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) |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:19:00 -
[1471] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Aprudena Gist wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?[/b] I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
HAMs are not good they are ****. They move slow they have slow explosion speed and can't hit a target if its actually moving unlike the rest of the weapon systems. HAMs are also too hard to fit on a ship properly they should be easier to fit then heavy missiles but they are not. Quote: Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:
Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Heavy missiles right now are **** compared to properly fit long range weapon systems on double bonused ships like hurricanes and you are making them even worse. The Biggest ******* thing you idiots dont seem to be factoring in is that all the gun ships have double weapon systems roles on ships and missiles ones are lucky if they have 1 ship bonus to them. The biggest things you idiots that are redesigning missiles need to do is make the ******* tech 2 ammo work like guns. 1 short range higher damage then the rest of the ammo. This isn't true for a lot of the missile systems. 1 Longer range medium damage. Like pulse, aurora, spike. These dont even exist why are the weapon systems treaded differently. That needs to apply to all missile systems if you are nerfing the ******* range. The reason the range is longer on them is because they dont have range increasing ammo, mods or anything so **** you if you make this change and dont make the weapon systems equal. Also **** you for nerfing **** instead of making other ones equal to these ones as a base line. Stop nerfing decent ships just because other ones are **** fix them make them all good. Too many F-words. You should really learn to voice your opinion in a more appropriate way. Seriously, it can be done without all those asterixes cluttering the view. Eat a ****.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:20:00 -
[1472] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Gypsio III wrote:There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem. In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ? Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ?
It's because everyone's fitting HML Drakes or are being dumb and thinking "loldpsdrake" like we see in this thread. The tank/gank ratio of a properly fit HAM Drake is not beatable. Furthermore, it has a resist bonus so it adapts better to larger gangs with logi support.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:21:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????
Behold the new Caracal
Caracal: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1) Signature radius: 135 (-10) Cargo capacity: 450
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:22:00 -
[1474] - Quote
Ok perhaps the 2.3 dps was a little bit exagerated in my previous post. But unlike guns you do have the much delayed damage.
Since at this point are all makeing paper scenarios that rarely or never occur you i give you this one: What if a ship is orbiting at say 60km at its top speed around a missile ship with 63 km range? due to the orbital elipse the missiles need to fly further then there max 63 km, doing no damage, while the orbiting gun ship with 60 km range guns will apply its dps fully.
Missiles atm have a unique advantage of haveing the same damage output from 0 to max range. Once you start balancing the range and damage output to be equal with guns at a specific range you need to drasticly change other things as well:
Change the Rage and precision missiles so there equivallent to the short and long range gun ammo, this includes explosion radius and velocity to be comparible. Adjust the damage appropiatly to factor in good and perfect hits Factor in the optimal + falloff in the damage equation for missiles Factor in the flight time in the damage eqation
And i can guarantee you that once its done in this way, the changes to the heavy missiles will not be as clean cut as there presented now.
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:24:00 -
[1475] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soko99 wrote:
How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????
Behold the new Caracal Caracal: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1) Signature radius: 135 (-10) Cargo capacity: 450
Ahh.. soyou're talking about your FUTURE caracal. Cause your posts made it seem like you were talking about one in the game already..
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:24:00 -
[1476] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Smabs wrote:Quote:I already use rails over blasters in many situations. Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve. Small med and large. You see, unlike you, I figure out how to use these things rather than spend all my time chasing the FOTM or bad posting on the forums flapping over an OP weapon system getting nerfed into line with everything else. I am already working out the best way to make a HML caracal work for me. You have been given the numbers that show HML will still be a viable weapon after the changes. No doubt when this change hits you will be on the forums decrying the end of EVE while the rest of us are adapting. How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????
Did you take into consideration that the Caracal will be getting a large CPU buff in the winter? |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:25:00 -
[1477] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Gypsio III wrote:There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem. In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ? Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ? It's because everyone's fitting HML Drakes or are being dumb and thinking "loldpsdrake" like we see in this thread. The tank/gank ratio of a properly fit HAM Drake is not beatable. Furthermore, it has a resist bonus so it adapts better to larger gangs with logi support. -Liang
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ? |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:26:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Aprudena Gist wrote: Eat a ****.
