not sure what to make of precision missile changes. Frigs may have to start fearing an ammo switch to it. WIth Rage you are gaining damage, if you get closer than you may be presently used to. Rage HAMs will opperate more like blasters. Just my quick impression and without all the coming other changes apparent. So the Tengu and Drake are getting an indirect nerf to their current ease of fitting and tactics. They can keep the range but at the expense of tank and/or damage, or they can keep the damage and possibly more damage but at the expense of range and the need for support painter and webbing ships. Fozzie, are you guys considering any slight nerf to TD base strength? Because if not, everyone and his mother will be fitting TDs. It seems to me that the module could use little nerf, so as not to become the must have "multispec of doom", and to make the speicialized ships more desirable in fleets.
Alara IonStorm 3159	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:25:00 - [59] - Quote DeBingJos wrote: NiGhTTraX wrote: The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS. Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range? 479 to 20 with to TE's 40 for 320 with Mid Range Ammo, 70 at 270 with Tremor. New Drake 257 DPS + Flight Time. I don't think Heavy Missiles are too good, Medium Range Guns just suck with Damage Projection and Fitting, Ships like the Ferox don't help either. CCP should look into making more Medium Weapons viable not nerfing the ones that are.
Warde Guildencrantz TunDraGon 36	Posted - 2012.09.18 14:25:00 - [60] - Quote A 20% damage reduction on HMs is just too much. I'd say 10% is way more reasonable considering the range nerf. I would think a 10% reduction to HM damage and a 10% increase to HAM damage would be more reasonable, because the reason HMs are used so much right now is because of two reasons: 1. They have pretty good damage, but not amazing, they're "just right" in terms of missiles. 2. Hams are barely better for damage, whereas they should be considerably higher DPS, like the difference between cruises and torps (around 300-400 dps for cruises to torps, should be around 200-250 for HMs to HAMs) Thus, by buffing HAMs, you fix one of those, and by nerfing HM damage, you fix another. Nerfing one of them a huge amount just makes the respective weapon completely useless. That's why I would think a 10% reduction for HM damage along with a 10% increase in HAM damage is better. HAMs are decent but they are always avoided in PvP because they can't match up to HMs. But making HMs useless to promote HAMs is stupid, HMs should simply be made a bit worse and HAMs should be made a bit better, which will solve the problem. I understand the range nerf though, such huge range on HMs is really unnecessary.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.