See only one naughty word now ( down from nine ). You are improving, keep up the good work. |
Random McNally
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:31:00 -
[1479] - Quote
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:32:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
Ahh.. soyou're talking about your FUTURE caracal. Cause your posts made it seem like you were talking about one in the game already..
Oh I have fits for the current caracal. Light anti frig, front line brawler, HML sniper style and even a HAM vairent. I have much love for that little gem of a ship. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:35:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser.
People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide
If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2201
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:36:00 -
[1482] - Quote
Random McNally wrote: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.
If CCP listend to the bawing of the masses then hulks would have twice the base tank and three times more cargo and ore space than they ended up getting. CCP listens to smart and logical arguments. Most of the time...
Right now the changes mean HML will be one of the better med long range weapons and the caracal will be a great little ship. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:37:00 -
[1483] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
The HML Drake is used because the DPS difference is relatively small and it has almost arbitrarily better damage projection and alpha.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:38:00 -
[1484] - Quote
Random McNally wrote: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.
Sorry did you even check how new Caracal will look ?
5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers
As you see L+2 ,put there TE and you have HAM explosion radius problem fix i guess.Add TC in mid slot and you can tweak it even more.
Also dont forget that punny Caracal will be viable in various weapon platforms like anti frig ,long range etc. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1560
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:39:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Random McNally wrote: 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"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:39:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser. People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time.
Fine, nerf the range, not the damage. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:41:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser.
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.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:44:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Someone somewhere in this tread posted something about having less launcher types and add amo range. I'd go for that.
Only one medium. The "Medium Missile Launcher". Make a bunch of different missiles with more DPS close range, less DPs long range. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:45:00 -
[1489] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
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.
The drake does low end BS damge but its tank is firmly inside BS class. |
AlexHalstead
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:45:00 -
[1490] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: 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"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. You did also see the implication of the TD being allowed to affect missiles and the fact that the Amarr EW standard tool is the TD? Though it does affect minmatar ships that use missile launchers, it affect the caldari missile boats the most. |
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:45:00 -
[1491] - Quote
I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.
I see no imbalance between heavy missiles and other weapons systems as they are.
Comparing artillery cannons and heavy missiles is stupid because:
The WHOLE POINT of artillery cannons is for alpha strikes with a slow RoF. When your ships are getting hit by big punches all in one go, it makes it hard for the logistics ships to react and land reps in time. Compare that to missiles which have flight time and low alpha and it's clear this is a stupid comparison. Now consider firewalling too. I now see no problem with HMLs.
At short range in small gangs, you get no damage bonus from being close in the missile range, so the dps will be easily outclassed by ACs, Pulse lasers, blasters.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:46:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser. People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time. Fine, nerf the range, not the damage.
As Fozzie stated earlier in the thread: HML contains most of the damage of close range medium missiles with all of the range. If you want to nerf the range you'd better be prepared to have HML become HAMv2 and have literally no long range missile option at all.
I somehow doubt you'd be excited by the Drake's HML range being neutered down to 25km or so.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. Varangon Tagma
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:46:00 -
[1493] - Quote
A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf
First CCP Fuzzie I want to express admiration for your willingness to read throe this entire threadnot. Remember, even when it dose not look like it, most of us appreciate your balancing efforts.
My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps.
IMHO for winter expansion it would be best if HML get range reduction of 25% as suggested, but only 10% damage reduction. Leave it like that for few months until you are ready to introduce full BC rebalancing and then based of feedback and changes of ship/launcher popularity decide if you want to introduce remaining 10% of the nerf.
Similarly for winter expansion cut cain's power grid for only 10%. Leave it like that until you are ready to introduce full rebalance for all BCs, and then based on changes in cane's popularity decide how much more power grid you want to cut, together with any other changes you want to make to that ship and other battlecruisers. If you cut 20% of hurricane power grid at once IGÇÖm afraid you might be making it suboptimal choice compared to other ships in it's class.
I'd like to remind you of danger of overbalancing too much at once, like it was done with buffing Dramiel and nerfing sensor dampeners. Rather do it in gradual iterations, much like you did when introducing tech alchemy. You cautiously decided first to go for 1 to 10 ratio and only later after you see what transpires you likely intend to introduce 1 to 5 reaction. You should take same multi step approach when introducing nerfs to HML and canes.
Also IGÇÖd like to bring your attention to cruiser and battleship sized pulse lasers combined with scorch ammo. Pulse lasers on scorch are already very popular, and are becoming even more so. Pulses on scorch have among turrets unique combination of good tracking ability, projection and raw DPS. In that way they are not unlike HML. They also contributed to making beam lasers obsolete. Now with buff on their power grid requirements I think it is time to consider some changes to scorch ammo. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:47:00 -
[1494] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.
I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:47:00 -
[1495] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: 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"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end not making EVE completely homogenous is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
I completely agree with you which is why these changes are dumd.
|
AlexHalstead
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:47:00 -
[1496] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.
I see no imbalance between heavy missiles and other weapons systems as they are.
Comparing artillery cannons and heavy missiles is stupid because:
The WHOLE POINT of artillery cannons is for alpha strikes with a slow RoF. When your ships are getting hit by big punches all in one go, it makes it hard for the logistics ships to react and land reps in time. Compare that to missiles which have flight time and low alpha and it's clear this is a stupid comparison. Now consider firewalling too. I now see no problem with HMLs.
At short range in small gangs, you get no damage bonus from being close in the missile range, so the dps will be easily outclassed by ACs, Pulse lasers, blasters.
I alway thought the guided missile was to be about Alpha and Accuracy over distance while the unguided missile was about rapid fire rate and DPS. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:48:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser. People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time. Fine, nerf the range, not the damage. As Fozzie stated earlier in the thread: HML contains most of the damage of close range medium missiles with all of the range. If you want to nerf the range you'd better be prepared to have HML become HAMv2 and have literally no long range missile option at all. I somehow doubt you'd be excited by the Drake's HML range being neutered down to 25km or so. -Liang
I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that. |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:48:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs. I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :) -Liang I would like to point out that Caldari are referred to as the kings of PvE by some people which causes some people to then choose Caldari for the Drake and Tengu. They then do their PvE for a while, get bored, want to do some PvP only to find that the only useful ship they can fly is the Drake. THAT'S why it gets used so often. Not because the Drake is some kind of mother-of-all godships. It's because the rest of the caldari ships are all useless for pvp. |
OlRotGut
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:49:00 -
[1499] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: 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"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
It appears from the numbers on page 71, that the HAMS need a tweak to their explosion/sig penalties as well as their fitting requirements, I also think their range should be looked at in terms of how they compare to other medium weapon systems. If HAMS are close up weapons, they should be able to hit cruisers and above.
I would also like you to think about giving us solid numbers on what you are doing to the T2 Ammo, so we can properly discuss the changes you are throwing around in this thread. Without real numbers on the T2 ammo we can only speculate what the possible HML changes can do to DPS of Caldari ships.
If T2 Fury missiles are getting a damage increase and removing ship penalty, this changes things. If T2 Precision missiles are tweaked, and removing ship penalties this also changes things.
For HML's; range nerf is fine, damage nerf should be tweaked a bit, maybe 10% damage nerf, but also make it harder to hit targets that have small sig radius, since you are at such an extreme range.
I think there are more ways to balance the HML's than just chopping range, and DPS, to make them more in line w/other systems.
Also, if you are fixing Defenders, please remove firewalling of missiles.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:49:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that.
Cool well I'd be raising holy hell over the complete removal of all long range weapon missile platforms. But no, you have to keep your HML damage for some odd reason. What, did you forget to train the 8 days for HAM 5?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
|
|
|
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 |